Indeed.
That’s pretty much how I see it.
Agreed.
Too bad, I thought there was potential in that label.
Lew Rockwell is a brave man, but I am more and more turned off on political libertarianism, and all politics. And unfortunately, Lew’s site where most of his commentary resides, while anti-state, is a lot more about the state, and a lot less about the market. I need some more positivity in my life, and that means working for markets, instead of working against the state. YMMV.
Don’t care much for the market. It’s just a side product of freedom. No other path to freedom but to gnaw on the chains.
The market is freedom. They are the same thing.
Robinson Crusoe had complete freedom but there was no market that he had access to - at least not till the arrival of Friday.
I know that the above isn’t a particularly powerful argument, but it’s correct. Freedom and the market aren’t necessarily one and the same. The above focuses on the lack of markets when there is complete personal freedom. Markets, on the other hand, can limit personal freedom - e.g. markets in sex slaves, stolen goods, etc. But, then again, I’m using the strict Econ 101 definition of “markets.”
In any case, I’m neither for markets or freedom as much as I am for the good or for what is right. Non-aggression and basic human rights are a large portion of what constitutes the good. A polycentric legal order is the best way to refine the concept of the good.
Depends on who’s doing the advocating. If they choose to throw that in there as part of their reasons or intentions for advocating anti-monopoly, then yes. But if not, then no. Simply advocating an action to be taken, unless that action specifically calls for some enforcement to be enacted, isn’t advocating any rights.
You’re right, it isn’t a powerful argument. Obviously I am talking about freedom in the context of social relationships.
Since you were only talking about freedom in reply to my mentioning of the term, it matters in what context was I talking, not you.
Obviously you can be free, jet not take part in the market. Kaju provided one such example.
At the very least taking part in the market requires action on ones part where being free does not.
"Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.[7] But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.[8] The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.[9] The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services." - Society without a State by MNR
[7] E.g., David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (New York: Harper and Row, 1973).
[8] For an elaboration of these points, see Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1973).
[9] Thus, see Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961).
The question doesn’t make sense. Opposing monopolies on force is one of my ethical positions.
I think the most charitable way to interpret Rothbard here is making the predictive claim that if a society is to remain libertarian, then universal agreement on the basic legal code is necessary.
Right, but modifying the scope of the question to exclude that particular ethical position does nothing to diminish what I am getting at, so I will ask again.
For what value of X would you choose B over A?
A. No monopolies on force ever again
B. X% of the world’s population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force
Again, the question is incoherent. Can you just get to your point?
there is no such X ?
OOPS. Opposing a ‘monopoly on force’ is an ‘ethical postion’ ? That’s problematic for amoralists then…
By the way, libertarians don’t oppose ‘monopolies on force’. Libertarians oppose the not-morally-justified use of force. Monopolistic government is just ONE example of the illegitimate use of force.
Indeed, theoretically a monopoly on force could arise voluntarily on the market and be fully libertarian.
A monopoly is a legal privilege. By definition it is NOT VOLUNTARY. Sheesh…
Sounds like somebody hasn’t read much Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (among others). No such thing as a natural monopoly? That’s a new one.