Market Anarchy

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:23 am UTC

Indon wrote:Of what utility is an ideal that has no power to become a reality?
The utility of morality is in self-enforcement. An externally enforced morality is not a proper morality.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:03 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:The utility of morality is in self-enforcement. An externally enforced morality is not a proper morality.


What distinguishes a self-inforced 'individual' morality from normal behavior?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

Indon wrote:What distinguishes a self-inforced 'individual' morality from normal behavior?
What do you mean by "normal," and why would it exclude morality? Do you mean "what distinguishes the behavior of a moral person and an amoral person?"
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:41 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Do you mean "what distinguishes the behavior of a moral person and an amoral person?"


What distinguishes the behavior of a person who follows a purely internal morality from that of a person who does not follow a moral system?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:47 am UTC

Indon wrote:What distinguishes the behavior of a person who follows a purely internal morality from that of a person who does not follow a moral system?
Mostly, their preferences are different. I mean, what distinguishes the behavior of a person who follows one morality and the behavior of a person who follows a different morality are that they act differently, a statement which is not particularly useful.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Which is why we need some sort of objectivity when discussing morality. Whether you believe in an innate universal morality, as snapshot does, or something a little more robust, like indon has been arguing for. "Do whatever you want" doesn't provide much stimulating discussion, nor does it provide 'good' results.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Mostly, their preferences are different. I mean, what distinguishes the behavior of a person who follows one morality and the behavior of a person who follows a different morality are that they act differently, a statement which is not particularly useful.


I question this. A person who does not abide by a moral system at all, and just does whatever they want, seems to act indistinguishably with an individual who follows a purely internal moral system, provided one's whims vs. the other's morals lead to the same actions. Compare a hypothetical amoral but nice person with one who follows an internal morality centered around being nice.

In what sense is an internal moral system more than a fancy term for someone's own wants/whims, other than that they take them extra seriously?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:14 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:What you're saying is might makes right, so the violence necessarily comes first in that line of reasoning (might causes something to be right), meaning that you cannot logically use that moral system to justify the violence--it's just violence.

No, you're wrong. Again, you are applying your personal moral standards to someone else, and the result is nonsensical.
I'm sorry, but you keep calling it "your" morality. I'm not putting forth moral statements and proclaiming them moral. I'm saying YOU be consistent with your moral statements.

snapshot182 wrote:If that's what you call morality, I implore you to stop using that term.

Look, your pet morality is not necessarily the objectively correct one. Deal with that.
Logic and consistency in action are not my ideas.

snapshot182 wrote:A defense against what, pray tell? Why do you think self-defense qualifies as a valid defense while the violence committed against that person can be justly prosecuted?

Self-defense isn't the only exception, you know, I just used it as an example. Again, you've missed the point, apparently willfully.
[/quote]You didn't answer the question.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Indon wrote:I question this. A person who does not abide by a moral system at all, and just does whatever they want, seems to act indistinguishably with an individual who follows a purely internal moral system, provided one's whims vs. the other's morals lead to the same actions. Compare a hypothetical amoral but nice person with one who follows an internal morality centered around being nice.

In what sense is an internal moral system more than a fancy term for someone's own wants/whims, other than that they take them extra seriously?
They aren't. The point of adopting a morality is altering your wants, whims, and actions.

To give it any other significance requires a jump that is difficult to defend- you have to assume some supernatural power tallying your thoughts and actions.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:03 pm UTC

So picking an internal morality based on your whims is altering your whims? I don't think so.

Can we all just agree that some form of objectivity is required, then move on to defining it?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:00 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:So picking an internal morality based on your whims is altering your whims? I don't think so.

Can we all just agree that some form of objectivity is required, then move on to defining it?

I recommend consistency between arguments and actions as well as it applying universally. That's basically what I've been arguing.

It certainly requires you to not act based on your whims if you choose to accept reason.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:03 am UTC

I have read this thread with interest. I'll comment on the thread title first. If the title refers to the economic philosophy talked about in the Wikipedia then I wonder at the ability of Philosophers to create nonsense and publish with a straight face. I'll argue this in detail if anybody wishes to. Societies arise from the complexity of human behavior in groups. Governments are social constructs designed to serve purposes for the people who choose to be governed by them. Governments provide protection against forces internal and external. They are tension structures by nature, which all eventually fail. The physical analog here would be the physics of tension. Tension requires two opposing forces, it also requires something to connect them. In the social construct the tension arises from two competing forces, individual self interest and the overall interest of all the members of the group. The mechanism for maintaining the tension is Government. The role of Government is to act to keep the tension in balance, since if that balance goes to far in one direction or another, Government fails. How would business fulfill that role?

nitePhyyre wrote:Which is why we need some sort of objectivity when discussing morality. Whether you believe in an innate universal morality, as snapshot does, or something a little more robust, like indon has been arguing for. "Do whatever you want" doesn't provide much stimulating discussion, nor does it provide 'good' results.


How do you use objectivity to discuss something fluid and changing? Morality needs context. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow, what was moral yesterday is not always moral today. There is no morality, if by that you mean a universal constant or standard. Morals are constructs to allow us to live together, relatively peacefully as do ethics. If morals or ethics were inherent in humans we would not always find ourselves asking if something is moral or ethical. Our behavior over time would also be more consistent. The only universal constant is self interest. Let that be your starting point.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:01 am UTC

@morriswalters I really like that tension comparison.
As for morality, yeah that is pretty much my view on the matter as well. I believe in a situational objectivity. i.e.: In each situation where one has to make a moral choice, there is one option that will produce the best outcome. Although I disagree that self interest is as universal as you say. There are plenty of exceptions, people sacrificing themselves for their kin or even strangers.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I have read this thread with interest. I'll comment on the thread title first. If the title refers to the economic philosophy talked about in the Wikipedia then I wonder at the ability of Philosophers to create nonsense and publish with a straight face. I'll argue this in detail if anybody wishes to. Societies arise from the complexity of human behavior in groups. Governments are social constructs designed to serve purposes for the people who choose to be governed by them. Governments provide protection against forces internal and external. They are tension structures by nature, which all eventually fail. The physical analog here would be the physics of tension. Tension requires two opposing forces, it also requires something to connect them. In the social construct the tension arises from two competing forces, individual self interest and the overall interest of all the members of the group. The mechanism for maintaining the tension is Government. The role of Government is to act to keep the tension in balance, since if that balance goes to far in one direction or another, Government fails. How would business fulfill that role?
I sense you're making the mistake that many people have made...you're framing the debate as though government is some sort of voluntary organization when you say, " Governments are social constructs designed to serve purposes for the people who choose to be governed by them." This is factually inaccurate. It would be just as accurate to say that an intruder in your home has comprised a social contract, and you have the choice of whether to leave and live under it or to stay, and such a contract is valid. Governments claim land by force and defend it by force, as opposed to homesteading or taking unowned land and building upon it for industrial or commercial purposes. We do not have a choice in following government either. If we choose not to, we have violence thrust upon us by the reigning government. This is not a free choice. A free choice involves the choice to be left alone, just like virtually every business in existence offers us.

Dispute resolution organizations (DROs) are the free market alternative (or one possible alternative) to the problem of government. People would voluntarily choose to join a DRO for their protection, and DROs would work together to keep those people at bay who otherwise pose a risk to society. This can be done in any number of ways. It doesn't really matter how it does it. The important point will always be that it's a non-violent solution to social problems.

nitePhyyre wrote:Which is why we need some sort of objectivity when discussing morality. Whether you believe in an innate universal morality, as snapshot does, or something a little more robust, like indon has been arguing for. "Do whatever you want" doesn't provide much stimulating discussion, nor does it provide 'good' results.


How do you use objectivity to discuss something fluid and changing? Morality needs context. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow, what was moral yesterday is not always moral today. There is no morality, if by that you mean a universal constant or standard. Morals are constructs to allow us to live together, relatively peacefully as do ethics. If morals or ethics were inherent in humans we would not always find ourselves asking if something is moral or ethical. Our behavior over time would also be more consistent. The only universal constant is self interest. Let that be your starting point.
[/quote]Morality is not something that is fluid and changing. It's not as though slaves thought that being captured and forced to work was a good thing because, "That's how we do things in this time." Such reasoning is able to sweep away any moral judgments at all, making the term morality, again, pointless and merely equivalent to "that which is." If someone murders someone else, one could easily say, "That's what we do here in these times," since that is what one did in these times. It's reductio ad absurdem to say that morals change. People change for the better, but there is a scale because of the unchanging nature of morality. I understand that people comprehend morality to be changing, and as such I'll receive criticism for that, but just because a lot of people (including you) think morality changes does not make it so. Slavery is always wrong. Murder is always wrong. Theft is always wrong.

People can change, and upbringing has a huge impact on the outcome of a human being's psychology. That doesn't mean that human biology has changed much. It means that as we progress as a society, we're better able to cope with our biology and become and raise better people.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:So picking an internal morality based on your whims is altering your whims? I don't think so.
Have you never wanted to be a better person?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:29 pm UTC

Government is voluntary, even though it may be difficult to see it that way. Immigration is a manifestation of that. In addition participation in society is variable. Some people participate fully, some are invisible. As an individual you have a number of choices. You can participate to whatever degree you wish, you can revolt, you can immigrate, you can do whatever you wish. But their ain't no such thing as a free lunch(to quote Robert Heinlein). Everything has it's price.

snapshot182 wrote

It would be just as accurate to say that an intruder in your home has comprised a social contract, and you have the choice of whether to leave and live under it or to stay, and such a contract is valid.


In effect he has and it is, his ability a enforce it, in the short term will be an exercise in relative power, yours vs. his. In the longer term it is an exercise in the relative power of the social construct you live in vs. his.

snapshot182 wrote

Governments claim land by force and defend it by force, as opposed to homesteading or taking unowned land and building upon it for industrial or commercial purposes.


Governments are a construct representing a group. Homesteading is an individual function as is business. In terms of force how do you think resources like land are acquired?

snapshot182 wrote

We do not have a choice in following government either. If we choose not to, we have violence thrust upon us by the reigning government. This is not a free choice. A free choice involves the choice to be left alone, just like virtually every business in existence offers us.


There is no free "choice". There is free will. That is absolute. Effectively what you seem to be saying is that if you don't like the rules you should be free to ignore them. Well your are free to do so as long as you can afford to pay the price.

snapshot182 wrote

Dispute resolution organizations (DROs) are the free market alternative (or one possible alternative) to the problem of government. People would voluntarily choose to join a DRO for their protection, and DROs would work together to keep those people at bay who otherwise pose a risk to society. This can be done in any number of ways. It doesn't really matter how it does it. The important point will always be that it's a non-violent solution to social problems.


For the purposes of my response I assume your are referring to the idea proposed in "The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives" by Stefan Molyneux. I have no desire to refute him, so instead I will ask two questions. How do you get to the initial point? And why do you think that a DRO can accomplish it's goals without the use of force?

snapshot182 wrote

Morality is not something that is fluid and changing. It's not as though slaves thought that being captured and forced to work was a good thing because, "That's how we do things in this time." Such reasoning is able to sweep away any moral judgments at all, making the term morality, again, pointless and merely equivalent to "that which is." If someone murders someone else, one could easily say, "That's what we do here in these times," since that is what one did in these times. It's reductio ad absurdem to say that morals change. People change for the better, but there is a scale because of the unchanging nature of morality. I understand that people comprehend morality to be changing, and as such I'll receive criticism for that, but just because a lot of people (including you) think morality changes does not make it so. Slavery is always wrong. Murder is always wrong. Theft is always wrong.

I would never criticize your beliefs, I just may not agree. We differ perhaps in our starting point. I believe man is amoral by nature. Therefore I believe that Morals and Ethics are nothing more than rules set by society to limit behaviors detrimental to the group. As such they would have to be changeable unless a society was static. All the behaviors you define as intrinsically wrong are behaviors defined only by their context in a group. Because it is the most difficult to argue I'll choose slavery from your three always immoral behaviors. In my world Slaveholders and Slaves come from two different groups, Insiders or members of my social group(Slaveholders) and outsiders(Slaves). The Morality or Immorality of Slave holding derives from two related propositions. One economic and one social. The economic proposition is simple, is slavery the most efficient mechanism to achieve the desired economic goal. The social proposition asks the question, does Slave holding have an adverse effect on the group and are those effects so great as to out weigh the economic benefits. The slaves opinion is irrelevant since he is not a member of my group. A Slaveholder would never have thought of using his neighbors son as a slave because his neighbors son was a member of his group but justified his moral decision by defining the enslaved as not human. What this implies is that for Slavery to be immoral you must accept the slave as an equal. Else wise that cute little Latin phrase applies since the logical extension is that if anything kept against it's will is a slave, then cows are slaves and keeping cows is immoral. When you accept the equal status of the slave relative to yours then the second question is answered in the affirmative. Since if one man can be a slave then any man may be and no man wants to be a slave. By extension this argument also applies to your other examples. The obvious problem then is that of defining an equal. This is why morals have to be fluid because the basis of morality depends on metrics that may change.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:15 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I'm sorry, but you keep calling it "your" morality. I'm not putting forth moral statements and proclaiming them moral. I'm saying YOU be consistent with your moral statements.

And that'd be great if that's what you were actually doing, but your standard for consistency is that of your own moral preferences.

Of course the morals of other people aren't going to be consistent with your own - if you believe violence is never warranted, as you appear to, then of course no moral system in which violence can be conditionally proscribed is going to appear consistent with your beliefs.

But the fact is that most moral systems support conditional violence.

snapshot182 wrote:You didn't answer the question.

Because the question is irrelevant! Moral systems can and do include the initiation of violence consistent with their principles, period (because a frequent moral principle involves enforcement). It only seems inconsistent to you because you're doing it wrong and comparing other people's moral systems with your own.

Vaniver wrote:They aren't. The point of adopting a morality is altering your wants, whims, and actions.

People alter their whims, wants, and actions without a moral system - so a purely internal morality continues to seem entirely conceptually unneccessary. Why would we need a description for a concept that at most means to change your mind?

For that reason, I should say it already has more significance - that of enforcement, external imposition via society. A moral system is a set of behaviors a group can broadly agree on forcing compliance with.

snapshot182 wrote:Dispute resolution organizations (DROs) are the free market alternative (or one possible alternative) to the problem of government.

The free market alternative you describe to government has multiple critical flaws in it.

-Unless newborns have suddenly become market actors, then people still do not choose the DRO authority over a significant portion of their lives - approximately the same portion during which they have no power over their government.
-Since individuals can simply leave for a competing DRO, DROs have no power to resolve ideological differences that can potentially affect communities.
-DROs provide no protection to individuals who can not afford to join them.
-DROs have no conflict resolution powers with members of different DROs.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:47 pm UTC

Indon wrote:People alter their whims, wants, and actions without a moral system - so a purely internal morality continues to seem entirely conceptually unneccessary. Why would we need a description for a concept that at most means to change your mind?

For that reason, I should say it already has more significance - that of enforcement, external imposition via society. A moral system is a set of behaviors a group can broadly agree on forcing compliance with.
What is the value of confusing morality and social norms? Morality is right conduct, and social norms are what society expects from you. To declare that society is the arbiter of right conduct is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

That there are substitutes for morality does not make morality unnecessary.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:17 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Indon wrote:People alter their whims, wants, and actions without a moral system - so a purely internal morality continues to seem entirely conceptually unneccessary. Why would we need a description for a concept that at most means to change your mind?

For that reason, I should say it already has more significance - that of enforcement, external imposition via society. A moral system is a set of behaviors a group can broadly agree on forcing compliance with.
What is the value of confusing morality and social norms? Morality is right conduct, and social norms are what society expects from you. To declare that society is the arbiter of right conduct is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

That there are substitutes for morality does not make morality unnecessary.


Can you name anything that is moral or immoral for one man in absolute isolation?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:58 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Can you name anything that is moral or immoral for one man in absolute isolation?
Under many moralities, yes. For example, someone who considers drunkenness immoral could get drunk in absolute isolation.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:20 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Can you name anything that is moral or immoral for one man in absolute isolation?
Under many moralities, yes. For example, someone who considers drunkenness immoral could get drunk in absolute isolation.


I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I say absolute isolation I mean without any social context.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:53 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:What is the value of confusing morality and social norms? Morality is right conduct, and social norms are what society expects from you. To declare that society is the arbiter of right conduct is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

That there are substitutes for morality does not make morality unnecessary.


Not all social norms are moral. Morals would be the subset of only those social norms in which it is generally agreed individuals can impose on each other, with a few more quirks of course.

One of those quirks being that morals often adapt more slowly than modern social norms have changed (because most moral systems claim to be in some way absolute, which means people rarely change their minds about them), which has generated a strong distinction between the two that societies have often lacked until modern times. For instance, your temperance example - as of a few decades ago, our society decided not to enforce that, but some people still hold temperance as a moral belief nonetheless.

There are other quirks, but that seems to be the core of the system.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:03 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I say absolute isolation I mean without any social context.
And? Drunkenness can still be morally unacceptable if you're on a desert island. Then there's the better example of dietary codes. Does living on a desert island excuse a Muslim eating pork or a vegetarian eating meat? By excuse, I mean they won't have to overcome their guilt, not that overcoming their guilt is necessary for survival.

Indon wrote:Not all social norms are moral. Morals would be the subset of only those social norms in which it is generally agreed individuals can impose on each other, with a few more quirks of course.
Generally agreed? That proviso eradicates any meaning from this sentence.

Indon wrote:One of those quirks being that morals often adapt more slowly than modern social norms have changed (because most moral systems claim to be in some way absolute, which means people rarely change their minds about them), which has generated a strong distinction between the two that societies have often lacked until modern times.
Do morals change more slowly? How do you account for the many reformers who, on the basis of their moral convictions, stood up to social norms and fought them until they changed?

Indon wrote:For instance, your temperance example - as of a few decades ago, our society decided not to enforce that, but some people still hold temperance as a moral belief nonetheless.
Temperance is a fantastic example because it is (mostly) rewarding to individuals that follow it voluntarily but disastrous as a law / forcefully imposed social norm. That's one of the useful results of calling morality an individual choice and separating it from social norms.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Government is voluntary, even though it may be difficult to see it that way. Immigration is a manifestation of that. In addition participation in society is variable. Some people participate fully, some are invisible. As an individual you have a number of choices. You can participate to whatever degree you wish, you can revolt, you can immigrate, you can do whatever you wish. But their ain't no such thing as a free lunch(to quote Robert Heinlein). Everything has it's price.
Government is not voluntary because you can't choose to not be subject to it.

snapshot182 wrote

It would be just as accurate to say that an intruder in your home has comprised a social contract, and you have the choice of whether to leave and live under it or to stay, and such a contract is valid.


In effect he has and it is, his ability a enforce it, in the short term will be an exercise in relative power, yours vs. his. In the longer term it is an exercise in the relative power of the social construct you live in vs. his.
So you're saying that violence can be the arbiter of the validity of a contract.

Governments are a construct representing a group. Homesteading is an individual function as is business. In terms of force how do you think resources like land are acquired?
Homesteading. Building upon them. No ones there, therefore, you can build something on it. Buying it from someone else who owns it. Trading. Inheritance. Etc.
There is no free "choice". There is free will. That is absolute. Effectively what you seem to be saying is that if you don't like the rules you should be free to ignore them. Well your are free to do so as long as you can afford to pay the price.
That's like me saying there's nothing wrong with me threatening you because you have the ability to ignore my threats, so long as you suffer the consequences.
For the purposes of my response I assume your are referring to the idea proposed in "The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives" by Stefan Molyneux. I have no desire to refute him, so instead I will ask two questions. How do you get to the initial point? And why do you think that a DRO can accomplish it's goals without the use of force?
There's no real "getting to an initial point" outside of natural forces. Government will collapse or it will become an absurdity. When government goes away, people will need things, and people will pay in order to get those things. A DRO is just a possibility. It's not a be-all-end-all. The best way I can describe it is: a DRO is a theoretical organization used to shut people up who think there's no way to live without a government. I feel like anarchists who are good at debating know that describing an end result is not the issue, it's not important, and it's not what we're striving for. Imagine yourself as Adam Smith trying to argue for a free market. Do you think you'd be able to come up with ideas like computers, cell phones, the internet, etc., in order to convince people that a market is a good idea? Of course not. I don't have to explain to you why an anarchist society would work except to allay your fears and anxieties in order to help you accept the ideas that are most important. If you think that it could work, you'd put more effort into thinking about why a state is bad, how it does initiate violence and oppress society, and what different solutions there may be absence of a state. The whole point of teaching people about anarchy is that the person you're talking to isn't and doesn't have the solution. You do. If you don't believe in yourself, that's your only stumbling block.

I'm curious why you have no desire to refute Stefan Molyneux. I'm not saying anything that he hasn't said.
I would never criticize your beliefs, I just may not agree. We differ perhaps in our starting point. I believe man is amoral by nature. Therefore I believe that Morals and Ethics are nothing more than rules set by society to limit behaviors detrimental to the group. As such they would have to be changeable unless a society was static. All the behaviors you define as intrinsically wrong are behaviors defined only by their context in a group. Because it is the most difficult to argue I'll choose slavery from your three always immoral behaviors. In my world Slaveholders and Slaves come from two different groups, Insiders or members of my social group(Slaveholders) and outsiders(Slaves). The Morality or Immorality of Slave holding derives from two related propositions. One economic and one social. The economic proposition is simple, is slavery the most efficient mechanism to achieve the desired economic goal. The social proposition asks the question, does Slave holding have an adverse effect on the group and are those effects so great as to out weigh the economic benefits. The slaves opinion is irrelevant since he is not a member of my group. A Slaveholder would never have thought of using his neighbors son as a slave because his neighbors son was a member of his group but justified his moral decision by defining the enslaved as not human. What this implies is that for Slavery to be immoral you must accept the slave as an equal. Else wise that cute little Latin phrase applies since the logical extension is that if anything kept against it's will is a slave, then cows are slaves and keeping cows is immoral. When you accept the equal status of the slave relative to yours then the second question is answered in the affirmative. Since if one man can be a slave then any man may be and no man wants to be a slave. By extension this argument also applies to your other examples. The obvious problem then is that of defining an equal. This is why morals have to be fluid because the basis of morality depends on metrics that may change.
You're leaving out the one, most important, and fundamental rule of morality: someone always comes up with the rule, and someone will almost always choose to break it. As I was envisioning the world per your text, I was noticing that your world did not match up with my world view. I certainly believe that humans are moral. Whether or not it's out of a fear of consequences or empathy, people feel that they either should or shouldn't have done something, or that something was right or wrong. I feel like I know where you're coming from when you say that humans are amoral--since we don't all have internal morality barometers telling us the subjectively or objectively good or bad nature. However, it doesn't change the fact that people still make ought statements, and those ought statements contradict the actions of the speaker. For example, you wouldn't be contradicting yourself if you said that

In terms of slavery, if the slaveholder didn't believe that liberty was moral, then he wouldn't mind being a slave. Why should a slaveholder, after all, not be a slave if they don't have a problem with slavery? Because they are dominant. They can't say that slavery is moral or a sign of the times. If they do, they are just being hypocritical. They have no ability to make moral statements. Therefore, they have no ability to say, "There should be a government," or "You should go to your room," without being hypocritical.

Also, I think you're leaving out a very important factor that people want to be good.

Indon wrote:And that'd be great if that's what you were actually doing, but your standard for consistency is that of your own moral preferences.

Of course the morals of other people aren't going to be consistent with your own - if you believe violence is never warranted, as you appear to, then of course no moral system in which violence can be conditionally proscribed is going to appear consistent with your beliefs.

But the fact is that most moral systems support conditional violence.
I believe that the initiation of violence is never warranted, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument against the initiation of violence can be applied consistently and universally.

You're consistently mistaking my position on morality. I'm not saying, "It's wrong because I say so." I'm saying, "[This] moral argument cannot be applied consistently and universally." Again, I'm not saying that something is wrong because it it's wrong. I'm saying that people put forth moral arguments, and those moral arguments have to be consistent with reasoning and universally applicable, otherwise, they are invalid moral arguments. I've given you example of consistent moral reasoning, and I've explained to you why examples you've put forth are either valid or invalid based on this methodology that I'm using. If you're going to criticize anything, criticize the methodology. The methodology is that if you're going to make moral statements/arguments, they must be consistent with reason and action and able to be applied universally, otherwise, the statements make no sense and carry no weight (except for, perhaps, emotional manipulation).

Because the question is irrelevant! Moral systems can and do include the initiation of violence consistent with their principles, period (because a frequent moral principle involves enforcement). It only seems inconsistent to you because you're doing it wrong and comparing other people's moral systems with your own.
For one thing, you can't have a consistent moral principle that one ought initiate violence or that it can be a good thing. That's the whole point. To say that one can initiate violence on a whim is inconsistent with the idea that there is such a thing as moral reasoning. If people can choose when and when not to initiate violence and be morally consistent, then there can be no rule which states that defense against the initiation of violence is valid. Otherwise, anyone who defends themselves would be morally culpable. It makes no sense. You also can't apply it universally. Everyone can't be initiating violence all the time, and even if they tried, only one person can initiate at a time. There's probably many more reasons why the idea that people can initiate violence whenever they feel like it (since there's no other objective measure to judge when people should initiate violence), but the idea is so absurd on the face of it that I don't feel like expounding on every one.

People alter their whims, wants, and actions without a moral system - so a purely internal morality continues to seem entirely conceptually unneccessary. Why would we need a description for a concept that at most means to change your mind?

For that reason, I should say it already has more significance - that of enforcement, external imposition via society. A moral system is a set of behaviors a group can broadly agree on forcing compliance with.
And such a moral system is not based on reason. So there's no reason that government should exist.

The free market alternative you describe to government has multiple critical flaws in it.

-Unless newborns have suddenly become market actors, then people still do not choose the DRO authority over a significant portion of their lives - approximately the same portion during which they have no power over their government.
-Since individuals can simply leave for a competing DRO, DROs have no power to resolve ideological differences that can potentially affect communities.
-DROs provide no protection to individuals who can not afford to join them.
-DROs have no conflict resolution powers with members of different DROs.
You'll have a million questions because I'll have a million answers, and it won't matter because you don't even want to find solutions to the problems you brought up in the first place. All I can tell you is, every conceivable problem you've thought up has already been thought of by the people who came up with the idea. The question is whether you actually care about a solution. I know you don't, so it doesn't matter. I would love to answer the questions and concerns of people who are actually interested in DROs. If you can come up with the easy solutions to the problems you posed, I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions that might come up. However, I'll repeat, anything I tell you doesn't matter because that's not necessarily how it would work in a free society. It's a theoretical solution that's likely going to be vastly different from anything we come up with because that's how the market works. The market changes to meet the needs of the people.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I believe that the initiation of violence is never warranted, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument against the initiation of violence can be applied consistently and universally.

And that'd be great if that's what you were doing, but in practice your 'consistent and universal' equates to 'agrees with me', and in theory it's just horrible. No doubt you agree with a moral system with conditions, as you can't make one function without it, but when these conditions are applied to things you don't like, you don't like conditions anymore.

snapshot182 wrote:For one thing, you can't have a consistent moral principle that one ought initiate violence or that it can be a good thing. That's the whole point.

Yes, you can. You're trying to criticize violence under the ludiculous premise that moral systems can't proscribe different behavior based on the circumstance, and that's an incredibly bad argument.

snapshot182 wrote:And such a moral system is not based on reason. So there's no reason that government should exist.

Yes, there is - because such a government still provides utility to its' members. You just don't like it.

snapshot182 wrote:All I can tell you is, every conceivable problem you've thought up has already been thought of by the people who came up with the idea.

And presumably, like you just did, summarily ignored by them. If you had solutions, you could give them, and I would be forced by the standards of the forum to accept them.

But you don't, so you can't, so I won't.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:24 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I say absolute isolation I mean without any social context.
And? Drunkenness can still be morally unacceptable if you're on a desert island. Then there's the better example of dietary codes. Does living on a desert island excuse a Muslim eating pork or a vegetarian eating meat? By excuse, I mean they won't have to overcome their guilt, not that overcoming their guilt is necessary for survival.


I'll try this again. Can you make a moral judgment without context from the society that you live in? When I argue that Morals and Ethics are constructs of society it's not that I believe that an individual doesn't have his own interpretation but that those interpretations must, by their nature, be derived from the construct offered by society. Developing a moral point of view serves the purpose of giving us a framework to use to govern our behavior. For instance your reply to my poorly worded question pointed out correctly the even in total physical isolation that if you had a moral objection to drunkenness you would not lose that objection in isolation. However you could only have that moral position if you had been exposed to alcohol in the context of your society. The variations in moral positions that run contrary to the mores of society can be explained by other mechanisms. Among them, time lag, the physical response of empathy, variations in intelligence, changes of the social construct the occur through the addition of outsiders from immigration and changes in technology.

Salamander21
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:38 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Salamander21 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:35 am UTC

I believe that the initiation of violence is never warranted, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument against the initiation of violence can be applied consistently and universally.

Yes, you can. You're trying to criticize violence under the ludiculous premise that moral systems can't proscribe different behavior based on the circumstance, and that's an incredibly bad argument.

What's so ludicrous about that argument?
Morality is not relative, but absolute.
There is no such thing as a moral code that can change depending on the situation.
A moral code exists for some purpose, and because any purpose is an absolute, a constant (e.g. freedom, equality, etc.), the moral code that is designed to achieve that purpose must also be constant (Physical analog: an arrow fired at a target. If the target does not move, then the arrow must continue to fly straight.)
So what you are talking about and calling morality is actually some arbitrary set of rules that can be changed at any time by the practitioner. That is something, but don't call it a moral system.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:46 am UTC

Salamander21 wrote:
I believe that the initiation of violence is never warranted, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument against the initiation of violence can be applied consistently and universally.

Yes, you can. You're trying to criticize violence under the ludiculous premise that moral systems can't proscribe different behavior based on the circumstance, and that's an incredibly bad argument.

What's so ludicrous about that argument?
Morality is not relative, but absolute.
There is no such thing as a moral code that can change depending on the situation.
A moral code exists for some purpose, and because any purpose is an absolute, a constant (e.g. freedom, equality, etc.), the moral code that is designed to achieve that purpose must also be constant (Physical analog: an arrow fired at a target. If the target does not move, then the arrow must continue to fly straight.)
So what you are talking about and calling morality is actually some arbitrary set of rules that can be changed at any time by the practitioner. That is something, but don't call it a moral system.


Geez, I haven't had this much fun in years. Thanks to all.

A-- A moral code exists for some purpose

B-- and because any purpose is an absolute, a constant (e.g. freedom, equality, etc.)

C-- the moral code that is designed to achieve that purpose must also be constant

A implies B implies C

B fails because it assumes that the purpose is simple and constant. Moral codes are complex constructs designed to give an individual a method to deal with complex problems. If protecting your family stands at the Pantheon of your moral code and respect for life falls below it, what would you do if saving your family meant killing someone only because of a lack of resources. Morals give us a way to make decisions like this when confronted with these dilemmas. Another example of a complex purpose is my reaction if their is a fire in my home. Given that I may not have the personal resources to do all that I need to do, than how do I prioritize my my actions to achieve the goals I consider most important and what should those goals be. Morals in this respect have little to do with right or wrong. Another way to say this is to state that we have as good of morals as we can afford at any given minute.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:40 pm UTC

Salamander21 wrote:What's so ludicrous about that argument?

Well, let's take 'don't kill things' as a sample morality. You're killing invading microbes right now and thus breaking it. Good job, you're a mass murderer.

Oh, what, you want to change your morality to "don't kill things except invading microbes"? Nope! You want an absolute morality, not a conditional one. Because if you make an exception for microbes your morals become meaningless.

That's what's ludicrous about that argument.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:48 pm UTC

Indon wrote:Well, let's take 'don't kill things' as a sample morality. You're killing invading microbes right now and thus breaking it. Good job, you're a mass murderer.

Oh, what, you want to change your morality to "don't kill things except invading microbes"? Nope! You want an absolute morality, not a conditional one. Because if you make an exception for microbes your morals become meaningless.

That's what's ludicrous about that argument.
Is there a way to have qualifiers be meaningfully different from conditions? For example, imagine the morality was "don't kill sapient beings which haven't attacked you." There are significant qualifiers which could be wrapped up into the definition of "people," but it's not a "don't kill sapient beings who haven't attacked you unless it would make your life so much better," or "don't kill sapient beings who haven't attacked you unless it's a Tuesday."

Look at this, though:
Salamander21 wrote:There is no such thing as a moral code that can change depending on the situation.
A moral code will most likely contain more than one suggestion. Is it possible to have a morality where which suggestion is relevant changes based on the situation? Is that meaningfully different from the moral code changing depending on the situation?

Especially if you have incremental ethics (I should value gains to my family at 80% of gains to me, gains to guests at 50% of gains to me, and gains to strangers at 20% of gains to me, etc.) instead of categorical ethics (a guest should be given whatever they need), which suggestion dominates depends on the situation. No one really thinks hospitality should be infinite- guests can overstay their welcome. But how can you tell whether or not a guest has overstayed their welcome without knowing the situation?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:21 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Is there a way to have qualifiers be meaningfully different from conditions? For example, imagine the morality was "don't kill sapient beings which haven't attacked you."

You mean "Don't kill sapient beings unless they attack you."

A moral system can not function on even the most basic level without conditional statements. Reterming that conditional logic to make the conditions less obvious do not make them stop being conditions.

Now, certainly, not all theoretical conditions are well-considered conditions. But it's hard to change moral systems for a reason, and that reason is that a whole lot of people need to agree with you before it starts to change. I think we can be fairly certain that the majority of people in our culture will catch most of the problematic proposals (and I should say history reflects this).

To draw an analogy - you write a computer program. Any computer program more sophisticated than "Hello world" features conditionals that change how the program behaves depending on the conditions. Is the program itself changing? No. The program can be changed, but does not need to be changed in order to function.

In this context "Use force IIF force is defined as legal" is logically equivalent to "Use force IIF target attacks you", except that the first is more sophisticated and powerful. I'm fairly certain you understand this, Vaniver, the person I'm trying to convey this to is Snapshot, who does not seem to understand that his morality is just as conditional as everyone else's.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:39 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I believe that the initiation of violence is never warranted, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument against the initiation of violence can be applied consistently and universally.

And that'd be great if that's what you were doing, but in practice your 'consistent and universal' equates to 'agrees with me', and in theory it's just horrible. No doubt you agree with a moral system with conditions, as you can't make one function without it, but when these conditions are applied to things you don't like, you don't like conditions anymore.
I agree that I'm putting forth a system of morality that I certainly think is better, since I think using logic and empiricism is more objective than basing a moral system off utility. So in that sense, yes, I like the fact that the moral system I'm promoting is more objective. Again, I don't get to choose what's objective. I don't get to choose what's objective or logical, and neither do you. That's why it's better. You can disagree that it's better, but you're disagreeing in favor of a utilitarian moral system which is necessarily subjective.

snapshot182 wrote:For one thing, you can't have a consistent moral principle that one ought initiate violence or that it can be a good thing. That's the whole point.

Yes, you can. You're trying to criticize violence under the ludiculous premise that moral systems can't proscribe different behavior based on the circumstance, and that's an incredibly bad argument.
I certainly believe that moral systems (or people operating under different moral premises) can prescribe violence and call it moral. Their moral systems, however, are inconsistent with their own behavior, they are illogical, etc. This is completely out of my control. If people want to put forth a good moral theory, they ought to do better than put forth subjective theories and act as though they are in any way objective.

snapshot182 wrote:And such a moral system is not based on reason. So there's no reason that government should exist.

Yes, there is - because such a government still provides utility to its' members. You just don't like it.
My not liking government is equally valid as anyone else's desires, absent of an objective morality. The only distinguishing factor is that I'm not willing to force people to accept my system with violence. You, apparently, have no problem with that.

snapshot182 wrote:All I can tell you is, every conceivable problem you've thought up has already been thought of by the people who came up with the idea.

And presumably, like you just did, summarily ignored by them. If you had solutions, you could give them, and I would be forced by the standards of the forum to accept them.
I'll answer one. Just keep in mind, the problem you will face when seeing a solution is that you will come up with another problem and then stop there, as opposed to being curious as to how to solve the problem that you thought up. That is why it doesn't matter if I give you a solution. You will only ever give 50% if you don't believe in the virtue of applying the non-aggression principle universally and trying to limit overall societal violence.


-DROs provide no protection to individuals who can not afford to join them.
Considering the fact that money actually gains value in a society with a lack of a central bank (the dollar has lost 80-90% of its value since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913), and the fact that government leeches off people as much as it possibly can (the income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax to pay for WW1), goods and services would be much cheaper. You wouldn't realize this unless you have studied free market economics, which isn't taught in schools, nor is the public debt, nor is the decline of the value of the dollar, nor is the fact that education is paid for through the use of violence via forced taxation.

In a free society, because there would be no monopoly on the use of force to pay for things like education, roads, protection, etc., prices would come down while the value of money went up. And since there would be no central bank forcing control over the money supply, even if there was a kind of economic downturn, it wouldn't occur for the entire nation of those in anarchy. Given these circumstances, the cost of affording a DRO would be a non-issue. Even still, if cost was an issue for some, there would be charities, there would be basic DRO services given to those who simply need protection from others in society at extremely low cost--for precisely the reason that you brought up said problem (and you will not be the first, last, or only person to have thought of some obvious problems), because people care. If people didn't care, or if you didn't care, then your concern is not a valid concern at all. If you care, you'd do something about it. You'd promote uninsured-person costs on your insurance bill. You'd give to charity. You'd sponsor someone. You'd start up a non-profit or a charity that banks on getting people jobs or finding DRO insurance. I'm just coming up with these off the top of my head. As the problems get more complicated, the more thought would go into solving these problems. But if you don't care (i.e. if you're just coming up with excuses not to be a more generous, loving, and caring person) then I'm not going to put in the effort of answering your other concerns.

None of this matters to you though because you don't think it can be done in the first place. You think the problem lies with other people, which is the biggest fallacy that you can make when attempting to criticize a free society, and here's why: even society was anarchic, and you still believed that violence should be used in order to solve social problems, you would be the one who is cast out, not the rest of society. Until you make the change and realize that non-violent solutions to social problems are the only solutions that work, and the forcing of people to submit to a violent government, lest they be imprisoned or shot, is not a solution to anything. You don't solve the problem of violence in society by promoting your brand of violence, be it democracy, dictatorship, or vigilante justice. You don't solve the problem of poverty by creating an institution that has the legal right to steal from people. You don't solve the problem of hunger by subsidizing farmers, encouraging them not to grow. You don't solve the problem of people not having protection by claiming a territory and threatening all people who live in that territory to submit to the rules lest they be imprisoned or shot. That's not protecting people. That's threatening people. There is an empirically verifiable difference that's blatant to those who realize that anarchy is the only solution consistent with the goals we've had our whole lives.

If you want to help people, you help them. Achieving anarchy is about you. Not other people. It's about you living in freedom. And if there's one inalienable freedom that people can achieve, it's freedom from illusion. If you think that initiating violence against people with government is setting them free, that is the biggest illusion that you have to deal with. Once you deal with that, you'll be ready to start accepting non-violent solutions to a statist society. As of now, I don't know if you're ready. I'd like to see you try to come up with some solutions of your own. Though my attitude toward you is likely preventing you from wanting to do so.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:31 am UTC

I have come to hate the word freedom, because it's meaning is ambiguous.

Here is the definition from Marion Webster Online

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
Spoiler:
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege
synonyms freedom, liberty, license mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. freedom has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated <freedom of the press>. liberty suggests release from former restraint or compulsion <the released prisoner had difficulty adjusting to his new liberty>. license implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom <freedom without responsibility may degenerate into license>.

As you can see it has multiple meanings. And arguably it means nothing. The only thing that I know that is truly free, is a decision the moment before I announce it. To act on it even by saying it out loud requires a price. It may be a obligation that you take on, it may be the sprained ankle you get when you turn left, or it may be something you don't even know that happened. Some one who removes himself from society can be considered the most free, in the sense that the only coercion he is likely to face is natural and unorganized. That still implies a price and that is the price of being absolutely dependent on himself without recourse. People in the westward expansion had this type of freedom and many of them died exercising it. I on the other hand believe in flush toilets, electric lights , gas heating and all the other benefits that the government in place has made it possible for me to have without the need to be absolutely dependent on my self. I don't find the price to high and if I find a better deal I can leave.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:30 am UTC

Snapshot, I don't really understand how DROs would be different from states. You are right now already free to leave your country, if you can find another.

The problem at the moment is that other countries don't let everyone in, and that they are not actually that different anyway. Why would DROs act different?

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:13 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:Just keep in mind, the problem you will face when seeing a solution is that you will come up with another problem and then stop there, as opposed to being curious as to how to solve the problem that you thought up.
Okay. How about instead of pointing out all the practical problems in your argument, I'll stick with the factual ones.

snapshot182 wrote:Considering the fact that money actually gains value in a society with a lack of a central bank (the dollar has lost 80-90% of its value since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913),

Anecdote is not data.

snapshot182 wrote:and the fact that government leeches off people as much as it possibly can (the income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax to pay for WW1),

Please don't make things up and try to pass it off as reality, like you are here. Here you're making a broad and very strong claim, with a single fact as supporting evidence that doesn't even support your claim directly.

snapshot182 wrote:goods and services would be much cheaper.

Not remotely supported by your argument. Also, not remotely supported by economics - inflation does not make things more expensive in value terms, it only adjusts the quantity of currency used as a medium. The act of inflation is a one-time cost on cash money only.

snapshot182 wrote:You wouldn't realize this unless you have studied free market economics, which isn't taught in schools,

I learned free market economics in my economics class in public school - enough to know you were wrong earlier and call you on that. In case you didn't notice, you're wrong again, btw.

snapshot182 wrote:nor is the public debt, nor is the decline of the value of the dollar, nor is the fact that education is paid for through the use of violence via forced taxation.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And you're trying to pass off your ridiculous anti-government beliefs as factual reality. Of course it's common knowledge that taxes pay for education, it's public education! And of course taxes are forced, that's what taxation is! You're just sour that public schools don't convey information to students in blatantly anti-government ways.

snapshot182 wrote:In a free society, because there would be no monopoly on the use of force to pay for things like education, roads, protection, etc., prices would come down while the value of money went up.

Not supported. Stop making things up.

snapshot182 wrote:And since there would be no central bank forcing control over the money supply, even if there was a kind of economic downturn, it wouldn't occur for the entire nation of those in anarchy.

Extremely unsupported. Nations in anarchy don't have downturns? That's even wrong by the most moronic of economic schools, as the bull-bear cycle is a free market phenomenon that has nothing to do with government - government intervention can smooth or aggrivate the cycle, but the cycle's existence is indisputable, and its' pervasiveness would be dictated by the strength of the interrelation between the individuals involved... and stronger economies are more interrelated.

snapshot182 wrote:Given these circumstances, the cost of affording a DRO would be a non-issue.

Here your implied claim is that in a place without a government, everyone has lots of money and there are no poor. You have no evidence of this claim. All available data says that you are wrong. You are making things up - again.

snapshot182 wrote:Even still, if cost was an issue for some, there would be charities,

So instead of feeding the hungry, our charity dollars get to go to ensuring people won't just randomly get murdered with no chance of justice? That's peachy, until you realize that charities don't generally cover 100% of their needs, so you'll still have the justiceless murders, just less of them - maybe. Government police protection actually has the capability of consistent, total coverage, unlike unreliable charity.

Your solution simply does not address the problem given.

snapshot182 wrote:there would be basic DRO services given to those who simply need protection from others in society at extremely low cost--

Why? What you describe here is the equivalent of medicare - coverage given to those most at-risk. How would that coverage be in any way 'at extremely low cost'? Like medical insurance, it's a smart business idea to refuse to offer high-risk coverage at low cost. Your free market under no circumstances will behave as you describe. You are again wrong.

snapshot182 wrote:for precisely the reason that you brought up said problem (and you will not be the first, last, or only person to have thought of some obvious problems), because people care.

Here, you come again to the charity point, before you go ranting on about how I'm intellectually inferior. I'll not reiterate the factual flaws with the charity point, nor will I bother to break down that ridiculous rant.

Your 'answer' was basically 100% absolutely wrong, not even wrong, and/or general poor argumentation. Feel free to try again. Also, please address my point regarding moral systems.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:22 am UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:Just keep in mind, the problem you will face when seeing a solution is that you will come up with another problem and then stop there, as opposed to being curious as to how to solve the problem that you thought up.
Okay. How about instead of pointing out all the practical problems in your argument, I'll stick with the factual ones.

Anecdote is not data.

Please don't make things up and try to pass it off as reality, like you are here. Here you're making a broad and very strong claim, with a single fact as supporting evidence that doesn't even support your claim directly.
What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "moving the goal posts." Do you want solutions, or do you not? Like I said (as obviously predicted, because statist answers are always obvious in that) you don't want solutions.

If people like you want do not want to solve problems, you will not. That is factual, as evidenced by you. I am not putting anything forth that is counter factual. Please, prove my claim wrong. My claim is that people who believe in their assertions will back up their assertions. If people like you care about the poor, you will take care of the poor. If you do not want to take care of the poor on your own, you will not, nor will you accept my solutions in which you may be a part of taking care of the poor. That is a fact. Now, if you're saying that I'm wrong, you're claiming that you're a liar, and that the only reason that you brought up the poor was to try to back me into a corner. Not only are you being disingenuous about your care of the poor, you are also back tracking about want a solution in the first place.

My only concern is convincing people that freedom is a good thing, which is a freakishly weird thing having to try to convince people that they would be better off if they tried to take care of themselves and others without relying on the violence of others. I'm done with you right now. I'll talk to anyone else that has concerns. A conversation we no longer have, and, like I said, you won't accept arguments solutions as possibilities if you aren't personally willing to pursue them. It's not a matter of logic. The logic is sound that the government is an institution of violence. There is an emotional block that is stopping you from accepting its immoral nature. I've done all I can.
Zamfir wrote:Snapshot, I don't really understand how DROs would be different from states. You are right now already free to leave your country, if you can find another.

The problem at the moment is that other countries don't let everyone in, and that they are not actually that different anyway. Why would DROs act different?
DROs would act different because those that did not give the people want they wanted would go out of business. A government only needs to please the people to the point that it will not revolt or the populace will vote in one person over another. Otherwise, a government has all the money that it can get, and more, especially when you bring central banking in. Once a government has control of a currency and forces you to use it (i.e. any transaction that occurs within a states borders is subject to taxation, to be paid in that currency, whether or not the currency was actually used in the trade).

DROs don't own property but that upon which they were built. All a DRO is, really, is an association of people with an incentive to live safely and cheaply. If you don't like your association, nothing is required of you. If you don't like your country, you have to leave. That is a major difference. You can't just stop paying your taxes. You have to pay taxes to the tax farm in which you live. If you don't, you go to jail. Either way, the government is making a claim of ownership upon you and/or your land. A DRO would actually respect the rights of others and not just give it lip service. And if it didn't, it wouldn't have the ability to force enough people to pay so that it would become a state--since a burgeoning state would be a concern in an anarchic society and entrepreneurs would cater to that fear/desire.

If you have a fear about a DRO becoming a state, there is an entrepreneur out there who will be able to cater to that fear. He will say that he'll have 3rd party auditors or pay a fine to the customers for getting caught in an audit--anything to make you want to be his customer. There's no telling what people will come up with, just like there's no telling what free market economics could have brought us in Adam's Smith's time. It's the principle of the fact that free people allocate resources more efficiently than anything that is centrally planned. The results are unknown but the principle remains the same regardless.
Last edited by snapshot182 on Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Alx_xlA
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:22 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Alx_xlA » Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:00 am UTC

snapshot182 wrote:Considering the fact that money actually gains value in a society with a lack of a central bank (the dollar has lost 80-90% of its value since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913)

Yes, that certainly had nothing to do with the elimination of the gold standard, or ordinary inflation.
My signature contains forty-four characters.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:49 am UTC

Alx_xlA wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:Considering the fact that money actually gains value in a society with a lack of a central bank (the dollar has lost 80-90% of its value since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913)

Yes, that certainly had nothing to do with the elimination of the gold standard, or ordinary inflation.

Money should not consistently lose value, just gold does not consistently lose value. Inflation is a hidden tax that occurs when the government injects money into the economy after creating it out of thin air. The money is just as valuable as it was right before it was created, but as it cycles through the economy, it dilutes the currency. Since the government can create money out of nothing, and then pass off its debt to future generations (taxation without representation), it can spend money that it doesn't have while simultaneously continuing in the devaluation of the currency.

I'm not sure what your point is concerning the gold standard, though. The government takeover of currency was much worse than getting off the gold standard.

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby WaterToFire » Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:52 am UTC

Inflation is a natural process that will always occur to some degree. Because people who work at jobs long enough expect raises, more and more money will be given out in paychecks. Because there is more money in the system, prices will rise to compensate. As long as people expect raises there will be inflation, and government has nothing to do with it.

User avatar
Patashu
Answerful Bignitude
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:54 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Patashu » Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:21 am UTC

If there is no governing body that holds a monopoly on the use of force and thus the ability to stop others from using it, then those in an anarchic system with the most force will control those who lack it. You'll end up back in a monarchy soon enough.

Inevitably some body needs to control the use of force, or someone who has no inclinations against using it for their personal gain/the gain of their particular group will do it for you, and it won't be pretty.

Also, wouldn't your ability to join a DRO be limited by spatial constraints? Say that you're in a certain part of the Earth where almost everybody has decided to join a certain DRO for hundreds of miles around but you want to join a different DRO instead. Are they really going to want to support you, given the extensive costs of providing infrastructure and services to just one person hundreds of miles away? It'll either be prohibitively costly or outright refused, so you don't escape the problem states have, where it costs money to change states.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests