Just giving it back! — Noah Te Stroete
Interesting. I will just let that stand as an insight into your sensibilities. — Noah Te Stroete
I’ve read arguments for laissez faire capitalism and for socialism. BOTH come from the ivory tower. I do not. BOTH are wrong-headed, except laissez faire capitalism philosophy is driven by selfishness of the capitalists, while socialist philosophy is driven by altruistic impulses. Like I said, both are wrong. — Noah Te Stroete
That fact isn't relevant to your original claim. You claimed that Capitalism is an "obviously desirable thing", and that those who oppose or "vehemently oppose" it are exclusively out-of-touch academics perched within their ivory towers. As I've shown, that's simply not true. There is sustained criticism and skepticism of Capitalism that exists across incomes and demographics. — Maw
I am pretty sure that you were first to call someone sex into question because they disagree with you. — Constrained Maximizer
I think that you might be confusing "reading someone" and "psychoanalyzing someone". — Constrained Maximizer
This is of course not what I said. The fact that I said "misled by arguments" and not "progenitors of such arguments" makes it clear that I am not talking solely about ivory tower academics. — Constrained Maximizer
The inability to even grasp that we're talking about rival views calls into question the validity of an answer given by someone who harbors said inability. — Constrained Maximizer
I've heard drunks ramble more cogently than this sentence. — Maw
Do you sincerely believe that adults making less than $30K annually are reading arguments laid out in the works of academics? Or do you think they are able to understand their own material conditions and see how Capitalism doesn't work in their favor? And what of Sanders' wide network of donors who live across America. Not going to let you circumvent that one. — Maw
I wonder if Virgo isn’t actually an older white male billionaire? She’s certainly a cheerleader for their cause. — Noah Te Stroete
Why are these people convinced that they're living under capitalism to begin with? Why not any other "ism" that one might throw around? Such views don't pop into existence out of thin air. You don't have to read the works of academics to be influenced by views that originate in the works of academics, so much should be fairly obvious. — Constrained Maximizer
You mean the completely unverifiable claim about Sanders' network of donors? You will excuse me if I don't find "Bernie said so" terribly convincing. — Constrained Maximizer
Individual donations made to presidential campaigns are required to be reported to the FEC, idiot. — Maw
For the purposes of my argument, I have defined market failure as a situation wherein each individual acts correctly in his/her own interests, and the net result is to make (almost or absolutely) everybody worse off. One element of my argument is that such a phenomenon is a relative rarity in a system of private property and non-aggression. Both of the conditions are important: the NAP is senseless without a system of property (because, in the absence of ownership rights, ‘aggression’ cannot be recognised definitively as such), and private property is also important for avoiding the problems of market failure which plague a collective system of ownership. I understand ‘right-libertarianism’ to be the conjunction of these two principles (in distinction from, say, ‘left-libertarianism’, which upholds the latter but rejects the former).
If market failure is as I have defined it, then a system will successfully avoid market failure if, generally, individuals acting correctly in their own interests serves to improve their own situations as well as other peoples’, and does not make people substantially worse off than they would have been under some alternative system. I have provided a number of reasons for thinking that right-libertarianism satisfies these criteria.
I have argued that, since individuals tend to be best acquainted with their own situations, it is reasonable to expect people to do what is best for themselves if left to their own devices, rather than being forcibly coerced into living in a particular way, or being co-owned by everybody else. I know what is best for myself better than I do for any other person in this world, and I also know what is best for myself better than anybody else does, whether individually or collectively. I think that this principle is reasonable, and it stands in support of both private property and the NAP: private property, because ownership rights begin with the right to own one’s self, and the NAP, because I am more likely to know what is best for myself than someone who wishes to coerce me into living in a certain way. — Virgo Avalytikh
I have also drawn attention to the nature of voluntary trade. Voluntary trade is win-win; the only way in which a trade can occur is if we each value what the other person has more than what we each presently have. Notice that this applies, not only in commercial ‘market-place’ situations, but for non-aggressive interactions in general. If you and I become friends, it is because you and I would each rather be friends than non-friends. This principle can be pushed very far, I think. Again, this serves as a vindication of both of our right-libertarian principles. ‘Trade’ cannot occur in a system of collective ownership, and therefore requires private ownership, and the NAP is that which secures the mutually beneficial result of the interaction (contrast this with an aggressive act, such as theft or murder). — Virgo Avalytikh
Third, I drew attention to the way in which private property rights tend to eliminate the market failure problems inherent in a collective system of ownership. Collective ownership tends towards market failure for numerous reasons, but one reason is that no individual is personally responsible for that which is owned. In a system of collective ownership, an individual who puts that which is owned collectively to profitable use may not receive the profits him/herself, instead losing most of it to the central pot. An individual who does not put that which is owned collectively to profitable use is negligibly worse off than he would have been otherwise, and enjoys far more leisure. This becomes more and more the case as the scale of collective ownership increases.
Not so under private ownership. A private owner who puts his property to profitable use receives that profit, and bears the cost (e.g. forgone profit) if he does not. Moreover, unlike collectivist situations, markets have an astonishing capacity to function on a scale that is simply dizzying (I strongly recommend Leonard Read’s short essay, ‘I, Pencil’, which illustrates this point marvellously). Not only is private property important, but of course the NAP is a vital ingredient here, too. That I bear the profits and costs of doing what I want with what I own presupposes that I am not subject to predatory aggression.
Contrast all of this with Friedman’s observation in my opening argument, that virtually everybody in the political realm take decisions whose costs and benefits go to others. The differences are striking and, to me at least, impressive (which is why I am an anarcho-capitalist). — Virgo Avalytikh
If a right is something of ‘higher order’ than individual persons, and if collective entities (like States) are, ontologically speaking, nothing above and beyond the individuals which comprise them, then States are no more capable of creating or bestowing rights than anyone else. — Virgo Avalytikh
I am not sure what this means. I can enforce my own rights (by defending myself against an aggressor), a friend can help me to do so, and a private service-provider can help me do so as well. Why can't I pay someone to enforce my rights, or help me to do so? — Virgo Avalytikh
If my grandpa steals all your land then leaves it to me in his will, would you and the courts be the aggressors when you try to get your land back? I didn't do anything wrong? — ZhouBoTong
I disagree (how is the trespassing MORE aggressive than the ownership?). — ZhouBoTong
OK, we can probably all agree that there ought to be a system of property rights, but this doesn't make such a convention magically appear. But the NAP, as described by you, presupposes the existence of such a system. So it is the NAP which ought to be thrown away, because its principal prerequisite does not exist. Once convention on property rights is established, then we might decide whether something like the NAP is called-for. — Metaphysician Undercover
But you have been proposing a completely different angle, one in which the State has been abolished. At this point, there are no rights, that's the important point which you do not seem to be grasping. At this point we cannot say "rights determine the acceptable use of force" because there are no rights, the revolt is against the State which is the support of the existing rights. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is where my main problem lies. You are claiming that, in the grand scheme of things (ignoring fringe cases) any interaction that is not aggression - initiatory use of force, as you put it - is beneficial for everyone involved. The only way I can see this claim working is if you bend aggression to encompass a whole lot more than just the initiatory use of force. Even concerning the main example of trade, things aren't as clear cut as "everyone will only agree to things that are beneficial to them". Sure, if you engage in trade that means you value what is offered, but only insofar as it has value to you in your present circumstances. If your present circumstance are that you are starving, you might sell your house for a loaf of bread. This is an extreme example, but people are definetly in differing bartering positions, and that will how beneficial the trades are. There are also all kinds of other factors from outright fraud to misinformation, from addiction to brand loyalty. There is plenty of room to enrich yourself to the detriment of others without resorting to force. — Echarmion
And if we want to push the NAP even farther, we get into things like pollution, usage of scarce resources, long-term environmental damages and there is simply no ground to stand on. Who is going to decide, and on what basis, what level of environmental degradation constitutes an "aggression" towards your neighbors, for example? — Echarmion
But Anarcho-Capitalism and collective ownership are not the sum-total of economic systems. There are plenty of different ideas for free-market socialism, for example, that do non advocate fully collective ownership or a more powerful state than the current one. — Echarmion
Ontologically speaking, a state is nothing other than an idea, something inside someone's head. However, the parliament, the agencies and all their employees are real enough. It used to be that people had a higher authority by divine providence, now the idea is that we hand it to them by voting. The point is that everyone agrees that there is a higher order above the individuals, and that that higher order is actually effective in practice. — Echarmion
If you pay someone explicitly to enforce your rights, sure. But who would do that if they could pay someone to enforce their interests instead? — Echarmion
Then your body, your liberty isn't property in the similar way and cannot be explained in the same way as something that's value is defined by the market and can be sold and bought (and I don't mean here people selling services). And when you look just what Murray Rothbard said about the 'libertarian creed', this difference is quite evident even from your quote from Rothbard: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. — Virgo Avalytikh
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. — Virgo Avalytikh
You disavow the State, which gives a system of property rights, but at the same time you presuppose a system of property rights. — Metaphysician Undercover
And this is basically what a state does...I would say that a major task of political philosophy is to determine in a reasoned way what kinds of conventions in relations to property are worth recognising and which are not. — Virgo Avalytikh
Again this hatred of 'statism', which you deny to have, which I don't know where it comes. So 'philosophers' can thinking about 'political philosophy', but if they reach some universal agreement (or close to it), they wouldn't be... politicians?The fact that there are differences of opinion on this question is not to say that there are not or could not be such conventions; it simply requires us to do the hard work that political philosophers do. Moreover, to say that, because one is a Statist, one simply doesn't have any basis on which to conduct such a discussion, is completely unwarranted and not convincing. — Virgo Avalytikh
And just who is saying that?That the State is the only possible ‘source’ of rights has not yet been justified. — Virgo Avalytikh
Then your body, your liberty isn't property in the similar way and cannot be explained in the same way as something that's value is defined by the market and can be sold and bought (and I don't mean here people selling services). — ssu
Because what else is the state as an collective effort of it's citizens? People that adhere to the "libertarian creed" do form in a way a proto-state themselves. If they enforce collectively this creed, what is so different of them acting as a state? — ssu
So 'philosophers' can thinking about 'political philosophy', but if they reach some universal agreement (or close to it), they wouldn't be... politicians? — ssu
And just who is saying that? — ssu
By that definition Syria isn't a state.A State is an association of persons who hold a successful monopoly on the use of force over a geographical territory. — Virgo Avalytikh
Why not? Especially when looking at history this divide becomes very problematic. How do you define a tribal community? These communities surely did have laws of their own and could be very advanced.Whether there is more to it (and there may well be), it is not helpful to simply use ‘State’ as a stand-in for any obtaining social organisational principle. — Virgo Avalytikh
And what does the libertarian society with the 'libertarian creed' do to enforce this creed? Or it isn't needed to be enforced?States are agencies of force, force that is wielded at the behest of some (historically, a monarch or ruling class) against others. It can never be ‘representative’ of the people as a whole, for precisely this reason. Even if it is notionally ‘democratic’, — Virgo Avalytikh
And what's the difference between a tax and a payment for services, especially if you provide me a service I need?If I were to ‘tax’ people this would be theft/extortion, — Virgo Avalytikh
I have to remind you of the definition of statism:Virtually everybody? I don’t begrudge your not reading the entire thread (I haven’t). But if you do, you will see what I mean. It is an unwarranted assumption being made tacitly left, right and centre. It is the number-one philosophical prejudice that I am gradually trying to gnaw away at. — Virgo Avalytikh
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
Why not? Especially when looking at history this divide becomes very problematic. How do you define a tribal community? These communities surely did have laws of their own. — ssu
And what does the libertarian society with the 'libertarian creed' do to enforce this creed. Or it isn't needed to be enforced? — ssu
And what's the difference between a tax and a payment for services, especially if you provide me a service I need? — ssu
Now what I don't understand is that you are talking about just this 'Statist' nations and seem not to show any interest or accept even the possibility that the state wouldn't have 'substantial centralized control' over social affairs and the economy. That those classically liberal/libertarian elements are there in many countries curtailing the power of the state. A lot of people simply don't think that all countries are so centralized. I think that af Statist nation was the old Soviet Union, which I had the opportunity to visit just when it was falling apart. Western countries simply aren't similar to Soviet Union. — ssu
Because ‘ownership’ is not per se aggressive. — Virgo Avalytikh
“‘Aggression’ is not a property which inheres in an action; it is a relation of an action to a specific (property) right. Consider something ostensibly aggressive, such as my punching you in the face. Does this constitute an act of ‘aggression’? That depends. Perhaps we have both signed up for a boxing match. Perhaps we are acting and this is part of the scene. Or consider something ostensibly innocuous, like simply standing. Is this aggression? Again, it depends. If I am standing in my own living room, then probably not. If I am trespassing in your living room, and have been asked to leave, then yes. To say of any particular action that it is ‘aggressive’ presupposes a background schema of rights. Therefore, rights are a precondition of aggression. Therefore, declaring a right of ownership in the first instance cannot be aggression. That is to put the cart before the horse.” — Virgo Avalytikh
I think this is where my main problem lies. You are claiming that, in the grand scheme of things (ignoring fringe cases) any interaction that is not aggression - initiatory use of force, as you put it - is beneficial for everyone involved. The only way I can see this claim working is if you bend aggression to encompass a whole lot more than just the initiatory use of force. — Echarmion
There is a leap being made here, and I do not make it with you. You seem to be saying, ‘We need to establish a universal convention of property rights first, and only then can we start talking about the NAP.’ — Virgo Avalytikh
Alright, so let us say that ‘being good’ is a logical precondition of ‘not acting aggressively’. Does this mean that we cannot even have a discussion about the worthiness of non-aggression, until we have got a suitable number of people in the world to be good? I don’t see why. We can develop a system of thought with numerous logical steps, before we seek practically to implement the first, or before we have successfully done so. Of course we may. — Virgo Avalytikh
Again, a complete non sequitur. That the State is the only possible ‘source’ of rights has not yet been justified. Indeed, that the State even can be a ‘source’ of rights has not been justified. It is simply assumed. There is nothing special or mystical about States. They are associations of human individuals, who hold a successful monopoly on the use of force over a historically arbitrary territory. And this leads into another point which ought to be clarified: I do not begin with an opposition to Statism. That is an incidental consequence of libertarianism. It is because the State exists in violation of the NAP that it is objectionable. — Virgo Avalytikh
You begin in the opposite direction. You begin with the State, taking for granted both its legitimacy and its necessity, as well as affording it the unique privilege of rights-bestower, and from these assumptions you take it that the libertarian alternative is impossible. But this is not convincing. Rights are principles, abstractions, and to leave the question of which rights are worth recognising, and which are not, to the State is simply un-philosophical. It is nothing short of ‘might makes right’ — Virgo Avalytikh
If you take issue with my thesis that voluntary trade works for mutual benefit, then what I would expect you to do is to provide a counter-instance. — Virgo Avalytikh
Haha. Because 'trespassing' is not per se aggressive? (I am just standing there). — ZhouBoTong
This is your claim not mine, the NAP "presupposes" a system of property rights. Therefore there needs to be a universally accepted system of property rights before the NAP can have any merit. Otherwise the NAP is useless because it would be applied differently according to different conventions of property rights. This is obvious. I am just following the logic of your claims. — Metaphysician Undercover
The NAP refers directly to the right to ownership. You have stated this clearly. But if what I believe is my right to ownership is different from what you believe is your right to ownership, we would each apply the NAP differently. So the NAP would be meaningless in this case, useless. And when the land is full of people claiming that you have no right to ownership of what you claim to own, the NAP does nothing for you. — Metaphysician Undercover
We've been through this already. I don't claim "the State" as the source of rights. I thought we agreed on "convention". But the State upholds the conventions with the means of force when necessary. Notice I say "when necessary". The majority of conventions are upheld by the State without the use of force, through institutions, because we readily agree to them. But without the State we do not have the institutions, nor the means to uphold the conventions, and the conventions fall apart. "State" and "conventions" co-exist. — Metaphysician Undercover
That the State violates the NAP is simply an indication that the NAP places the right of ownership higher up in the hierarchy of rights, than the conventions which the State is bound to uphold places that right. The State upholds a multitude of rights, and there is a hierarchy of rights which itself is conventional. That the right to private ownership is limited, restricted, even forfeited in some cases, because other rights are of greater importance, according to the conventions which the State is bound to uphold, is evidence that the NAP is not a good principle. Why ought the right to private ownership be given such priority when the conventions which are presently accepted, and upheld by the state, assign a lesser priority to this right? The State can force one to give up ownership (fines) when that individual has committed offences not covered by the NAP. Clearly there is reason to believe that some rights ought to take priority over property rights. In this case the State is right in forcing one to give up one's property. Valuing private property higher than what is provided for in the conventional hierarchy of rights, validates the use of force against oneself, in contravention of the NAP. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, I'll go with this, it sounds reasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've already given you examples of such, aggressive sales, and aggressive trading. They refer to the means by which one takes advantage of another in business transactions. If one takes advantage of the other, yet it is not fraud, you cannot call this "mutual advantage". Are you not familiar with these terms? — Metaphysician Undercover
I thought we had come to the agreement together that the NAP presupposes property. After I drew attention to the fact that this is universally acknowledged among libertarian theorists (the NAP being a libertarian principle, after all), I thought this was an agreement we had reached. Is this not so? My claim, in any case, is that the dependence relationship between the NAP and a system of property rights is one that is logical and not temporal, so I am not committed to holding off on ‘NAP-talk’ until after I have successfully realised a particular system of property rights in the world. — Virgo Avalytikh
The only sense in which a State may be said to ‘solve’ such a disagreement, as far as I can see, is simply by picking a winner, and enforcing a single system of rights upon everyone. — Virgo Avalytikh
It is just not altogether clear what you mean by ‘State’, nor what kind of philosophical work the State is doing in your argument. The arguments you are attempting to level against libertarianism can only be successful if the State solves the problems you raise. But I am still in the dark as to how it is supposed to do so. Can you explain? As things stand, the work the State seems to be doing is to enforce one particular system of property rights upon everyone (within its territory, that is). But whether that system is the right one remains to be seen. — Virgo Avalytikh
But if the State is not the source of conventions, and conventions can and do exist independently of the State, and if conventions can be enforced by non-States, I fail to see how you arrive at a State. — Virgo Avalytikh
But whether that system is the right one remains to be seen. — Virgo Avalytikh
It is not possible to prioritise a non-property-right over a property right, because all rights are fundamentally property rights. I made this point here:
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.
And it certainly appeared as though you concede this point: — Virgo Avalytikh
Maybe you need to refine what you intend by ‘take advantage of’. In a voluntary trade, we both ‘take advantage of’ each other, in the sense that we both benefit from one another’s existence. — 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.