How do libertarians balance property rights against privacy rights?
But I believe that in fact, the naked use and threat of violence is in fact what is actually going on. In other words, I believe the direct use of violence is in fact enough to qualify, to stretch the phrase, as "it in of itself". I understand what you are getting at, but believe me, history has shown that the point you are getting at is moot under attack. Ruling elites, regardless of ideology, don't have to follow their own rules, and they don't. Think about it, it is all about power relationships.
Sure everyone gets to try to use violence to further their means, if they wish. It all depends on the power relationships that exist how useful that attempt will be. An organized and determined prison population can attempt to use violence to achieve freedom. They may or may not succeed, and that may or may not be the best tactic at their disposal.
Once again, good point. To clarify, effective use of violence, and the threat of violence. Of course the "ordinariness" of the use and threats helps, such is the benefits of perceived and manufactured legitimacy. I am in no way discounting the efficacy and usefulness of these techniques.
But I believe that in fact, the naked use and threat of violence is in fact what is actually going on. In other words, I believe the direct use of violence is in fact enough to qualify, to stretch the phrase, as "it in of itself". I understand what you are getting at, but believe me, history has shown that the point you are getting at is moot under attack. Ruling elites, regardless of ideology, don't have to follow their own rules, and they don't. Think about it, it is all about power relationships.
Sure everyone gets to try to use violence to further their means, if they wish. It all depends on the power relationships that exist how useful that attempt will be. An organized and determined prison population can attempt to use violence to achieve freedom. They may or may not succeed, and that may or may not be the best tactic at their disposal.
But I believe that in fact, the naked use and threat of violence is in fact what is actually going on. In other words, I believe the direct use of violence is in fact enough to qualify, to stretch the phrase, as "it in of itself". I understand what you are getting at, but believe me, history has shown that the point you are getting at is moot under attack. Ruling elites, regardless of ideology, don't have to follow their own rules, and they don't. Think about it, it is all about power relationships.
Sure everyone gets to try to use violence to further their means, if they wish. It all depends on the power relationships that exist how useful that attempt will be. An organized and determined prison population can attempt to use violence to achieve freedom. They may or may not succeed, and that may or may not be the best tactic at their disposal.
It obviously isn't simply "violence," as violence is a phenomenon that spreads across all classes. So tell me, what is it exactly that makes one part of this special class of elites?
So there must be some other distinguishing feature that differentiates the "ruling elite" with "everyone else." [...] So tell me, what is it exactly that makes one part of this special class of elites?
But I think we can agree that right now IRL that most of the 6-bil on earth are embedded in extremely hierarchical and coercive social environments and that power relationships vary extremely. Excluding literal slaves, all the way almost complete dependence and helplessness to greater power, to the power to use and abuse thousands (or more) without consequence.
And dude, if ACists don't have a problem with how power is distributed IRL, what are they blogging about?
Right. So you see, using "violence" as an answer isn't particularly illuminating, here, is it?
Before you talk about the distribution of power, you must first not only clarify what exactly you mean when you speak of "power," but also what you are arguing as the primary mechanism responsible for the current distribution of "power."
I think you are constructing a straw man here about the "ACist" position, tbh.
I believe an ACist would argue that this so called "status quo power distribution" is largely the result of the institution and apparatus of "the state." In the hypothetical "stateless social order" this apparatus, by definition does not exist. The "distribution of power" would clearly be different as a result.
(For clarification, I think the best definition of "the state" is an entity (1) possessing enough force to deter a coalition of equal or greater force being formed in civil society, and (2) using its force to dispossess actors in civil society of such force as they may still hold and punishing them for using it.)
And once again a good point. I am really thinking about the distribution of power, as it would be really hard, and really meaningless, to try to define a "white line" in today's world. But I think you just mentioned "classes", so I'll agree with what you brought up here as my general idea.
But I think we can agree that right now IRL that most of the 6-bil on earth are embedded in extremely hierarchical and coercive social environments and that power relationships vary extremely. Excluding literal slaves, all the way almost complete dependence and helplessness to greater power, to the power to use and abuse thousands (or more) without consequence.
And dude, if ACists don't have a problem with how power is distributed IRL, what are they blogging about?
And dude, if ACists don't have a problem with how power is distributed IRL, what are they blogging about?
I believe an ACist would argue that this so called "status quo power distribution" is largely the result of the institution and apparatus of "the state." In the hypothetical "stateless social order" this apparatus, by definition does not exist. The "distribution of power" would clearly be different as a result.
(For clarification, I think the best definition of "the state" is an entity (1) possessing enough force to deter a coalition of equal or greater force being formed in civil society, and (2) using its force to dispossess actors in civil society of such force as they may still hold and punishing them for using it.)
Treating power as a primitive concept for now, surely ACists concede that it would be distributed unequally in ACland, ie it would vary across individuals?
I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
The money that occurs first in any society, whether it flexes its "violence" or not, will operate in a way to limit any other entity(s) from acquiring an equal position. Does anyone really believe just because of this ACism of voluntary acts, there will not be aggressive, even punishing acts committed.
The first pioneers of kumbaya would be the ones plotting to take away the others stuff.
The first pioneers of kumbaya would be the ones plotting to take away the others stuff.
Treating power as a primitive concept for now, surely ACists concede that it would be distributed unequally in ACland, ie it would vary across individuals?
I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
Would you rather be completely broke in a total free market in the year 2211 or the richest man alive in a total free market in 2011?
They tend to believe egalitarianism is a fool's errand, and the pursuit of such an outcome leads to far more bad than good.
I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
I'm a fan of the montius missiledog back and forth hope that hasn't stalled.
Like I said, I am not discounting the efficacy and efficiency to a ruling class to appropriate and manufacturing legitimacy. But the bottom line is the bottom line, and that always reduced to naked violence.
Before you talk about the distribution of power, you must first not only clarify what exactly you mean when you speak of "power," but also what you are arguing as the primary mechanism responsible for the current distribution of "power."[...]
In the story The Most Dangerous Game the well armed villain owns an island called Ship-Trap Island which happens to serve up a steady stream of marooned sailors. The villain then negotiates with these unfortunate sailors, offering them the chance of prize money and transportation off of island if they let themselves be hunted as game. The sailors always have the option of swimming for the mainland, an almost impossible feat.
The villain and a sailor have a power relationship with each other. That power relationship will define how their negotiations proceed and what agreements, contracts, they arrive at. See what I am getting at here?
In fact, in LiberLand if the villain own the water rights surrounding Ship-Trap water he can booby-trap the waters to induce even more marooned sailors, as long as he commits no fraud. And even these sailors when they contract to be hunted as game are acting "voluntarily" under the twisted Libertarian (&etc) use of that word. Am I making any sense here?
I think you are constructing a straw man here about the "ACist" position, tbh.[...]
The second, unrelated, paragraph was simply pointing out that ACists obviously don't care for how power is distributed now, that's why they are imagining calling for imagined change. I think both these statements are pretty elementary by themselves. I didn't mean to tie them together.
I believe an ACist would argue that this so called "status quo power distribution" is largely the result of the institution and apparatus of "the state."
And likewise in a Capitalistic society, like we live in in the US, Japan, EU, there are two loci of power, the government and the various powerful private industrial groupings. And likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.
See the pattern here, it is just not the use of governments by the powers that be, it is the use of the public/private shell game to manufacture legitimacy. Fixating on only one of the shells in this shell game misses the point.
The "distribution of power" would clearly be different as a result.[...]
(For clarification, I think the best definition of "the state" is an entity, or group of entities (1) possessing enough force to deter a coalition of equal or greater force being formed in civil society, and (2) using its force to dispossess actors in civil society of such force as they may still hold and punishing them for using it.)
And getting back to Libertarianism (&etc) and privacy, I think I can settle some of the discussion in this regard...
Let us imagine that Libertarianism (&etc) was repressed by their arch evil twins on the best seller list wars... the Scientologists, and then interned. The internment is benign but strict: Libertarians are only allowed personal belongings as need bought from the commissary, and they may only spend credits they earned personally in prison. It being a prison, the Libertarians have no right of privacy from the guards, and the guards have a policy of confiscating all hoards and punishing the hoarders.
The point is the Scientologists have made it impossible for the Libertarians to practice private property rights among each other. Because of the prison rules, it is impossible for any Libertarian to have a property based relationship with any other Libertarian. So if the rights of privacy are dependent and contingent on the practice of private property, and the practice of private property is suppressed... well there goes any rights of privacy.
The Libertarians in this prison would have no reason to afford each other any mutual rights of privacy, because they cannot practice private property with each other. The rest of us believe in some kinds of rights of privacy, rights of basic human dignity, which exist outside and independently of the "right to charge rent and violently evict people".
FWIW I do not subscribe to Marx's notions of "exploitation."
I don't think people in Iran pay their landlord because they believe in the Islamic Revolution, even though they might say that. I think they are afraid of being violently evicted or worse. They are afraid of violence is what is really going on, IMO, YMMV. I believe the same thing is what is going on in North Korea, people pay their rent because they are threatened with violence, not because they love the great leader. And I know that in the US people pay the landlord not be evicted, not because we have been trained and told our whole lives that Capitalism is the root of all good in the world. I believe it is fear of violence that keeps the system exploiting along, not the fact that most people who say they love Capitalism are so brainwashed that they have no idea what the word "capital" even means.
Your gripe seems to be with the idea of rent, or interest. This is, I believe, your fundamental argument with "ACists." You believe the source of the unequal "distribution of power" primarily arises out of rent or interest, no?
Like I said, I am not discounting the efficacy and efficiency to a ruling class to appropriate and manufacturing legitimacy. But the bottom line is the bottom line, and that always reduced to naked violence.
As I have blogged here before, I think the whole "exact definition" of this or that word can distract from discussing the underlying ideas. So let me give an example.
In the story The Most Dangerous Game the well armed villain owns an island called Ship-Trap Island which happens to serve up a steady stream of marooned sailors. The villain then negotiates with these unfortunate sailors, offering them the chance of prize money and transportation off of island if they let themselves be hunted as game. The sailors always have the option of swimming for the mainland, an almost impossible feat.
The villain and a sailor have a power relationship with each other. That power relationship will define how their negotiations proceed and what agreements, contracts, they arrive at. See what I am getting at here?
In fact, in LiberLand if the villain own the water rights surrounding Ship-Trap water he can booby-trap the waters to induce even more marooned sailors, as long as he commits no fraud. And even these sailors when they contract to be hunted as game are acting "voluntarily" under the twisted Libertarian (&etc) use of that word. Am I making any sense here?
In the story The Most Dangerous Game the well armed villain owns an island called Ship-Trap Island which happens to serve up a steady stream of marooned sailors. The villain then negotiates with these unfortunate sailors, offering them the chance of prize money and transportation off of island if they let themselves be hunted as game. The sailors always have the option of swimming for the mainland, an almost impossible feat.
The villain and a sailor have a power relationship with each other. That power relationship will define how their negotiations proceed and what agreements, contracts, they arrive at. See what I am getting at here?
In fact, in LiberLand if the villain own the water rights surrounding Ship-Trap water he can booby-trap the waters to induce even more marooned sailors, as long as he commits no fraud. And even these sailors when they contract to be hunted as game are acting "voluntarily" under the twisted Libertarian (&etc) use of that word. Am I making any sense here?
In a voluntary exchange, once each side has delivered and received the agreed contribution, the parties are quits. The question of whether the exchange is or is not "equitable" for the parties, or that they have unequal "bargaining power" is rather hollow. It is far from sure that one can define bargaining power (or compare the bargaining power of two parties) independently of the actual bargains they in effect reach. Such comparisons are empty unless they can be related to some independent benchmark.
This whole line goes back to a confusion of concepts of "rights" with freedoms/liberties, imo
Well no, actually the two paragraphs I wrote that you quoted were not related to each other, they just happened to follow each other. My bad for not making that clear. I assumed that you, me, ACists, and everyone else would consider our real world highly hierarchical. That was what the first paragraph stated.
Perhaps it is because "ACists" do not believe in the idea that rent/interest is "exploitation" that you feel this way? But this does not follow that this means they "are pro-status quo" or anything of the sort.
The second, unrelated, paragraph was simply pointing out that ACists obviously don't care for how power is distributed now, that's why they are imagining calling for imagined change. I think both these statements are pretty elementary by themselves. I didn't mean to tie them together.
And here is where I get lost. In a Communist society there would be two loci of power, the government and the Communist Party. It would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as a matching tools. Likewise in a theocracy their would be two loci of power, the government and the church. Likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.
And likewise in a Capitalistic society, like we live in in the US, Japan, EU, there are two loci of power, the government and the various powerful private industrial groupings. And likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.
See the pattern here, it is just not the use of governments by the powers that be, it is the use of the public/private shell game to manufacture legitimacy. Fixating on only one of the shells in this shell game misses the point.
And likewise in a Capitalistic society, like we live in in the US, Japan, EU, there are two loci of power, the government and the various powerful private industrial groupings. And likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.
See the pattern here, it is just not the use of governments by the powers that be, it is the use of the public/private shell game to manufacture legitimacy. Fixating on only one of the shells in this shell game misses the point.
"Capitalists" are not an entity in the manner you seem to be implying. They are not "a party." It is not some organization or group that acts unilaterally with a certain particular political will.
So to you at least, ACism is positively redistributionalist. Would you consider it more or less redistributionalist than standard western political liberal partyism (Obama, etc)?
So it is not "redistributionalist" in the sense that is normally meant by the word in today's discourse, no.
I really like where you are going here sir, that sounds like a good definition to me. I added the part in bold not to FYP, but to ask a follow up question... What would you call a group of entities (aka organizations) that act in the same manner as your fine definition of a "state"?
And getting back to Libertarianism (&etc) and privacy, I think I can settle some of the discussion in this regard...
Let us imagine that Libertarianism (&etc) was repressed by their arch evil twins on the best seller list wars... the Scientologists, and then interned. The internment is benign but strict: Libertarians are only allowed personal belongings as need bought from the commissary, and they may only spend credits they earned personally in prison. It being a prison, the Libertarians have no right of privacy from the guards, and the guards have a policy of confiscating all hoards and punishing the hoarders.
The point is the Scientologists have made it impossible for the Libertarians to practice private property rights among each other. Because of the prison rules, it is impossible for any Libertarian to have a property based relationship with any other Libertarian. So if the rights of privacy are dependent and contingent on the practice of private property, and the practice of private property is suppressed... well there goes any rights of privacy.
The Libertarians in this prison would have no reason to afford each other any mutual rights of privacy, because they cannot practice private property with each other. The rest of us believe in some kinds of rights of privacy, rights of basic human dignity, which exist outside and independently of the "right to charge rent and violently evict people".
Let us imagine that Libertarianism (&etc) was repressed by their arch evil twins on the best seller list wars... the Scientologists, and then interned. The internment is benign but strict: Libertarians are only allowed personal belongings as need bought from the commissary, and they may only spend credits they earned personally in prison. It being a prison, the Libertarians have no right of privacy from the guards, and the guards have a policy of confiscating all hoards and punishing the hoarders.
The point is the Scientologists have made it impossible for the Libertarians to practice private property rights among each other. Because of the prison rules, it is impossible for any Libertarian to have a property based relationship with any other Libertarian. So if the rights of privacy are dependent and contingent on the practice of private property, and the practice of private property is suppressed... well there goes any rights of privacy.
The Libertarians in this prison would have no reason to afford each other any mutual rights of privacy, because they cannot practice private property with each other. The rest of us believe in some kinds of rights of privacy, rights of basic human dignity, which exist outside and independently of the "right to charge rent and violently evict people".
I mean, if your point was that having privacy is impossible without a system that respects property, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I would say the concept of "privacy" is pretty much meaningless without "property."
Caveat: I've barely skimmed the above exchange, but Montius's reply regarding The Most Dangerous Game caught my eye.
Is a philosophy which countenances entrapping the hapless in order to enslave them and force them to murder each other really the one which maximizes liberty?
If one is already adopting an ill-founded notion of "voluntary" is there no place to recognize the above scenario as involving coercion?
To phrase it differently, isn't this evidence that the proposed definition of "voluntary" is overworked? If the sailors were to resist the "bargain" by violence would that be the illegitimate act?
Is a philosophy which countenances entrapping the hapless in order to enslave them and force them to murder each other really the one which maximizes liberty?
If one is already adopting an ill-founded notion of "voluntary" is there no place to recognize the above scenario as involving coercion?
To phrase it differently, isn't this evidence that the proposed definition of "voluntary" is overworked? If the sailors were to resist the "bargain" by violence would that be the illegitimate act?
Caveat: I've barely skimmed the above exchange, but Montius's reply regarding The Most Dangerous Game caught my eye.
Is a philosophy which countenances entrapping the hapless in order to enslave them and force them to murder each other really the one which maximizes liberty?
If one is already adopting an ill-founded notion of "voluntary" is there no place to recognize the above scenario as involving coercion?
To phrase it differently, isn't this evidence that the proposed definition of "voluntary" is overworked? If the sailors were to resist the "bargain" by violence would that be the illegitimate act?
Is a philosophy which countenances entrapping the hapless in order to enslave them and force them to murder each other really the one which maximizes liberty?
If one is already adopting an ill-founded notion of "voluntary" is there no place to recognize the above scenario as involving coercion?
To phrase it differently, isn't this evidence that the proposed definition of "voluntary" is overworked? If the sailors were to resist the "bargain" by violence would that be the illegitimate act?
In the above scenario, it could very easily be argued that it is not a voluntary contract by any means, as the use of coercion or duress was used by one of the parties to compel the other. It does not, however, follow that things like employment/housing/other economic contractual relations are of the same (which I have a nagging suspicion that this was intent of introducing above scenario to begin with).
If the sailors were to resist engaging in "contractual relations" with said villan and instead resorted to violence, then what you have is a seperate phenomenon called "war." It is not something that can easily be analyzed within a framework of "voluntary" or "contractual" relations, and one that is not so easily designated as legitimate/illegitimate without additional considerations (imo).
(And Montius my friend, thanks for the fine conversation. Again you make some fine points, which I will attempt to discuss at some later point. My BA level is much to low at this time, LOL).
Sure to most people. Most people have a basket of "rights" that would cover this scenario. But we are talking about Libertarians (&etc), who believe in exactly one axiom to prove their moral calculus.
The question is how do Libertarians deal with this using their CRAP, er NAP (or whatever). If a landlord notices there is a folk short-cut across his property, and if that landlord does whatever is imagined to clear his property of any folk-easement and then actively allows the trespassers whatever is imagined as due notice, then...
What is morally or legally wrong, specifically to the Libertarian (&etc) moral code, to dig a disguised pit on your property and then negotiate "voluntary" contracts like the Buffalo Bill perv in The Silence of the Lambs with whoever you find at the bottom?
And what if the landlord just passively takes advantage of what nature gave him, like the proverbial Ship-Trap Island, does that change anything?
Or what if the landlord gives whatever is imagined as due notice to warn repeat trespassers of the "voluntary" negotiations they may be forced to participate in if they continue to voluntarily trespass?
Is it OK for the Landlord to bait his property with "free flatscreens and food to those not at the bottom of pits", again giving whatever is imagined as due notice?
Sure there is a difference, but is there a difference under the Libertarian (&etc) moral code?
The question is how do Libertarians deal with this using their CRAP, er NAP (or whatever). If a landlord notices there is a folk short-cut across his property, and if that landlord does whatever is imagined to clear his property of any folk-easement and then actively allows the trespassers whatever is imagined as due notice, then...
What is morally or legally wrong, specifically to the Libertarian (&etc) moral code, to dig a disguised pit on your property and then negotiate "voluntary" contracts like the Buffalo Bill perv in The Silence of the Lambs with whoever you find at the bottom?
And what if the landlord just passively takes advantage of what nature gave him, like the proverbial Ship-Trap Island, does that change anything?
Or what if the landlord gives whatever is imagined as due notice to warn repeat trespassers of the "voluntary" negotiations they may be forced to participate in if they continue to voluntarily trespass?
Is it OK for the Landlord to bait his property with "free flatscreens and food to those not at the bottom of pits", again giving whatever is imagined as due notice?
Sure there is a difference, but is there a difference under the Libertarian (&etc) moral code?
OK I am warned. Of course I have no idea what the difference between a Natural Rights Libertarian and whatever the other kind(s) may be. I was assuming that all Libertarians (&etc) believe in the CRAP, er NAP, ie anything besides force and fraud is cool. The word "force" being defined in some idiosyncratic Libertarian manner, of course. So, you are warning me some Libertarians have other "axioms" than the NAP?
No "it" was the plump "precious" that the perv wanted to make into a sweater or something, IIRC. And we can both agree that kidnapping someone, tossing them in a pit, then negotiating "voluntary" contracts with them is just plain wrong. My hypothetical is imagining that the person ended up in the pit by non-kidnapping means, indeed by Libertarian-NAP approved angle shooting pretty much. I am pointing out the vacuous and intellectually dishonest use of the word "voluntary" by the Libertarians (&etc) by examining the "border conditions" of their morality.
But as long as I am talking about movies, they already made basically a documentary of how privacy would work in LiberLand, check out The Truman Show, 1998. Privatized orphanages under Libertarian morality = we get really good TV shows, until this this hottie ruins it for us all...
In the case of Buffalo Bill, etc. that is kidnapping. (oh wait...was she that great big fat person?)
But as long as I am talking about movies, they already made basically a documentary of how privacy would work in LiberLand, check out The Truman Show, 1998. Privatized orphanages under Libertarian morality = we get really good TV shows, until this this hottie ruins it for us all...
OK I am warned. Of course I have no idea what the difference between a Natural Rights Libertarian and whatever the other kind(s) may be. I was assuming that all Libertarians (&etc) believe in the CRAP, er NAP, ie anything besides force and fraud is cool. The word "force" being defined in some idiosyncratic Libertarian manner, of course. So, you are warning me some Libertarians have other "axioms" than the NAP?
No "it" was the plump "precious" that the perv wanted to make into a sweater or something, IIRC. And we can both agree that kidnapping someone, tossing them in a pit, then negotiating "voluntary" contracts with them is just plain wrong. My hypothetical is imagining that the person ended up in the pit by non-kidnapping means, indeed by Libertarian-NAP approved angle shooting pretty much. I am pointing out the vacuous and intellectually dishonest use of the word "voluntary" by the Libertarians (&etc) by examining the "border conditions" of their morality.
But as long as I am talking about movies, they already made basically a documentary of how privacy would work in LiberLand, check out The Truman Show, 1998. Privatized orphanages under Libertarian morality = we get really good TV shows, until this this hottie ruins it for us all...
Once again, there is a difference between someone actively trapping someone and being obligated to help someone out of a trap they've gotten themselves into.[...]
Yeah I guess that is possible. But is it at all likely? I think not.
And that is the point, that it is possible. Making an overarching moral claim, like mainstream Libertarians (&etc) do regarding their NAP, really need to be examined to all the logical conclusions, in other words, "border conditions" count.
And I guess we need to talk about the term "unlikely". Do you mean that it is unlikely that you personally would have your life "Trumanized". Sure I can't imagine more than dozen or so shows in production out of the more than six billion humans, so the odds would be infinitesimal for any particular person. Or do you mean it is not likely that anyone's life would ever be "Trumanized", even for a while, given that would be considered both legal and moral to do so in an imagined LiberLand? I think this kind of reality TV would be huge in LiberLand, but YMMV.
The wingnut wing of the wingnut philosophy, the Block-Rothbard-Nozick school, who condone "voluntary" slavery are really missing the point when they say it wouldn't happen "very much" and only in "uncommon circumstances". There would always be a customer base for sex slaves for example, as long as there are wealthy pervs. And those customers will be served regardless of how "uncommon" the creation of those sleek little animals happen to be.
Most people who believe in Property Rights at all, believe this...
No Slavery > Property Rights
Basic Rights of Privacy > Property Rights
Libertarians are arguing that those people have their priorities wrong. And they admit that things like, depending on their "flavor", a utter lack of privacy to absolute slavery are acceptable prices to be paid by setting Property Rights above all. The question is why? The question is what is the wonderfully good payoff that justifies these evil practices?
Can that difference be expressed using the NAP? Or do other "axioms" come into play? And what about passively trapping people, is that cool, as it seems you might be implying? Or how about my early idea of bumhunting poor folk who are disaster victims, is that cool?
(Because in LiberLand... Kumbaya, Kumbaya, Kumbaya people just wouldn't do bad things anymore... Sorry couldn't help it, my bad.)
And that is the point, that it is possible. Making an overarching moral claim, like mainstream Libertarians (&etc) do regarding their NAP, really need to be examined to all the logical conclusions, in other words, "border conditions" count.
Lack of utopian perfection does not equate to "no good."
And I guess we need to talk about the term "unlikely". Do you mean that it is unlikely that you personally would have your life "Trumanized". Sure I can't imagine more than dozen or so shows in production out of the more than six billion humans, so the odds would be infinitesimal for any particular person. Or do you mean it is not likely that anyone's life would ever be "Trumanized", even for a while, given that would be considered both legal and moral to do so in an imagined LiberLand? I think this kind of reality TV would be huge in LiberLand, but YMMV.
The wingnut wing of the wingnut philosophy, the Block-Rothbard-Nozick school, who condone "voluntary" slavery are really missing the point when they say it wouldn't happen "very much" and only in "uncommon circumstances". There would always be a customer base for sex slaves for example, as long as there are wealthy pervs. And those customers will be served regardless of how "uncommon" the creation of those sleek little animals happen to be.
2) Rothbard opposed "voluntary slavery" contracts fwiw.
3) Slavery is involuntary by definition.
Most people who believe in Property Rights at all, believe this...
No Slavery > Property Rights
Basic Rights of Privacy > Property Rights
Basic Rights of Privacy > Property Rights
Libertarians are arguing that those people have their priorities wrong. And they admit that things like, depending on their "flavor", a utter lack of privacy to absolute slavery are acceptable prices to be paid by setting Property Rights above all. The question is why? The question is what is the wonderfully good payoff that justifies these evil practices?
If the sailors were to resist engaging in "contractual relations" with said villan and instead resorted to violence, then what you have is a seperate phenomenon called "war." It is not something that can easily be analyzed within a framework of "voluntary" or "contractual" relations, and one that is not so easily designated as legitimate/illegitimate without additional considerations (imo).
OK. I don't see how the first half can really be a matter of dispute: "do this or I will have my manservant knout you to death" seems like a pretty clear-cut case of coercion to me.
Hmmm. I'm not so convinced by this, but based on the above, it doesn't matter (that is, my earlier objection is relevant only if you hold the villain's conduct is held to be legitimate).
You aren't convinced that it is "war" or....what?
Everything is "contract" or "war" by that definition, and everyone can always choose to enter "war" by defaulting on the contract. The legitimacy of the default, then, is pretty critical, and the unstated "additional considerations" become rather prominent.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE