They are intimate bedfellows, and I don’t see how it could ever be otherwise. — Virgo Avalytikh

That’s also a good point that I don’t immediately have a retort to.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Altruism is the result of a social organism acting in social ways in order to propagate its genes.

I still see many people conflating libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians support the existence of government - a limited government. Libertarians do not eschew from the notion that they are part of a society. Libertarians understand that we are a social species and to be part of a society means that altruism is a viable means of obtaining what one needs.

Humans are inherently non-aggressive compared to other species as a result of our larger brains with longer memories of other people and their actions, and our ability to share our experiences of others with others (leaving reviews of our interactions with others). Being a social species means that aggressive behavior is at a minimum within that species. If not, then we wouldn't be labeled as a social species. It really is that simple, but of course morality and politics muddies the waters and makes things complicated.

Libertarianism is the default skeptical understanding that one doesn't know what is best for everyone else. If you think that you know what is best for everyone, then don't you have to justify that reasoning? How do you know what is best for everyone else?

Notice how I am elevating myself above the political fray into a more objective mindset and hitting political debates from a scientific angle. 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. This is why political debates are so drab.

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

These kinds of semantic discussions are never productive, and always uninteresting. They’re certainly not philosophically impressive. Libertarians define ‘aggression’ in such a way as to express a concept of particular relevance; namely, the initiatory use of force. There just is no reason why the semantic domain of this usage ought to be perfectly coterminous with that of the casual usage. Ask an economist how he uses the word ‘land’, or a logician how he uses ‘validity’. These terms have a technical significance. All that matters is that these words be assigned a clear and consistent meaning, which ‘aggression’ certainly is.

It is absurd and fundamentally confused to speak of libertarians as having ‘hijacked’ the NAP. The NAP is a libertarian principle. It is like saying that the Marxists ‘hijacked’ historical materialism, or the logical positivists ‘hijacked’ the verification principle.

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.

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

You are wrong. As you discover if you read libertarian defences, fraud is considered a form of theft and is assuredly prohibited under the NAP, as an invasion of one’s property. Lying and cheating too, if they be relevantly fraudulent. I don’t know what you mean by ‘aggressive sales’, but if you are talking about bringing a gun to the negotiating table and forcing a sale under duress, then of course this is in violation of the NAP; it is a ‘hold-up’!

Not to be unkind, but I just don’t get the impression that you are sufficiently familiar with libertarianism as it is expressed by libertarians themselves to throw these kinds of arguments about. 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.

I will be honest: this is quite disappointing. There really is nothing here that I have not responded to already, and it has been largely ignored.

You give ‘the wild’ a privileged status that I see no reason to give it. There is nothing uniquely ‘natural’ about our primitive past, relative to our (somewhat) civilised present. ‘Nature’ produced them both. No doubt, aggression has decreased since this primitive past, but as I observed above, this is not due to nature’s being invaded by some alien force. Nature got us here, and, with any luck, it will take us further still.

With this in mind, can we really say that libertarians believe that a ‘background perimeter’ is going to ‘materialize out of the blue’? That depends entirely on what you mean by it. If you mean that it is going to occur ‘naturally’, then yes, and in this case we are in the same boat together. Everything that happens is what nature produces. It is not naïve to believe that nature tends towards a spontaneous order; indeed, the very fact that we are not atomised individuals eating one another’s flesh demonstrates this conclusively. You may say, ‘But we needed a State to get us here’. Whether or not that is true, the fact is that a State, if it is understood as being a ‘gang’ such as you have spoken of, is itself an example of individuals treating peacefully with one another (if not with others) for mutual benefit. And nature produced this. So, when pressed, you too must concede that nature can indeed give rise to spontaneous peaceful voluntarism – if this weren’t the case, no State could ever have formed in the first place!

I have agreed with you that, if aggression is to be discouraged, the costs of aggression must outweigh its likely profits. But, logically, this does not imply Statism. It does not imply Statism for the two main reasons I have given: first, because a State is not the only kind of agency which can provide such a service, and second, because the State is itself an agency of aggression, which violates the ‘perimeter’ in myriad ways. 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.

Having been a way for a while I'll respond to your answer on the first page, although I understand that the discussion has moved ahead.

It is probably worth saying something about monopolies — Virgo Avalytikh

As I said, the question actually is about oligopolies. It's totally different from monopolies...

Whatever your feelings about natural economic monopolies, the State is not the answer. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. It's not a simple 'service' that you pay for. 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.

I am sorry if I mistook your purpose at all. 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.

What you say is true in the sense that ‘market equilibrium’ is a perpetual tendency of the market, and not a real final stopping point. The market tends perpetually towards an equilibrium, but ‘perfect market’ models are of course unrealisable. 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. Meanwhile, it is the heterodox Austrian school economists (many of whom are anarcho-capitalists) who point out the invalidity of such an argument, basically for the same reasons as I have mentioned: either, government does not solve the problem, or else government is itself subject to its own ‘market imperfections’ which make it a less than ideal solution. I have actually not argued that natural monopolies are unlikely to occur. 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. Indeed, any argument for Statism on the strength of its ‘monopoly-busting power’ is self-referentially refuting.

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

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.

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

The problem, Virgo, is that you are taking for granted ownership of property, "that which belongs to oneself" in your definition of aggression. If you properly define "that which belongs to oneself", you will see that this is one's body, and nothing else. The properties of "oneself" is one's own body and nothing else. To extend "belongs to oneself" beyond the limitations of one's own body, requires principles of justification. How do you justify your assumption that property beyond the limits of one's own body belongs to oneself?

So, when someone makes an initiatory use of force, to invade a property which is not a part of your body, but you claim as belonging to yourself, you have no principle by which to call this an act of aggression, because you have no principle justifying your claim that this property belongs to your self. All you have is a claimed "right" to ownership, without any State to support this right. Your NAP allows you to view an act as aggression if it is force against properties of "oneself", but what principles relate oneself to other things, allowing one to own others?

That's why I say you've hijacked the NAP to use it in an unethical way.

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

I've gotten my knowledge of libertarianism from you, in this thread. Are you non-libertarian? Perhaps your ideas are quite muddled.

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

If everybody's priority for ownership of property, reasons for claiming ownership of things, was the same, then things might be taken care of by the markets. But there is a big discrepancy between owning capital and owning things for personal subsistence. Any reasonable convention designed to give a right of ownership needs to respect this difference.

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

There exist successful strategies that rein in the excess power of the State.

A first solution is to first and foremost direct the individual's loyalty to his extended family instead of the State. It apparently works like a charm:

{In Iraq} the extraordinarily strong family bonds complicate virtually everything Americans are trying to do here. Liberal democracy is based on the Western idea of "autonomous individuals committed to a public good", but that's not how members of these tight and bounded kin groups see the world.

There is a good reason why strong family ties have disappeared in the West, allowing the State to lord over thoroughly atomized and ultimately helpless individuals:

Cousin marriage was once the norm throughout the world, but it became taboo in Europe after a long campaign by the Roman Catholic Church. Theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas argued that the practice promoted family loyalties at the expense of universal love and social harmony. Eliminating it was seen as a way to reduce clan warfare and promote loyalty to larger social institutions -- like the church.

The Church had mistakenly hoped that they would become the main beneficiary of thoroughly individualizing and isolating individuals in society. It did not work, because it is the State that cashed in on the benefits instead. Just temporarily, of course.

Once you start peeling the onion, there is no stopping it. So, the destruction of the innermost layer of onion, i.e. the nuclear family, was clearly inevitable. Without some form of nuclear family, sexual reproduction becomes a rather difficult proposition.

Republicans in the United States expected a quick, orderly transition to democracy in Iraq. But one writer who investigated the practice warned fellow conservatives to stop expecting postwar Iraq to resemble postwar Germany or Japan.

Successful anti-Statism requires strong intermediate layers between the individual and the State, which drastically reduce its power. Furthermore, the religious community is yet another layer, this time above the State, that further delegitimizes and reins in the State's power. It is these additional layers that turned the occupation of Iraq into a complete failure for the occupying forces.

Pretty much like libertarians, I am certainly not a fan of an overly powerful National State. Still, I am only willing to use instruments against excess State power for which there is historical evidence that they really work.

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

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.

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.

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.

I’m not sure how to respond to this, except to say that it seems entirely wrong-headed. 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. Since the State is an agency of monopolised aggression by nature, it will always violate the ‘perimeter’ to some degree. Given this – and, given that it is not the only option available – I am much more enthusiastic about the private alternative, which is consistent with the NAP, rather than the Statist solution, which violates it. But I feel like this is just an impasse.

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

They have a different logic.

The simple fact is that so-called natural monopolies don't emerge on the free market. In a free market, it simply doesn't happen that one company would be so awesome, so much better than any competitor that it could dominate alone the global market and no other competitor would seriously compete with it. Monopolies have to have a state entity or some legal foothold to enjoy a monopoly on some narrow field. A medical company might have patents to a revolutionary new treatment, but that will unlikely make it a 'natural' monopoly, especially when the patents expire.

Whereas monopolies are typically related to government actors, the other type of market condition isn't. An oligopoly situation is very different from a monopoly. Take any market, production of cars, smart phones, shipping, the chemical industry, whatever, and you can see that there are about ten or so large companies that actually take care of the majority of the supply side. That is an oligopoly situation.

. The market tends perpetually towards an equilibrium — 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.

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

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'.

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

States have the monopoly on violence. This comes down to the issue of defence and security. I think Max Weber put it aptly, actually.

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

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...

Yet there obvious problems with this idea of private defence starting from things like unified command of the military during wartime. Defence simply isn't a hired guard that keeps your property safe. Trade and violence are two separate things. If you have direct quotes it would be interesting.

As I observed above, fundamentally all rights are really just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources which have alternative uses. — Virgo Avalytikh

And just where does it then put (the cost) of your own life?

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

And so I predict that this thread isnt going to go anywhere until we start to do just that. When you're stuck with trying to explain or define "aggression" from a political perspective rather than a scientific one then you're not going to have a proper definition. When you don't put humans in perspective of other organisms, then you're going to have a skewed understanding of aggression.

All you say of monopolies and oligopolies are fine with me. I don’t think we disagree too much here. I’m just not sure what the argument is into whose service these observations are being pressed.

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

‘Mainstream economists’ actually does have a fairly refined designation. The spectrum of economic opinion is typically divided into (from left to right) the Marxists, Keynesians, Chicagoans and Austrians. The ‘mainstream’ typically incorporates the Keynesians and the Chicagoans. This includes everyone from Paul Krugman to Milton Friedman. 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’. But, since the State is just an agency of monopolised aggression, I can certainly imagine non-States 'intervening' in markets as well, such as a mafioso criminal organisation (not all that different from a State, actually).

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

You seemed to be saying that it is simply ‘known’ among libertarians across the board that certain services, particularly those which are typically understood to constitute the State’s core functions, are such that a market cannot produce them, and that even an-caps share in this commitment. Yes, this would certainly be incorrect. I posted on the first page two important an-cap book-length contributions which explore all of these issues. I don’t cite them as an authority, merely to show what is out there.

And just where does it then put (the cost) of your own life? — ssu

Sorry, I don’t understand what this question means. ‘Costs’ are forgone opportunities. Can you explain?

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

How?

So, say that we get rid of Khadaffi. No problem. We just cut out the middle man.
Then, what happens next?

The Second Libyan Civil War is an ongoing conflict among rival factions seeking control of the territory and oil of Libya.

Many Libyans blamed the GNC and the interim government for a continued lack of security in the country. The interim government struggled to control well-armed militias and armed groups that established during the revolution. Libyans in Benghazi especially began to witness assassinations and kidnapping and perceived the GNC to be turning a blind eye to the deteriorating security situation in the east.

As of February 2015, damage and disorder from the war has been considerable. There are frequent electric outages, little business activity, and a loss in revenues from oil by 90%.

It is the militias operating across the country, thought to number nearly 2,000, who are really calling the shots.

Neighboring countries.

Algeria. The Algerian military said it was engaged in an operation aimed at tracking down militants who infiltrated the country's territory in Tamanrasset near the Libyan border.
Egypt. Egyptian authorities have long expressed concern over the instability in eastern Libya spilling over into Egypt due to the rise of jihadist movements in the region.
Tunisia. Post-revolutionary Tunisia also had its share of instability due to the violence in Libya as it witnessed an unprecedented rise in radical Islamism with increased militant activity and weapons' smuggling through the border.

Is all of this really better?

‘Mainstream economists’ actually does have a fairly refined designation. — 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.

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

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.

Sorry, I don’t understand what this question means. ‘Costs’ are forgone opportunities. Can you explain? — 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.

Is all of this really better? — alcontali

I am not sure what I am being asked to defend, exactly . . . as though my only options are choosing between endorsing this or that form of aggression. There really is no categorical distinction between a formally recognised 'State' and an aggressive faction. Becoming a 'State' is simply the prerogative of the winner. I have not argued here for any kind of 'program' for liberty, and I suspect that such a program will be multi-faceted and gradual; it probably will not consist in an overnight coup, and I shouldn't be thought to advocate for such a thing. The road away from serfdom is a long one but, in many ways, the trajectory is a good one. Several of the services which States provided in days gone by are now being provided by private agencies (especially in those important services of rights-enforcement and dispute resolution). In my humble opinion, the death knell for the State will be the gradual realisation that, in fact, those things for which most people are convinced that we simply need a State can be provided by alternative means. I don't feel the need to choose between aggressive States or aggressive soon-to-be States. The dichotomy is quite false.

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

Markets require a system of property rights, which are conventions, but not institutions. Peaceful trade does indeed require a convention which is generally agreeable to both, but this does not imply a State or anything like it. We can see this by looking at the nature of peaceful interaction on a small scale. David Friedman whom I referenced above has invoked the concept of Schelling points to explain persuasively how coordination can occur in the absence of communication. This concept can be pushed, I think, to account for a generally accepted convention of ownership even in the absence of a formalised institution like a State. What you say about rules (or, as I would sooner put it, a system of ownership rights) is nothing that I haven’t talked about already (I don’t know how closely you have been monitoring the thread). I just don’t make the leap thence to Statism.

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

Most certainly, someone may own me: me. This is a very common starting point in philosophical treatments of rights, left and right, libertarian and non-libertarian. (Property) rights begin with an individual’s right of ownership over him/herself. Marxist (i.e. very non-libertarian) philosopher G. A. Cohen bemoaned the fact that the idea of self-ownership is not given adequate treatment in Marxist literature. It is often expressed thus: the right of self-ownership means that an individual has over him/herself the same natural (i.e. institution-independent) rights as those legal rights which a slave-owner has over his/her chattel slave. 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.

Markets require a system of property rights, which are conventions, but not institutions. — Virgo Avalytikh

Actually no. You can say conventions are institutions.

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.

Hence 'property rights' is exactly a very specified institution and those kind of things what historians and sociologists refer to when talking about institutions.

I just don’t make the leap thence to Statism. — Virgo Avalytikh

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 notice there in the definition "substantial centralized control". For me, there is a leap from let's say "loose minimal control" to statism, but for some libertarians the state itself is this kind of evil, an incarnation of socialism and a threat to liberty and capitalism. This drives the narrative to describe 'libertarian' society to be this fantasy-like 'nation' filled with equally fantastic people living in it.

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

But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body.

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

You're going around in circles, we've covered this already. The NAP does not presuppose property rights, that is your twisted interpretation. You have explicitly stated what is protected by right according to the NAP as "that which belongs to oneself". I grant you one's own body as "that which belongs to oneself". You have disavowed the State, so you cannot turn to any legal principles of ownership provided by the State. How do you get from here to a system of property rights?

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

OK, I'll go with this, it sounds reasonable.

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

You propose here two distinct perspectives on property rights, Right-libertarian versus Left-libertarian. The two are not reconcilable. But from what I said above, we have an NAP which, contrary to your belief, does not require a system of rights. So why dwell on this issue of property rights? There is no need for property rights, it's a distraction from good governance.

I am sorry if I didn’t perfectly grasp the connotations of ‘institution’ relative to ‘convention’ (English is not my first language). I just mean to say, a formally recognised State is not necessary in order to have a set of conventions in regards to ownership. Such conventions can exist independently of a State. That’s all.

That's the problem with libertarianism: the extremely passionate emotional hatred of 'statism'. — ssu

Hatred really has nothing to do with anything. I don’t ‘hate’ the State. I am opposed principally to aggression for philosophical reasons, and the State is an agency of monopolised aggression.

But you do see the difference between property (that can be owned by many) and your body. — ssu

Yes, I do.

I am opposed principally to aggression for philosophical reasons, and the State is an agency of monopolised aggression. — Virgo Avalytikh

I don’t think this way.

This is Murray Rothbard, prolific libertarian theorist and the first anarcho-capitalist:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

The encyclopaedia of libertarianism:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

And everyone from Ayn Rand to Robert Nozick define it in the same way. The purpose of the NAP is to distinguish between two uses of force: that which is intiatory and that which is defensive. And, as they all recognise, it presupposes a system of property rights.

I flagged a while ago that what is going on here is an uninteresting semantic disagreement. Your initial assertion was that the NAP is incompatible with private property. The only justification you have for this claim is that the definition of ‘aggression’ with which I have been operating is improper or ‘twisted’. In fact, I am using this term perfectly consonantly with how it is used by libertarians, in their expression of what they mean by the terms they use, in distinguishing their own philosophy. The NAP is a libertarian principle. It is an article of their philosophy. You don’t get to come along after the fact and redefine their terms.

If it weren’t for right wing libertarian judges declaring corporations as people with rights, then the State wouldn’t be oppressive. We are supposed to live in a constitutional representative democratic republic. That means that the government IS the people. They are supposed to be answerable to the people. It only got coercive because of right wing libertarian judges.

But I suppose you could say that these judges are not truly right wing libertarian. They think they are, however.

There is nothing 'libertarian' about (i) the State having a monopoly on dispute resolution, (ii) 'corporations' (which are a legal fiction), (iii) special government privileges for said corporations (or indeed for anyone). The State is an agency of monopolised aggression by its very nature. ssu brought up Max Weber's definition of 'State', which is still the most widely cited, as far as I can tell. The State is ‘a compulsory political organization with a centralised government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory’.

There is no significant sense in which the government 'is' the people. These are just empty words. There is no reality to which these words correspond. I do not even consent to being governed, so how can it be said to 'represent' me?

I do not even consent to being governed, so how can it be said to 'represent' me? — Virgo Avalytikh

I do consent to being governed, so I guess that’s where we differ. The US government is supposed to be answerable to the people, but that was until the judiciary was filled with conservatives, which one could argue was from the get go.