Since any aggressive action is an externality(altering of property without exchange), it contains aggression. And due to externalities being non-economic, they are to be condemned from an economic viewpoint. As such there is no economic justification for punishment of crime because any contrary opinion would mean giving up value free-ness.
pacifism is opposed to (self-)defence as well which you forgot to discuss.
If you want to eliminate all externality not much human activity will remain.
nirgrahamUK:
Thats the point. Self defence imposes another externality, it is violation of the property rights of the aggressor, so it is un-economic. My point is, a value free economic argument cannot be used to justify libertarianism, as libertarianism is uneconomic in regards to punishment, as no economic punishment can exist.
What do you mean by ‘externalities are non-economic’ ?
p.s. there is no getting away from externalaties as scineram indicated. Every act causes externalities as it affects the universe that other people are in.
Nonsense. Justice is a good. If I have money I may buy cigarettes, or I may buy justice. Buying justice is expenditure yes. But it can be condemned form an economic viewpoint no more than any other expenditure.
It is you who is guilty of value-imperialism since you are upholding profit-maximization in terms of money as an absolute value and condemning people for spending money on punishment of criminals.
Without justice, you “have” neither money nor cigarettes.
Yes, but I can win the argument without going into this, so why bother.
Even if the punishment element of justice were non-economical (loss making) it still does not follow that value free economics condemns spending money on it.
The “economic” justification for justice is the ultimate one. Without justice (delineating ownership) there’d be no “property” to exchange/trade, hence no market, hence no economy to speak of. Justice’s justification is meta-economical.
And who ever said having an economy was better than not having it?
Justice justifies itself. It does not need to be “justified” by being good for the economy.
I misread this.
Good call Marko. Thanks for clearing up my mistake as suggesting what “z” had posted. Economic justification isn’t the “ultimate one”. That’s what Carl Jung would label a godhead to think that economic justification is somehow “the” ultimate is haughty.
thanks Marko
wilderness, Marko –
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Please read the quoted text to which I was responding. Justice does not need an economy as its justification. But an economy cannot exist without justice delineating property rights between economic agents. In short and simple terms, justice doesn’t need an economy, but an economy must have justice in order to exist. In response to nandnor, whatever the economic costs of justice may be, they cannot be seen as “loss-making” for without justice the economic loss would be far larger: having no economy at all.
I hope this clarified things a bit.
That’s what I thought you meant at first, which is why I “suggested” your post. Then Marko’s response made me wonder if I read too much of my thoughts into your post and misread what you said. Glad you cleared it up and it appears that what I originally thought you had said is true.
Good post z1235.
Externalities as altering of effective property rights outside exchange,do not happen with every action, only with criminal(aggressive) action.
It is a good for the person who is purchasing, but to the person that is at the receiving end of the stick it is an aggressive action, a not mutually agreed altering of property rights, and that is uneconomic.
The point is: punishment for crime is no different than state action to its citizens, looking at it through a value free economic prism. It is both externality. All that you guys have found to justify it has been the ethical libertarian argument.
Justice rejects property rights by its own action(punishment), so it cannot claim to be a sort of axiomatic foundation of the concept. You are commiting the same fallacy as minarchists justifying state as protector of property.
Justice rejects property rights by its own action(punishment),
Uh, criminal action rejects property rights and justice seeks to restore them. I didn’t waste my time reading this thread, but the idea that libertarians are, or ought to be, pacifists is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.
Enforcing justice only looks like a loss when you look at a given point in time. If you look to the future you will see that often enforcing justice will create gains (very large ones at that). If everytime someone steals from me I fight back and reclaim what I lost I will probably spend more than I get back (in each individual case), but if I develop a reputation as someone who enforces justice, others will see that the risk-adjusted cost of stealing from me is too high and will refrain from their attempt at stealing from me. The future gains could far outweigh the current losses of upholding justice.
No different than argument for justifying state. In the value free spectrum, it does not make a difference whose property rights are infringed.. a criminals, or a citizens.
Justice is no different from criminal action, if we avoid getting morals involved in it. It is both infringement of property rights.
are you wrapped up in paradox because you are trying to find a political system compatible with a value-neutral stance?
Justice is no different from criminal action, if we avoid getting morals involved in it. It is both infringement of property rights.
Justice and criminal action both involve the use of force. They differ in that the former is justified and the latter isn’t. On why this is true, read Hoppe here.
When a criminal violates another’s property rights he is unable to coherently object to the same sort of things being done to himself, along the lines of the theory of proportionality. Proportionality can be explained in terms of Misesean praxeology.
Now, I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “avoid getting morals involved in it”. I’ve sought to repair people’s tendency toward this type of semantic equivocation with the concept of the “ethical-aesthetical” vs. “moral-legal” dichotomy. People use “ethics” and “morals” inconsistently. At times, they refer to actions which respect property boundaries, and at times they do not.