@ Joe
There is abandonment within the Rothbardian framework. He discusses it in chapter 2.12 of MES, and chapter 10 and 14 of The Ethics of Liberty. I believe Block expands on it in his analysis of children’s rights and Kinsella borrows the concept to justify the title transfer theory of contracts.
now we are getting somewhere.
and isn’t that last point just a difference in where one draws the boundary between one’s political and personal values? if so, that is just a matter of naming conventions.
I do agree that picking a time is arbitrary, but in a sense it is necessary. It is possible for property to be abandoned, and part of that surely must involve not using it for a long period of time.
And yes, I do think that some mutualist ideas sound crazy. I too think that not all property is currently in the “rightful” hands, but I don’t pretend to think there is anyway to truly undo these wrongs other than moving forward with adhering to property rights, and enforcing provable claims by respected arbitrators.
But on another weird level some other mutualists believe in pretty much the same things I do. They want the state eliminated while also claiming to allow for private property, or something like it. I guess its all down to what extent they recognize property rights, and also down to what kind of outcomes would come about in a stateless society; this one mutualist guy on another forum keeps saying things like private property is only possible because of the state, so of course it will go away when you eliminate the state. I just wonder how in the hell he could possibly think that.
“, although certainly they are mentioned from time to time with approval.”
By who?
“there is a sort of “default” to imagining companies more as they are today,”
That’s what I’m talking about.It’s a very narrow assumption.
"but the more exacting writers and posters are generally careful to allow for other types of organization. "
That seems to be a minority and certainly not any major figures.
Okay.However An-caps have a tendency to continue to ignore how much the status quo in terms of economic exchanges,labour relations,corporations, the rich,the poor,sweatshops,bosses etc have been influenced by statism (directly or indirectly).
I know they do but they seem to work on the ‘thin’ basis that these are irrelevant in any discussion which I disagree with and seems an odd way to argue.
And therein lies some of the problem. I don’t think the political ethic of libertarianism and general ethics should be so divided.And in regards to this example I think there are some clear connections between employee/boss relations and statism with statism tipped the scales in favour of the latter to the detriment of the former.
"i can agree that this situation of my employment and my annoying boss would be more favorable in the absence of a state, but i don’t call that a political value. why do you? "
Because the unfavourable conditions are to a large extent a product of statist influence so I’m raising that as an issue.In absence of that statist influence I also am concerned with ethical issues which are raised in the relationship between them though admit it would be much much less of an issue minus the state.
I just don’t seem a thin concept of libertarianism as making much sense.When we talk of libertarianism we have implied values -ideals which follow from libertarianism- so it seems weird to argue that it should just be about the NAP when the NAP is to some extent an ethical claim and also implies a number of things such as concern for others,seeking of mutually beneficial relations,opposition to unnecessary suffering etc.I just can’t shake the strangeness that approx 50% of the reason to oppose the state is moral yet this is removed from the discussion.It just seems the wrong way to approach the issue isolating aggression without concern for cultural and economic relations/structures which are influenced by it.I just aim at something deeper more embracing.
Is this an issue of definition? Those are Mises definitions. You’re at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Would you care to explain what the “right” definitions in Scott’s world are?
So basically, you are turtling now because you can’t substantiate your position. Thanks.
Don’t assume without providing a chain of reasoning. I will call you out for it every time. Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT. Don’t just repeat the claim.
Again, this is assertion, not proof. I asked you to PROVE IT.
Also, what is wage labor? Is that an economic term?
Where on this site. Source it. You have the power of Google’s search engine to help you substantiate your claim. PROVE IT.
If you can’t prove it, stop saying it as fact. Be responsible in debate and support your position, or admit it is arbitrary and a figment of an imagination. You don’t get to create facts out of thin air.
Thanks for admitting you can’t prove that claim either.
Where are the sources Scott? Yes I want specific examples. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m asking you to prove the things you say. You say a lot, you have a lot to prove. Back up your claims. The posting standard here is high.
[quote=“Scott F”]
So again, you made a claim you can’t back up.
[quote=“Scott F”]
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That’s a logical fallacy on your part, one you have repeated numerous times.
Care for…You know the meaning.I won’t debate with some sort of Positivist crazy.
What is positivism, and how can someone who claims to be a Misean be a positivist?
True enough but that misses the point.I’m arguing that the Misean definitions of Socialism are so limited as to almost exclude voluntary socialism and to ignore free market socialism.Misean definitions of Capitalism conflate it and free market,wage labour etc.It ignores other definitions used.
I don’t see an argument, all I see are statements and slogans. Look: what is a market? What is economics? What is praxeology? what can and can not be stated about intersubjective human action? How does material shift to to fro? How are calculations of value and benefit decided? What is time preference? Tell me.
Proper concern should be for both ends and means.
If I say 1+1=2 and you say 1+1=3 I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. What is a market? How is wealth created? What is wealth? What is value?
The only left-libertarians I know who were willing to unambiguously define terms are Wombatron and JCFolsom.
Not necessarily. Some forms of libertarianism (like strict liberalism) don’t rely on value judgments (such as ranking liberty higher than equality), but are based on epistemological premises and contain no normative propositions. Also, there are forms of libertarianism that are completely negative in character and merely show the incoherence of certain statist ideologies or the invalidity of the arguments used to justify the powers the sovereign exercises over others which do not rest on the believers of such systems having certain values. Although to be fair, what you said is true of atleast 99% of “libertarianisms”.
There is no such thing as a domain of discourse and knowledge that does not rely on norms - especially as it relates to politics, which inherently involves interpersonal norms. Epistemology has normativity all over it. Epistemological theories and projects are essentially the establishment of norms for justified belief and argumentation. Hence, I can’t accept the narrative of a purely dry objective knowledge that is completely detached from normativity. I’m a firm believer that fact and value are naturally intertwined, which also means that I don’t think there is such thing as genuinely “value-free science”.
Could you provide an example of this? I, for one, don’t see how “reason will…”, “reason is…”, or “reason can…” is not distinct from “you ought to reason”.
Where is this normativity? I understand that there is no such thing as neutrality, per se, but could you identify perhaps what you think the facts and values are that are intertwined, as it were, in praxeology?
Given your disdain for hoppian argumentation ethics I can’t believe you wrote that.
I don’t mean to engage you in a big debate, just to tell you you can still surprise me.
The main difference is that I don’t regard such norms as necessarily having the kind of axiomatic, innate and ultimately authoritative status that argumentation ethics tries to give it. Rather, I’m emphasizing normativity closer to the way in which someone like William James would have, I.E. “truth” is functionally normative and there is no such thing as an archimedian point of reference. We can’t communicate ideas outside of a conceptual and value-laden heirarchy/network. Institutions also often functionally play the role of arbiters of the limitation and demarkation of domains of knowledge and what can or cannot constitute knowledge qua knowledge. “Science” is functionally a word meant to give authoritative status to certain discourses as a domain of knowledge within the limits of certain institutional structures and to the exclusion of other discourses. The story of science as a detached pursuit of knowledge is falsified when one looks into the history of science.
Correct, but whether or not an argument is valid does not depend on the preferences of the people formulating or criticizing the argument. Propositions like “argument X is invalid” or “the means A used by M contradict the stated end B of M” are not true or false based on the value judgments of any particular persons.
<3
That’s true enough, and I don’t know if other people take it further than this, but my idea of Praxeology is that we refer to values in the value-free sense as being ethically free. That is, statements about factual reality and statements about ethics can be (in this instance) separated.
I think that seems commonsensical enough.