But would those beliefs be true?
I don’t think anyone is contesting that everyone has unique values and a unique value scale at any given moment. Is your entire anti-anarchy argument really just your subjective opinion, and not based on any sort of fact, logic or chain of reasoning?
You really need to go back and re-read my whole statement again. You are way out in left field with regards to my comment. Try reading it again, slowly.
Someone can also hold the belief fthat 2+2=5. But that is a matter of faith. Those that beleive that 2+2=4 does not do so in faith.
They do not. They violate property rights. An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
Without the institutional violation of rights, I think it is safe to say rights enforcement should be greater.
Again, government doesn’t protect any property rights. I challenge you to prove that it does.
How can you know the opportunity cost of those laws?
I believe that only market relations can truly be labeled efficient and moral. Market relations (voluntary relations) satisfy both standards, independent of each other or in concert. I am a voluntarist, and I demand that anyone who says I must accept government, or that government is good, must satisfy the burden of proof for either position.
Can you prove any that were successes?
What about the safety net for the people who have their wealth confiscated to satisfy their plan? Are they not entitled to prosperity? Will you argue that the successful must subsidize the unsuccessful? What sort of incentives does that society create?
When it gets bad enough, it will be too late for you to do something about it. Learn from history. Government never ends well.
Eric,
i) government =/= State. the State does not enforce property rights, it violates them. also the State can never create conditions which enrich someone without affecting negatively another party. is every State plan a failure? i am not sure what you refer to as a failure - the State’s means for achieving its ends or the ends themselves? economic theory is useful when considering the ability of the means employed to bring about the desired end, the end, on the other hand, is not analysed for its efficiency, considerations are made about whether or not it is just or unjust.
ii) “a guaranteed social saftey net so we don’t just have to hope that private charity can sufice”. you think you are entitled to a property, which if the current owner of it does not hand it out to you, the State should rob him out of it and then give it to you. and you are afraid that in the absence of the State you may not turn out to come into owning what you think rightfully belongs to you, since, after all, you want it.
iii) what will happen under anarchy? I know what has happened - the State went missing. does your question imply something about chaos?
But would those beliefs be true?
That is up for debate. We are getting beyond the point though. Someone said earlyer that markets either work, or they fail. I was pointing out that there is middle ground.
I don’t think anyone is contesting that everyone has unique values and a unique value scale at any given moment. Is your entire anti-anarchy argument really just your subjective opinion, and not based on any sort of fact, logic or chain of reasoning?
No. You asked “For Whom?”
You really need to go back and re-read my whole statement again. You are way out in left field with regards to my comment. Try reading it again, slowly.
As I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise this doesn’t make sense.
This is a statement from ignorance. There is no fundamental or practical difference in the mechanical functioning of a “primitive” market and a so called “advanced” or “modern” market. The only major differences are the following.
- Existence of Direct or Indirect exchange IF indirect exchange exists then
- The degree to which capital accumulation has been allowed to occur
The existence of a medium of exchange is a fundamental and practical difference in the funtioning of markets. You did qualify it is a “major” difference, but apparently in your opinion it isn’t a fundamental or a practical difference.
Someone can also hold the belief fthat 2+2=5. But that is a matter of faith. Those that beleive that 2+2=4 does not do so in faith.
You said markets either fail or they work. Well they could work best if regulated. That is a pretty reasonable opinion. Now if you are going to say “well 2+2=5 is wrong so you are wrong” then that is your problem.
They do not. They violate property rights. An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
It isn’t that black and white. Property rights can be enforced and protected to varying degrees. It isn’t either “no property rights” or “property rights.”
The state does enforce property rights to a degree.
Without the institutional violation of rights, I think it is safe to say rights enforcement should be greater.
So this implies you have an idea of what anarchy would look like? I am curious to know what you think since apparently what I thought before was a strawman.
How can you know the opportunity cost of those laws?
You can’t get a good estimate until after the laws have been passed. Although you can make predictions. Obviously you can’t get it 100% right. If that is what we demanded then we would never be justified in doing anything, including abolishing the state. Becasue that has opportunity costs as well.
I believe that only market relations can truly be labeled efficient and moral. Market relations (voluntary relations) satisfy both standards, independent of each other or in concert. I am a voluntarist, and I demand that anyone who says I must accept government, or that government is good, must satisfy the burden of proof for either position.
Ok so you do believe that markets will become more widespread in the absence of a state. Why do you think this, since it is not obvious that this would be the case? I am also getting the impression that I did not strawman you?
Also, markets depend on property rights to exist, and someone who does not beleive in property rights would not classify markets as “voluntary relations.” It may be voluntary for you, but not for people who don’t beleive in the legitemacy of property rights.
Can you prove any that were successes?
Are you asking me to provide examples or to explain how I would prove that one was successful?
What about the safety net for the people who have their wealth confiscated to satisfy their plan? Are they not entitled to prosperity? Will you argue that the successful must subsidize the unsuccessful? What sort of incentives does that society create?
People who have their wealth confiscated don’t need the social saftey net. lthough the time could come in the future when they do. I will argue that in a modern nation such as America for example, people who cannot take care of themselves should be subsidized. The fact that this may lower economic productivity a little doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. There is more to a society than sheer economic productivity. Maybe we would be more economically productive as a nation to let mentally handicapped people die. Doesn’t mean we should.
When it gets bad enough, it will be too late for you to do something about it. Learn from history. Government never ends well.
It is not nearly bad enough to risk anarchy.
“You said markets either fail or they work. Well they could work best if regulated. That is a pretty reasonable opinion.”
Isn’t a fallacy to necessarily tie “regulation” with “force”? Isn’t there the possibility that there can be regulation without the state?
“Obviously you can’t get it 100% right.”
My interpretation when reading wasn’t that there was a claim of 100% right; just more right than the current system, which may not be setting the bar all that high.
AC is correct. Choosing a stateless society or a minimal state is about comparitive institutional analysis, that is, which is better on the margin. They needn’t be perfect, nor solve all our problems.
Can a thief also be a defender of property rights? In other words, if I force you to pay me, can I say you are my willing client?
It is a simple logical deduction Eric. I am not claiming prescience.
How can you estimate what you cannot know?
What are the opportunity costs of abolishing the state? What does the state do?
Because the state undermines markets. This is really, really basic stuff Eric. Again, basic logical deduction. State massively undermines markets, no state = more markets. Seems a fairly logical conclusion. It’s not a value statement, it’s a train of reasoning.
Find me someone who will argue that they don’t own themselves, and I will believe that they truly feel that there are no property rights. Then I will homestead them and ride them around like a donkey.
Either. I can de-construct your answer either way.
I thought you supported property rights? How can you support property confiscation and property rights?
They should be subsidized by whom? How will you do it?
What about the fact it is theft, undermines property rights and requires violence against innocent people? Do any of those perspectives give you reason to pause?
There seems to be in your post a very staunch argument based on morality. If it is just your subjective opinion, why raise it as if it ought to be a concern? Are you calling for Eric to come into alignment with your values, or are you trying to keep him consistent?
But what if he is being consistent? It seems, then, that your moral argument literally has no more force than a mere expression of a like or dislike, e.g., “I like brussel sprouts,” or, “I like voluntary actions, why don’t you?”. That’s nice and all, but I don’t see it as having any sort of rationality behind it than a mere subjective valuation. I could be mistaken, and I don’t like to take people out of context, but it looks as if you are putting a lot of mistaken force behind brussel sprouts.
But then the rejoinder to this would just be the common sense appeal for Eric to come back into line with a strict conception of self-ownership, and deducing from that the necessity of anarcho-capitalism. We own ourselves. Don’t you agree?
One way of attacking the concept of self-ownership (to which you for some reason assign moral worth) is to point to the fact that it actually isn’t as commonsensical as one would think. Actually, I would tend to think that the biological parents have exclusive rights to the child. The child is a piece of chattel, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if it’s conscious; self-ownership could only ever arise if the parents decided to relinquish their rights. Trying to separate the child as somehow ‘special’ and incapable of being owned by the persons who exclusively ‘mixed their labor’ (lulz) and brought it into being seems awfully disingenuous. It is capricious and arbitrary, in fact.
But note that I haven’t stated a position of my own; I have only raised an uncomfortable objection to the idea that consent is the ultimate foundation of your subjective morality. Why try and force your views on others, especially if self-ownership is extraordinarily contentious for the reason I have listed above?
I’m not making an argument based on morality. I am asking Eric to clarify his claims and statements and to demonstrate logical consistency.
I didn’t read the rest of your post, assuming it was based on the false premise at the beginning.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse on this one.
I’m pretty sure he means voluntary for non-aggressors. Of course if you want to club someone over the head, you will typically not like it if they respond in kind.
Actually, you’re right about this one. The state does provide some protection of private property. And they also violate private property.
It seems to me that most people who get welfare are people who can work if they really want to. And those who can’t, are bums on the street or in prison and can’t get welfare. One hell of a system.
Also, the reason it shouldn’t be done is not because it leads to economic inefficiency, but because its morally unjust, despicable, and depraved. The lower economic efficiency is just more evidence that it is in fact and uncivilized thing to do.
I seriously doubt we would be more economically productive if we let the mentally retarded die. But we would be more economically productive if we let them work, vis a vis abolition of the minimum wage law. And they would be better off as well.
Also, anyone will need the social safety net if they have enough of their wealth confiscated. Plus confiscating wealth destroys the capital structure, which lowers average productivity, which lowers wages, so that many of the people who “need” a social safety net, wouldn’t if their wasn’t one in the first place.
And lastly, “needy dying” vs. “higher productivity” is a completely false dichotomy in the advanced countries under normal circumstances ever since the industrial revolution.
Yeah, it’s not really a contradiction, any more than “murderer who sometimes saves people’s lives” is a contradiction. Maybe he’s a lifeguard by day and a hitman by night. (Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t question the wisdom of keeping him employed as a lifeguard. It ought to give one pause, to say the least.)