I had a brainwave today -
Many entrepreneurs and businessmen have had the help of State violence to create their fortunes - State licencing laws and the like.
Is it morally justifyable to take a great deal of their wealth away from them?
I know this would be a logistical nightmare, but besides that, is it right to remove that wealth from these multimillionaires?
Sure. Make sure you take back the benefits and wealth their employees, suppliers and customers got from them.
Really dude, this is a preposterous idea.
What’s the difference between using your own guns to keep out competition and using the State’s guns to achieve the same ends?
There is no alternative, and so everyone is guilty. Is that the answer you are looking for?
No, not everyone is guilty, in fact it would be impossible to figure out who is and who isn’t ‘guilty’.
What I want to know is whether or not a businessman with a state enforced monopoly (for instance) should be allowed to keep his fortune. Or will the future libertarian society resemble modern day Russia?
Who would have jurisdiction to make any of these impossible determinations? You say it would be impossible to figure out, then you ask if a libertarian society would make impossible determinations.
Logic, disconnect.
As long as you include anyone who uses roads or went to a public school.
If these people didn’t earn their money in a legitimate way, then they stole it(or whatever word you want to use that doesn’t offend ‘right’ libertarians). I don’t think that thieves own what they steal - so part of (almost all?) the wealth of these political entrepreneurs isn’t really theirs.
And what about you, who work for companies that steal, and consume products that were produced by theft?
Do you also have a share in these crimes?
I understand the question the OP is asking, but we’re all guilty if the crime is guilt by association.
So, the consumers who are forced to use services provided by a state enforced monopoly are as guilty as the monopoly owners. Cool.
Is it morally justifiable to punish people for things that are retroactively illegal? Does it even improve the social order?
Libertarianism and utilitarianism are by no means the same thing. Maybe shooting you will improve the social order ?
edit :
Besides if you are a legal positivist, then your asking “Is it morally justifiable…” is a ridiculous contradiction.
Just brainstorming myself, but:
Can any voluntary interaction with a coercive entity other than trying to stop its coercion be moral? Any voluntary interaction benefits both parties. Why would you want to benefit someone who doesn’t follow the NAP? If you follow the NAP, and do an action that benefits someone who doesn’t, then aren’t you contradicting yourself?
brain explodes
This is why I stick to economics.
I wasn’t aware that Walmart shoppers were coerced into shopping at Walmart. [8-)]
Or have I misinterpreted your post?
That’s why I take my morality from people wearing robes and I stick my thinking to value-free statements.
So Walmart shoppers are as guilty as, say, the managers and politicians who use eminent domain to avoid paying market prices for land ?
Juan, please answer my question.
No, they were not. Now you answer mine ?
Why are you concerned with levels of guilt? Guilt is guilt, yes? Why assume Walmart is guilty due to eminent domain, but the customer who supports Walmart and makes them profitable may be less guilty?
These positions you take are terribly arbitrary, and mostly ridiculous. No one is coercing millions of people to shop at and support Walmart. They do so of their own free will. If Walmart is guilty, then I would say their clients and suppliers are guilty as well.
How much? I’ll leave that to the nurture over nature crowd to quantify.
Nevermind Walmart. What about military contractors/arms manufacturers ? All nice honest people who earned ‘their’ money through peaceful, hard work ?