They are intimate bedfellows, and I don’t see how it could ever be otherwise. — Virgo Avalytikh
The issue here is an uninteresting semantic one. 'Aggression' has a specific meaning in the context of libertarianism: it is the initiatory (in distinction from 'defensive') use of force; hence 'non-aggression principle'. — Virgo Avalytikh
The issue here is an uninteresting semantic one. 'Aggression' has a specific meaning in the context of libertarianism: it is the initiatory (in distinction from 'defensive') use of force; hence 'non-aggression principle'. — Virgo Avalytikh
Read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". Aggression and violence are naturally inhibited because to allow them to proliferate is a detriment to any society made up of any organisms. Natural selection has filtered out unfettered aggressive and violent behaviors because if these were common behaviors, then they would lead to extinction. Aggressive behavior by all organisms of a society is no different than an organism feeding on itself. Eventually it will die out and leave no offspring.Trade does not even exist outside a "perimeter" of lowered aggression and violence.
Biological life does not "trade" in the wild. Everything in nature revolves around confiscation.
If I think that the flesh around your bones would be better off in my stomach, I am not going to ask for your opinion, and I am certainly not going to ask what you would like in return.
A commerce-friendly "perimeter" of lowered aggression and violence needs to be created at great effort, and then painstakingly maintained.
Libertarians seem to believe that such "perimeter" would naturally materialize out of the fricking blue. That is why I am a bit wary of libertarian views. These views are simply too naive to my taste. — alcontali
That's the problem libertarians define "aggression" in a way which suits their purpose, not in a way which represents the thing which we refer to as aggression. Then they hijack the non-aggression principle, applying this definition of "aggression", to create the illusion that the non-aggression principle is compatible with the right to own property. With a proper definition of "aggression", the illusion is shattered. — Metaphysician Undercover
The libertarian has the right to use force to defend the ownership of one's property which has been obtained through aggressive means that do not qualify as "aggression" under the libertarian's definition. Simply put, the libertarian may use unethical, aggressive means (aggressive sales, aggressive trading, lying, cheating, fraud, etc.) to obtain property, as these do not qualify as "aggression" for the libertarian, then use force to defend the right to own this property. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, the question actually is about oligopolies. It's totally different from monopolies...It is probably worth saying something about monopolies — Virgo Avalytikh
This is one of the main arguments of libertarian economic thinking. Yet there aren't so many 'natural monopolies' if any. Some might argue that this is because of there existing various states and regions, but I disagree. The market simply naturally evolves into an oligopoly situation. There can be a 'dominant' company, but the demand side typically wants there to be at least a couple of companies providing the products or services. Above all, the dominance of the leading company typically is only in an narrow segment of the market that leaves room for other large companies. And this leaves to the current problem: there are effective simple models for perfect markets or models that show the inefficiency of a monopoly, yet the most common market situation isn't much described by economists or economic models.Whatever your feelings about natural economic monopolies, the State is not the answer. — Virgo Avalytikh
I think you get my point, at least partly. The thing is that the market is constantly moving somewhere and it actually doesn't find a 'perfect state' or a 'general equilibrium'. To think that if only left alone, the market would find this 'general equilibrium' is as false as to think that nature left alone will create an optimized 'perfect harmony'.... and all problems of famine and loss of species etc. is because of man. History of the Earth has shown on many occasions that evolution and the interaction between plants and animals doesn't lead to a tranquil harmonious state. It's similar with the market mechanism. It works in many cases, but that doesn't mean it works perfectly and fundamentally will be in a state of correction.So I know you cannot mean this. Perhaps you are merely illustrating the fact that not everything which comes under the umbrella of ‘market failure’ is caused because of individuals taking decisions whose costs are borne by other people. This much I am happy to concede: it may well be that some examples of market failure are not caused this way. It is only a tendency. ‘Market failure’ is defined (at least for my purposes) as a case wherein individually rational actions produce a negative effect for almost or absolutely everyone. So your example would indeed be a case of market failure. A — Virgo Avalytikh
As attack is the best defence, which has been shown well in history with the examples of "pre-emptive attacks" like the Six Day War, the issue of war and the military is very complex for the libertarian.That's the problem libertarians define "aggression" in a way which suits their purpose, not in a way which represents the thing which we refer to as aggression. Then they hijack the non-aggression principle, applying this definition of "aggression", to create the illusion that the non-aggression principle is compatible with the right to own property. — Metaphysician Undercover
Libertarians, even the anarcho-capitalists, often make very casually the exception of defence in their ideal society. Yet they obviously understand the total incapability of a simple market mechanism to handle the defence of the society. — ssu
Put a pin in the word ‘aggression’ for moment. There is a philosophically and practically meaningful distinction between the initiatory use of force which invades that which belongs to another, and the defensive use of force used to protect that which belongs to oneself (or some other victim of initiatory force which one wishes to aid). What the libertarian is seeking to do via the NAP is to distinguish these two things, prohibiting the former and permitting the latter. So the word ‘aggression’ is used to designate the initiatory use of force. Another word might easily have been chosen, but this one is perfectly suitable. There is nothing ‘improper’ about it. — Virgo Avalytikh
They are quite muddled. Most people form their beliefs about libertarianism based on what non-libertarians say about it, and it certainly seems that you have arrived at your position in this way. — Virgo Avalytikh
It's a very crucial issue as it simply shows that not everything is taken care by the markets and there is this very real collective effort on the shoulders of the society, not the individual. — ssu
You may well be sceptical of some alternative way, but I would argue that, since the State exists in violation of the ‘perimeter of lowered aggression’ which it is allegedly responsible for maintaining, I could scarcely imagine how a system of private justice could do a worse job. — Virgo Avalytikh
The problem, Virgo, is that you are taking for granted ownership of property, "that which belongs to oneself" in your definition of aggression. — Metaphysician Undercover
They have a different logic.It seems to me that monopolies and oligopolies are subject to the same inner logics, that the former are in effect more problematic versions of the latter (ceteris paribus), and that almost anything that is true of a monopoly is a fortiori true of an oligopoly, too. But if I am missing something here, feel free to fill me in. — Virgo Avalytikh
And that's what I said: it's all the time making the correction. To think it will stay in an equilibrium is wrong. Likely it will be this oscillatory movement that simply continues on and on as things change.. The market tends perpetually towards an equilibrium — Virgo Avalytikh
Speaking of 'mainstream economists' isn't productive. Far better to refer to specific economists, not refer to stereotypes. And what is market intervention? One could argue there being laws and a legal system is 'market intervention'.What I find, however, is that it is the mainstream economists (who are Statists down to a man, as far as I can tell) who tend to think in terms of ‘perfect markets’ and, recognising that they are unrealisable, argue for government intervention on that basis. — Virgo Avalytikh
States have the monopoly on violence. This comes down to the issue of defence and security. I think Max Weber put it aptly, actually.All I really have an interest in arguing is that, given that the State is itself a monopoly of the most dangerous kind, it is not a reasonable solution. — Virgo Avalytikh
Is it incorrect? At least you admit "many libertarians" think so and I do agree that surely there are those ridiculous fundamentalists who think that absolutely everything can done better with the private market, perhaps even their own personal life starting from having a family could be better done by the market...This is incorrect. While many libertarians (minarchists) agree with you, others (anarcho-capitalists) do indeed believe that the market is not only capable of providing these services, but insist that it does so much better. See, e.g., Friedman and Rothbard, which I posted above. — Virgo Avalytikh
And just where does it then put (the cost) of your own life?As I observed above, fundamentally all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses. — Virgo Avalytikh
No one is going to be able to justify some political ideology from within a political perspective. It is going to take a more objective perspective to understand what humans need in order to sustain our existence. — Harry Hindu
Speaking of 'mainstream economists' isn't productive. Far better to refer to specific economists, not refer to stereotypes. And what is market intervention? One could argue there being laws and a legal system is 'market intervention'. — ssu
Is it incorrect? At least you admit "many libertarians" think so and I do agree that surely there are those ridiculous fundamentalists who think that absolutely everything can done better with the private market, perhaps even their own personal life starting from having a family could be better done by the market... — ssu
And just where does it then put (the cost) of your own life? — ssu
Since I am sceptical of the State tout court, it is little comfort that there may be ways of keeping the power of this coercive monopoly ‘reined in’. I would say, cut out the middle man, and do away with it. — Virgo Avalytikh
Yet we typically then just end up attacking caricatures painted typically by those who oppose the school of thought. Anything called 'mainstream' is typically seen in a somewhat negative light, because otherwise the word wouldn't even be used. I've especially come to be very critical to how "Keynesians" or "Austrians" are depicted in this way. I don't know where the emotional detachment comes from, perhaps from the political nature of economics, but in the end economics isn't about 'good/correct' and 'wrong/bad' economics. It is far better and more accurate to refer to exact economists and what they have said. Typically this way you get far better answers.‘Mainstream economists’ actually does have a fairly refined designation. — Virgo Avalytikh
The strict (and quite ideological) juxtaposition to a "State" and the "peaceful voluntary free market" isn't a good model as you simply need institutions starting from simple rules for a market to work even without any 'State' involvement (or a State even to exist) in order for any market to operate. The market participants have to agree on basic rules, starting from the definition of what is a "peaceful and voluntary" transaction and what is "theft" or "involuntary". And this is basically a totally similar collective "intervention" to someone who can think he or she can do otherwise. If you accept that such rules are needed, especially in an advanced market, then where do you draw the line with "good" market intervention and "bad" intervention? Sorry to say, but markets do need rules.I understand ‘market intervention’ in a political context simply to be any State action; any service a State provides (which is funded by tax revenue or debt) or any kind of regulation is an intervention into the system of peaceful voluntarism which characterises the ‘free market’. — Virgo Avalytikh
You write above that "all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses." So what about your right to live? Can someone own you? If that is not so, then not all rights are just about use or ownership of scarce resources which have alternative uses.Sorry, I don’t understand what this question means. ‘Costs’ are forgone opportunities. Can you explain? — Virgo Avalytikh
Is all of this really better? — alcontali
The strict (and quite ideological) juxtaposition to a "State" and the "peaceful voluntary free market" isn't a good model as you simply need institutions starting from simple rules for a market to work even without any 'State' involvement (or a State even to exist). In order for any market to operate, the market participants have to agree on basic rules, starting from the definition of what is a "peaceful and voluntary" transaction and what is "theft" or "involuntary". And this is basically totally similar collective "intervention" to someone who can think he or she can do otherwise. If you accept that such rules are needed, especially in an advanced market, then where do you draw the line with "good" market intervention and "bad" intervention? Sorry to say, but markets do need rules. — ssu
You write above that "all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses." So what about your right to live? Can someone own you? If that is not so, then not all rights are just about use or ownership of scarce resources which have alternative uses. — ssu
Actually no. You can say conventions are institutions.Markets require a system of property rights, which are conventions, but not institutions. — Virgo Avalytikh
A social institution consists of a group of people who have come together for a common purpose. These institutions are a part of the social order of society and they govern behavior and expectations of individuals.
That's the problem with libertarianism: the extremely passionate emotional hatred of 'statism'. For me, statism is more like the common definition: "a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs."I just don’t make the leap thence to Statism. — Virgo Avalytikh
But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body.My body is mine to use, abuse and exploit to my heart’s content. It seems to me most plausible that a system of ownership rights should start here, since, before we can establish what (else) I may own, we must first establish who owns me. — Virgo Avalytikh
It’s not a ‘problem’ at all. In a system of thought, some beliefs are relatively basic and some are derived. I have made no secret of the fact that the NAP presupposes a system of property rights; this is a point I have made numerous times. — Virgo Avalytikh
As I observed above, fundamentally all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses. The right to do anything in particular is really a right to do what one wants with a resource which might have instead gone to serve someone else’s ends. So the whole question of ‘rights’ in general is really just a question of resource allocation to someone or other, to serve someone or other’s separate ends. — Virgo Avalytikh
In regard to the concrete question of how a specific property right is generated in the first instance, there are two main competing views in the literature. Right-libertarians in the tradition of Locke argue that all external resources are originally unowned, and come to be owned as individuals engage in productive acts of transformation (‘homesteading’). Thereafter, just property titles are transferred through peaceful exchange, or gift. Left-libertarians, by contrast, and more in the tradition of Rousseau, consider all the resources in the world to be owned by everyone in an egalitarian manner. The arguments both ways are voluminous and technical, but if you can get your hands on ‘Left-Libertarianism and its Critics’ (Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne, eds.), there is nothing better out there for exploring these issues. — Virgo Avalytikh
That's the problem with libertarianism: the extremely passionate emotional hatred of 'statism'. — ssu
But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body. — ssu
I am opposed principally to aggression for philosophical reasons, and the State is an agency of monopolised aggression. — Virgo Avalytikh
I do not even consent to being governed, so how can it be said to 'represent' me? — Virgo Avalytikh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.