Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

[wilderness]

and why would anybody give a sh-t about small stuff like your “particles” or your gravitational field on mars. the latter is not deliberate no matter what one thinks about gravity and naturally unavoidable. the former is - who the h-ll knows what those are.

in other words - eh?

[Juan]

Not if its really expensive to do so. Obviously if you wanted me to stop my particles from crossing your property lines it would be expensive to detect and expensive for me to stop. Perhaps impossible.

Huh ? You are not making any sense.

[Snowflake]

It costs money to have property. Some property is very expensive to have. If this property cannot pay itself off, no one will claim it.

[Saan]

@Snowflake

@Saan

NAP and absolute property rights provide the most effective non-contradictory means for a man to satisfy his wants.

Not if its really expensive to do so. Obviously if you wanted me to stop my particles from crossing your property lines it would be expensive to detect and expensive for me to stop. Perhaps impossible.

Eh?

@Snowflake

@Saan

If the basis of property is solely ones ability to defend it, then we get democracy or rather tyranny of the majority.

Not really… no one thinks that PDAs and MDAs are forms of democracy.

Sure it does. Property based only upon ones ability to defend it is might makes right. Democracy is the same thing. Force in numbers. Tyranny of the majority. A demagogue need only persuade a majority to plunder a minority, we have plenty of historical examples of this.

@Snowflake

It may be that liberty in its truest and purest sense is unrealizable, or impractical to attain. If I’m on mars, my gravitational field is still influencing everything you do even if you don’t know it. Obviously its not worth it to try to resolve this matter… Live and let live. This is what block is saying; to ignore the small stuff. He doesn’t give a criterion for what “small” stuff is. I’m claiming that the market determines what small is.

Influence and coercive force are two different things. I have influence around me as well. Influence is what you have when people cooperate with you voluntarily. Power is what you have when you force people to cooperate with you.

I’m really not following you here.

[Snowflake]

@Saan

Eh?

Yeah. Assertion of absolute ownership is expensive.

@Saan

Sure it does. Property based only upon ones ability to defend it is might makes right.

Well the free market in general is based on the more money you have the more you can do…

@Saan

A demagogue need only persuade a majority to plunder a minority, we have plenty of historical examples of this.

So is this the argument that anarchy tends towards statism? Many other threads for that topic.

@Saan

Influence and coercive force are two different things. I have influence around me as well. Influence is what you have when people cooperate with you voluntarily. Power is what you have when you force people to cooperate with you.

Prescription of Anarchy: It would be nice if everyone got along and respected property rights. Description of Anarchy: Some people will probably violate your property rights. It is up to you to assert these rights.

Are you like a minarchist or something? It is one thing to say libertarianism entails absolute property rights but the reality is that there is no way to do so. Statism robs people to protect their rights (at best). Anarchy leaves provision of rights to the market which determines the optimal level of assertion of property rights…