I don’t believe in a universal ethic. This includes non violence. I believe this is a false protection. The fact is, many people use violence to achieve their ends- and they think it is perfectly moral. In my viewpoint, the initiation of violence (and a number of other things) are perceived as unethical. The natural occurrence of things will be that the attacked will defend itself. Either by fleeing or fighting. This is the case for all life. Groups will form with similar ethical principles, and overlapping circles of agreement will allow those that agree with NAP to participate in society. Those that don’t agree, will be secluded from doing most (if not all) things by the market itself, not by some ‘objective’ moral code. Not accepting the NAP is still an option, but if one does not want to accept it, they are severely limited. They will have a very difficult time finding sympathizers for their aggression when they are thrown into prison. This is especially true if they do not have a resolution or protection agency. (Which will be very difficult to find, due to market forces)
I can say that ‘free’ and ‘unfree’ markets exist. I must simply define my words. A ‘free’ market or as I reference by the term ‘market’ is one that exists without accepted initiation of force, while the ‘unfree’ market or ‘state intervened market’ is one that exists with it. Thereby, you could say anyone agreeing to the NAP is participating in a ‘free’ market, while anyone not agreeing is in an ‘unfree’ market. Someone else may define their terms differently, but this only means that the idea I am referencing is different from the idea they are referencing, not that my term is objectively incorrect.
I like your perspective here. I have a round about way of putting this that is very similar to what you said. I think all societies everywhere are a free market, but instead of saying “unfree”, as was brought up in this discussed exchange, I think the degree of freedom in a market would be less.
In other words, an “unfree” market of total coercion would involve no market at all. People would die and nobody left even the last coercer would be left not knowing how to produce, cause I perceive coercion to be against any production/creativity. Even for this last coercer to try to pick fruit from a tree to eat would be opening the path to production, but in a completely unfree market it would be a total implosion upon human nature so even this would not occur.
Free markets can become less-free to the point of almost complete stagnation and that’s when famines and rampaged civil disorder is occurring, hardly any exchange whether of product or social relation would be around. Lots of kill or be killed.
On the other end of the spectrum, the free market can be with less-coercion. Though, I don’t know if a complete and never again to happen coercion event would be the order of the day. Yet, lots of people actively trading, peacefully negotiating, and plenty of helping hands to sustain the harmony would be around.
I get the gist of what your saying, and I see truth.
I was asking rhetorically to find out what Pablofrancisco thinks. I am already sure (perhaps not absolutely, but almost) that universal ethics exist, and that the belief that “ethical questions should be decided by the free market” is contradictory and meaningless. I just wanted to find out if that is Pablofrancisco’s position.
Obviously that isn’t true at the present time—massive, institutionalized aggression can and does exist. What do you mean when you say “They will have…”? What will need to happen before this statement becomes true? In this hypothetical society, on what basis are individuals (“market participants,” if you like) to decide which behaviors to exclude and which to allow? They can’t just say “Leave that up to the market to decide,” because they are the market.