social issues & the free market

[Farmer Br0wn]

I'll amend my previous observation: Your vibe is now super culty.

Just more insults, got it.

I'm going to end this conversation. Life is too short to waste time on people who don't debate in good faith.

I wish you well, your reply is not needed.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

What are Molyneux's arguments? Can you summarise them?

In the VERY limited time I have (my brother is getting married today :icon_chee , please understand if I don't get back to you today).

• Peaceful parenting (don't hit your children, don't spank, don't yell, use negotiation rather than force) will bring about a more peaceful society/humanity.
  
• The initiation of the use of force is always immoral (self-defense being an entirely different category due to the fact that the person defending themselves didn't initiate force, but responded to force). This includes forced used by individuals, or forced used by a group, this also includes government. If a government uses force to extract taxation, that is immoral.

I'm afraid I have to leave, but that is a few snippets of basic philosophy put forward by Mr. Molyneux.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

[*]The initiation of the use of force is always immoral (self-defense being an entirely different category due to the fact that the person defending themselves didn't initiate force, but responded to force). This includes forced used by individuals, or forced used by a group, this also includes government. If a government uses force to extract taxation, that is immoral.
[/LIST]

The problem here is Molyneux is presupposing that appropriation is a peaceful process. It's not. Appropriation (the act of claiming a resource belongs to oneself) is an initiation of force.

 

[ben236]

The problem here is Molyneux is presupposing that appropriation is a peaceful process. It's not. Appropriation (the act of claiming a resource belongs to oneself) is an initiation of force.

An initiation of force on who? If I buy a house from a willing seller, who did I initiate force on?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

An initiation of force on who? If I buy a house from a willing seller, who did I initiate force on?

I was referring to the moment an unowned resource becomes an owned resource. "Appropriation". Not the transfer of something that is already owned to a new owner.

Mixing a can of soup with a lake, and then claiming the lake is yours (everyone else who tries to use the soup-lake will be met with force) would be an initiation of force.

 

[ben236]

I was referring to the moment an unowned resource becomes an owned resource. "Appropriation". Not the transfer of something that is already owned to a new owner.

Mixing a can of soup with a lake, and then claiming the lake is yours (everyone else who tries to use the soup-lake will be met with force) would be an initiation of force.

You're arguing a strawman. I don't think anyone would consider putting a can of soup in a lake productive use of land.

 

[panamaican]

can you even imagine how deplorable corporations would be without regulations or government oversight..

Look at them now, just imagine with no checks and balances...

BBBBuuutt the free market will handle it..

Also without artificial barriers to entry killing their competition or patent laws preventing people from innovating or a whole bunch of things corporations use regulations and laws for to create a market advantage.

More would change than just oversight keeping gov'ts in check.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You're arguing a strawman. I don't think anyone would consider putting a can of soup in a lake productive use of land.

Whether one's "mixing" of their labor with a resource is "productive" or not is irrelevant. The point is that "mixing labor" with a resource doesn't inherently make something the mixer's property. Force has to be initiated for something to become property.

If you pick weeds from an unowned field, and use your weed-picking as a basis for claiming the field is yours, you're initiating force.

 

[ben236]

Whether one's "mixing" of their labor with a resource is "productive" or not is irrelevant. The point is that "mixing labor" with a resource doesn't inherently make something the mixer's property. Force has to be initiated for something to become property.

It's absolutely relevant. Let's use a better example than that shitty can of soup one you came up with...

If someone built a house in the middle of the woods on unclaimed land, and built a garden in order to cultivate crops to eat, that would be something I would consider productive use of land. In your view, if someone else came along and took all the crops that the person spent his time and labor to grow, that any attempt to stop that guy from taking those crops would be the initial act of aggression. I on the other hand view the initial act of aggression to be the taking of the crops. Because the only reason why those crops are there for the taking is because the person spent his time and labor to grow them. He sure as hell wouldn't have grown those crops if he knew someone else was going to take them. I would consider that stealing though you seem to disagree.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Also without artificial barriers to entry killing their competition or patent laws preventing people from innovating or a whole bunch of things corporations use regulations and laws for to create a market advantage.

More would change than just oversight keeping gov'ts in check.

So you think less regulations the better???

 

[Deleted member 159002]

It's absolutely relevant. Let's use a better example than that shitty can of soup one you came up with...

If someone built a house in the middle of the woods on unclaimed land, and built a garden in order to cultivate crops to eat, that would be something I would consider productive use of land. In your view, if someone else came along and took all the crops that the person spent his time and labor to grow, that any attempt to stop that guy from taking those crops would be the initial act of aggression. I on the other hand view the initial act of aggression to be the taking of the crops. Because the only reason why those crops are there for the taking is because the person spent his time and labor to grow them. He sure as hell wouldn't have grown those crops if he knew someone else was going to take them. I would consider that stealing though you seem to disagree.

The grower is the aggressor because he is acting on the body of the taker even though the taker hasn't acted on the body of the grower.

You might call this "justified aggression", and you might justify it based on some notion of desert: each person should be entitled to use aggression against people to exclude them from those things they are responsible for producing. That is the moral intuition that is actually motivating your thoughts on this (not non-aggression). It has its own problems, but here it's just important to note that you have in mind a desert rationale for this violence, not a non-aggression rationale. It is aggression to attack someone who has not attacked you after all.

 

[ben236]

The grower is the aggressor because he is acting on the body of the taker even though the taker hasn't acted on the body of the grower.

You might call this "justified aggression", and you might justify it based on some notion of desert: each person should be entitled to use aggression against people to exclude them from those things they are responsible for producing. That is the moral intuition that is actually motivating your thoughts on this (not non-aggression). It has its own problems, but here it's just important to note that you have in mind a desert rationale for this violence, not a non-aggression rationale. It is aggression to attack someone who has not attacked you after all.

I guess it comes down to whether you consider stealing to be an act of aggression. Which I do because you're harming the livelihood of the person who is being stolen from and infringing on his right to self-determination.

By your logic, the threat of physical violence is not an act of aggression either as long as the body of the person being threatened is not acted upon. Which I find to be laughable.

 

[panamaican]

So you think less regulations the better???

if you want to reduce a complicated subject down to a single question - yes.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

if you want to reduce a complicated subject down to a single question - yes.

Than you are extremely foolish....

The financial sector is the perfect example of a sector that needs even more regulations than we even once thought necessary..

Companies like Goldman Sachs would be like Godzilla without any regulations. Hell look at them now, without regulations theyd be holding you at gun point.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I guess it comes down to whether you consider stealing to be an act of aggression. Which I do because you're harming the livelihood of the person who is being stolen from and infringing on his right to self-determination.

By your logic, the threat of physical violence is not an act of aggression either as long as the body of the person being threatened is not acted upon. Which I find to be laughable.

For something to be stolen it has to first be property. Without a system of law in place that says who owns what, it's not stealing for someone to use a resource.

 

[ben236]

For something to be stolen it has to first be property. Without a system of law in place that says who owns what, it's not stealing for someone to use a resource.

A resource that someone else produced through their own labor for their own personal use? I don't think you'd need laws in place to consider that stealing. At least from a moral standpoint.

 

[panamaican]

Than you are extremely foolish....

The financial sector is the perfect example of a sector that needs even more regulations than we even once thought necessary..

Companies like Goldman Sachs would be like Godzilla without any regulations. Hell look at them now, without regulations theyd be holding you at gun point.

The financial sector became the beast it is because of the regulations. You think that Goldman Sachs isn't consistently lobbying for regulation that helps it prosper?

But for the sake of conversation, how would Goldman Sachs be holding anyone at gun point with fewer regulations?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Anarchists also propose letting people choose from among competing institutions that provide govt-style services. So all left-wingers could join the welfare state system and let the rest of us opt out. Since I am told the wealthy and highly-intelligent are disproportionately liberal, whilst the percentage of people on welfare is a tiny part of our budget, you are set.

Anarchists are left-wingers. Anarchism isn't compatible with property rights.

I guess it comes down to whether you consider stealing to be an act of aggression. dy of the person being threatened is not acted upon. Which I find to be laughable.

It can't come down to that because you're already assuming your conclusion there by calling it "stealing" to begin with. Plus, of course, real-life appropriation doesn't follow your story so it's irrelevant anyway.

The only reasonable argument for property rights is that it leads to good outcomes, which I think most would admit.

 

[ben236]

It can't come down to that because you're already assuming your conclusion there by calling it "stealing" to begin with.

What else would you call taking what someone else produced without their consent?

Plus, of course, real-life appropriation doesn't follow your story so it's irrelevant anyway.

It should be obvious to anyone that ST and I are talking in the abstract.

 

[OldGoat]

For something to be stolen it has to first be property. Without a system of law in place that says who owns what, it's not stealing for someone to use a resource.

You don't need law you just need a bigger club. Which incidentally is what makes rape costly to the rapist. Either law or someone with a club. How'd you like that manner of living?