Rights do have a market value. Whether or not you believe they are inherent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that insurance companies have to make money, and they won’t do that protecting certain people. It’s not eally the case that “might makes right” only that might is, at the end of the day, what matters.
Interestingly, those who use this insight as a pro-state argument would even worsen the situation. Instead of relying on economic power which is, after all, built on your ability to serve your customers, they create political power which is based on your ability to appear like a trustworthy crook and effectively engage in the plundering of shunned minorities.
I’d rather be judged by an entrepreneur than by a self-righteous actor.
Upon detection is the problem. I do not think this would be a problem in a truly libertarian society but I think you and I differ about what a truly libertarian society would look like. We may even disagree on the definition of libertarian.
This is not a meaningless distinction. Especially not if you advocate vigilante justice as you seem to in another post.
If you believe that rights have a market value you are ceding the moral ground to a Mafia don who asks for “Protection money” which is only one step removed from the creation of government.
Why should you care if vigilantes mete out justice? Would you rather the state did it? In fact, isn’t that the whole point of anarchy: the state doesn’t have a monopoly on the administration of justice?
My point was actually just that children would not have to pay for protection from rape. In a low time-preference, traditionalist society, adults would protect children from rape without any expectation of payment. Of course, I realize this is the mises.org forum where low time-preference and tradition are frowned upon.
No, I’m not. I’m not speculating about moral ground or what should be. As much as I find that interesting, I’m more concerned with the way things are. When you get rid of the state, if you want something, you pay for it.
That includes justice.
Except the Mafia don has competitors. And in anarchy, the Mafia don won’t have all the due process rights afforded to him by government when he’s accused of over-reaching.
You misunderstand my point. No, I would not rather have the state do it. My point is that if you are going to advocate this the distinction between saying rights have a market value and protection of rights having a market value becomes vital.
Depending upon how that society were set up I might agree. If it were a society that valued individuality and rationality I would agree.
I have never read any post in this forum that frowned upon low time-preference. As for tradition, it depends upon which tradition you are talking about. Blood-letting as a medical treatment is very traditional but I do frown upon it.
Justice has a market value. RIghts do not.
Now you’re being pedantic.
No, this is the same issue I am having with Byzantine. In a society without coercive government this distinction is vital. It determines concepts of right and wrong. Morality and truth. Philosophy will be even more important in a stateless society.
Of course that’s close to pure nonsense. You can’t get justice before you define what justice is.
That’s true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do. Its unrealistic to assume that justice as contemporarily understood will remain as the contemporary situation morphs.
No, it won’t.
I’m sorry to tell you but it won’t be Roderick Long or Ayn Rand running insurance companies. It’ll be an individual who wants to make money off of you, and is willing to provide services in exchange.
Philosophy will stay confined to the ivory tower, as interesting as it may be.
And can you guess what justice will be defined as by those who provide it? Whatever makes money. And that excludes pedophiles and child abuses.
Seconded.
Precisely, although I have already relented in another thread because some folks will insist that subjectivity is necessary to have rights. And it’s just a circular argument.
Well, I think that indoctrinating children with religious trash is one of worst possible types of child abuse. What’s next ?
Whoa. Another clueless moral relativist ?