Political Theory

Are Deontologists confused?

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:26:55 GMT

I'm wondering if deontology is rephrased consequentialism essentially. If you have certain things that are your duty to perform regardless of the consequences, you must at some point have differentiated what is "duty." Without looking at consequences how do you differentiate what is duty from what is not duty, before the official standard of duty exists?

Walter Block and Homesteading

Sam Armstrong — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:36:56 GMT

So I don't agree with Walter Blocks idea's on homesteading from the following paper.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

He states that you have to allow a path through your property in order to allow homesteading of unowned property surrounded by your property (e.g. a fence around property you don't own). Could this not be a justification for any trespass on any property? Under this theory of homesteading, people who owned roads would have to allow free travel on them if that person was going to homestead anything (extended out to homesteading your work by being employed by someone). I see this as completely undermining property ownership. Am I wrong? I do not have to allow people to enter my property in order to access unowned or even owned property. They can build a helicopter or a bridge over my fence, but I don't have to allow them to climb my fence. And if I build a bubble around it, then dig under ground. If my bubble extends below the surface, then too bad, it's my bubble, you can't dig through it.

Lifeboat Situations Revisited

Daniel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:46:34 GMT

What would be the moral answer to this situation:

A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?

Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.

Is Lockean homesteading objectively valid?

AJ — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:22:00 GMT

It seems that most people here who subscribe to the notion of "objective ethics" base their ethical systems on property rights. This seems to entail that property rights are objectively valid. However, on these forums, property rights are generally held to derive directly from the Lockean homesteading standard. Therefore, for such theories of objective ethics to be coherent, the Lockean homesteading standard on which they are based must be objectively valid.

I certainly see the value of the Lockean homesteading standard from a consequentialist and evolutionary point of view: it enables prosperity through free market exchange, and it provides standards for a system of justice and social cooperation. Moreover, humans tend to feel instinctively that an unused object taken up and worked with becomes "theirs." These arguments make good sense to me.

However, such arguments are not sufficient to serve as a basis for any notion of property-based objective ethics that I am familiar with. Can anyone supply or point me to an argument supporting the notion that the Lockean homesteading standard of "mixing one's labor with an unused thing" objectively determines ownership of that thing? (without using consequentialist/utilitarian or evolution-based arguments.)

Children as slaves

alimentarius — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:41:54 GMT

Is it true that libertarians advocate that parents should be allowed to sell their children as slaves?

Doesn't the concept of welfare contradict the absolute of the "greater good"

The Late Andrew Ryan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:53 GMT

I was talking to a fairly sterotyped liberal the other day and he was continually talking about the "greater good" and how the government was there to provide for this most divine of concepts and he continuosly used phrases like "for the good of the many at the expense of the few instead of at the expense of the many for the good of the few" this seems like a common position for liberals, but almost all, if not all, liberals propose both the practice of welfare and the expense of personal economic liberties for the greater good and simaler phrases as those above.

But, so long as those on welfare are the minority doesn't this directly contradict this statement and work for the few welfare recipients at the larger whole? Doesn't this mean that programs such as medicare and welfare work against the greater proportion of the productive population? Doesn't this mean that all liberals by their adoration of the "greater good" must logically turn to marxism or whatever they believe will bring prosperity, not just focusing on small groups?

Are their any defences to this argument which I am missing?

Another Failed Presidency

Monty Pelerin — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:27:13 GMT

From Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com

From my post on American Thinker.

For the past couple of months I have worried regarding the risks of a Failed Presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royalty regime known as Obama has ended.

Seth Leibsohn summarized it this way: "This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."

Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.

The New York Times reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."

The Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."

The New York Times stated that Obama was given "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton."

All of the above quotes can be found in this recommended post by Seth Leibsohn. He concluded his piece: "Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good."

We have a Failed Presidency that cannot be retrieved. The dream cannot be rebuilt because there was never a foundation to begin with. It was all show and no substance. Yes, it created much excitement and (false) hope. But so did Elmer Gantry and James Jones. However, the image was akin to an old Hollywood set, all facade and no depth. Now the winds of reality are slowly and inexorably tearing the facade away.

The politicians in Congress see these same signs and read the polls. At this point they are trying to decide what is least dangerous for their individual careers. For the Republicans that probably means pouring gasoline on ship Obama. For the Democrats, it is a more difficult problem. Ultimately, I believe they will abandon the rotting ship. Politicians of both parties are like rats; they are survivors. All politicians will take that course which they believe gives them the best chance for individual survival. Loyalty be damned.

Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.

How did you become a libertarian?

RockyRaccoon — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:15:39 GMT

Hey all,

This question was recently raised on the Mises Institute's Facebook page and I found the responses incredibly inspiring. Most surprising to me was that most people there came from a traditionally socialist philosophy. This is encouraging. I'd love to hear how members of this forum came to be libertarians and, in particular, what were the most defining moments in their conversion. It might serve to educate us as to how others may be converted. At the least, it will no doubt serve up some very inspiring reading!

---

I'll start by sharing my personal journey. Thanks for reading!

---

For a long time, I was indifferent to politics. In 2000 (age 20), I voted for Bush, but I hadn't researched any candidate thoroughly and remember making the decision based on a single statement that he made about science policy.

After 9/11, I had a feeling that something wasn't right - the alleged terrorist motivations for the attack ("they hate democracy, our freedoms", etc) didn't make sense. During the buildup to the Iraq war, I had a bad feeling the administration was making a huge mistake, but I gave them the benefit of my doubt - after all, they have a massive intelligence network that surely knows a lot more than I do. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know for sure that Iraq was building WMDs - plus, they claimed to "know where they are" - and I'm sure they have our best interests in mind, right?

Shortly after the "fall of Baghdad", I become disgusted with the Bush administration. Where are these "weapons"?! Could it be that our government LIED?! I remember a particular report on Fox News. The anchorman was showing footage of some collateral damage and a reporter in the field was describing how some innocent Iraqis were killed. The anchorman stopped and explained to the audience: "We want to remind our viewers that this is not the reason we went into Iraq. It's unfortunate, of course, that innocents have lost their lives, but the United States' intention is to achieve peace and justice (blah blah blah). Remember at all times that it was Saddam Hussein that is at fault here." That really amazed me - it was the most brazen evidence that the media wasn't reporting the situation objectively.

The media couldn't be trusted. I started searching for the truth. I came across a variety of alternative websites; most of them, naturally, had a leftist slant. I had a great desire to read. For some reason, I stumbled across Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" which was a great piece of leftist historical revisionism. (Looking back, I realize that book could fit equally well into a libertarian critique of statism!) The take home message from Zinn's book was that both parties have historically combined to support war and government coercion over "the people". He mentioned that alternatives exist, such as Ralph Nader.

I started reading about Ralph and I realized his views were consistent for decades and I sensed he had an integrity that other politicians didn't. I respected him for his achievements during the 1960-1970s. I remember looking into the Libertarian party around this time. Michael Barnarik was running for president on their ticket in 2004. I was also attracted to the Green party at this same time. I had a feeling that either of these ideologies could lead to a better world. (Of course, now I realize that while socialists talk a good game, economic theory shows that it isn't possible in practice. Nor had I considered the amount of government coercion necessary to achieve it!)

In 2004, I decided the Green Party was better. By this time I had started listening to daily news casts from Democracy NOW! (Amy Goodman is legitimately a good reporter, even given her leftist stance.) My reading (especially Howard Zinn's "Passionate Declarations", which is very inspiring) was starting to lead me toward democratic socialism. My primary goals were ending the war and restoring our civil liberties. For some reason, I hadn't made the connection that economic liberty is also a civil liberty. I talked about "following the Constitution" in one sentence, and in the next I advocated single payer health care for all. Amazing that I did not recognize the contradiction. Looking back, I think the problem was that I was reading only the Bill of Rights - and even that reading was distorted. For example, whereas "free speech" really means that one may use their own property to spread whatever ideas they'd like, I interpreted it to mean that government should act to give "the people" a voice equal to that of the rich, or corporations.

I saw "pure" democracy as the ultimate goal. "The People" should be able to "rule themselves". I started advocating direct democracy - democratic control over everything. I wondered if there could be a way to have "the people" vote on every little bill, so as to abolish the legislature. I studied the best ways to achieve a "fair" voting system. I was disheartened to learn that Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that no such "fair" voting system exists.

What happened next was a sort of oddity. I was playing an Xbox game called "Bioshock" which is set in a dystopian anarchocapitalist world. The society's creator was "Andrew Ryan", an obvious reference to Ayn Rand. After playing the game, I was interested in reading Rand's work, so I borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library. I loved this book. The characters were disappointingly one-dimensional and I still thought that her vision of capitalism was naive, but for whatever reason I really enjoyed the story! I read about some of her views online and found them particularly interesting - in particular, her opinion that civil rights legislation is a violation of one's freedom to discriminate was shocking, yet it made sense in a way. I kept trying to think of ways to undermine her philosophy, but it was difficult.

Around this time, Ron Paul's presidential campaign became popular. He was the only vocal anti-war candidate. How could a REPUBLICAN be anti-war? His exchange with Giuliani was fantastic - and he stuck to his guns, even when under fire. But I was disappointed by Ron Paul's insistence on economic liberty. I didn't understand why he kept talking about the Fed and the gold standard. I started reading economics to see "why he is wrong". To my surprise, I realized that his argument was a very good one. Even as a leftist, I understood that printing money as a means to devalue the currency of the poor was wrong.

I read more...and more...and more. After reading Ron Paul's manifesto, I knew I had reached a tipping point. His consistency was refreshing. He opposed drug laws -- a REPUBLICAN opposing drug laws! He wanted decriminalization of prostitution and anti-homosexual laws, etc. This was radical stuff! Most importantly, he really hit home the importance of economic liberty. And he framed it in a way that made it sound important for poor people; not just the rich.

Afterwards, I read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" - this was an incredible book which convinced me that the entire liberal economic platform actually achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE of its goals. Even if I still believed in the goals of the leftist position, it seemed that I STILL ought to support libertarianism.

But, I wasn't an anarchocapitalist until after I read Rothbard's "For A New Liberty". Every chapter, I said to myself -- "OK, Rothbard...I accept that we can provide service A on the market, but you are out of your mind if you think the market can provide service B!" But sure enough, he made his case time and time again.

Now I am on a path that I must complete. There are aspects of Rothbardianism that I don't accept - Rothbard appears to claim a uniform set of libertarian principles over all private court systems. I want to consider the problem of the private court system completely - what will a free society look like if courts use different sets of principles?

I don't know the perfect answer to this yet - but I think some might call it "panarchy".

I wonder if I was always a libertarian but just hadn't realized it yet. As I made the journey from ignorance & indifference to leftism to libertarianism, at each significant step there was an exciting experience of discovery, not a change of opinion.

In fact, I'd say that it feels most like an adventure of self-discovery of my own morality.

---

Most influential books:

Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States" (lost trust in the government)

Ralph Nader, "Crash!ng the Party" (became supporter of Nader)

Howard Zinn, "Passionate Declarations" (started to consider democratic socialism)

Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" (introduced me to libertarianism)

Ron Paul, "The Revolution: The Manifesto" (converted me to the liberty movement)

Henry Hazlitt, "Economics in One Lesson" (convinced me of free market capitalism)

Murray Rothbard, "For A New Liberty" (converted to anarchism)

High Court rejects prison privatization

DD5 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:04:42 GMT

A friend tipped me off on this and I find this fascinating.

In Israel, the [democratic] government has attempted to "privatize" some of its functions as managing prisons and its State supreme court has declared it to be unlawful (Despite the fact that Israel has no Constitution).

Apparently, the "separation" of powers of government and the "checks and balances" that it is suppose to render is, in this instance, effectively used to actually limit the government's alleged attempt to surrender power instead of to gain power.

Of course, such alleged privatizations are nothing but a sham, for they simply transfer the bureaucracy to private hands, perhaps saving the State some money in the short run. Nevertheless, the Court, (and the majority of the public) views such privatizations as a threat to the sovereignty of the State.

I think this clearly exposes the inherent conflict of interests that result from a State monopoly on law and courts. The judicial branch itself may feel threatened by such "privatizations" trends, for there is no guarantee that the day would come and their own monopoly on judicial matters would also be challenged.

The Utilitarian Case for Libertarian Rights

Snowflake — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:03:05 GMT

The founders of the mises-libertarianism movement have a lot of good consequentialist arguments against central planning and the like. Privatize everything etc etc because the government will be inefficient and destroy wealth.

But what about issues that don't have an obvious free market advantage? People who say that video game violence should be censored or children should be forced to learn about drugs and STDs do little or no obvious economic harms. So how do we counter these arguments?

Of course, these moralistic arguments are in violation of the NAP. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to know if there is a good utilitarian case for having the freedom to be stupid/uneducated/etc.

Cus what if someone raised their kids to be racist. That would be bad, so we should force everyone's kids to learn about racial equality in school. Barf.

I have a few ideas, but would like everyone's own opinions too.

I was listening to Tom Dilorenzo talk about how sometimes mergers between companies failed, and that the anti-trust people were trying to use this as an argument for why there should be more stringent anti-trust laws. Dilorenzo countered saying that only the market could demonstrate what sorts of mergers were good or bad. I.e. freedom is a discovery process that teaches us about how markets work.

It seems that this position is not quite enough to defeat the statists though, because if 100% of mergers between industry X and industry Y fail over a period of time, the statists can come in and say "well we've given the market long enough to figure it out, so now we'll prohibit industries X and Y from merging"

Dilorenzo made the claim that when mergers go through, people are putting their money and careers on the line, which is supposed to act as a check. I kind of doubt statists will buy this. For some reason they trust politicians more than people playing with their own money, but what do I know.

Anyway, applying this logic to violent videogaming, it seems that we might not want experimentation since teenagers might go around killing people, and nothing good can come of violent videogames anyway so why not just do away with them? We already know meth is bad so why make it illegal too?

I'm well aware of all the individualist/NAP arguments here. What I want are utilitarian/consequentialist arguments. Why? Because I don't think that liberty flies with most people. They already know what the right answer is: that X is bad for society. The only way you can tell them they're wrong is by making the utilitarian case right back at them.

Note: Assuming I were in an argument with a statist and forced to admit that violence was necessary to prevent people from playing bad videogames, I would never give up the ground that a state is necessary to do so. So I'd like the arguments here to focus on why there should be a prohibition of all aggression rather than just state aggression.

Take for instance the situation in which you have traveled back in time to the prehistoric ages. You can bring about the industrial revolution with all your science knowledge, but no one listens to you because they think you're crazy. If you could force them to obey you with violence, you could help them out of their poverty. Is there any way we can argue against this without the NAP?

Thanks!

Repayment for Crimes

Libertarian_for_Life — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:16:24 GMT

How do you guys feel about repayment of crimes towards an individual that has no money? This guy just got fired from his job and his house was repossessed.

Does forcing him into labor violate natural rights?

Another question would be, what if he damaged something he could never hope to pay back in his whole life? Is he now essentially a slave to the victim for the rest of his life?

Capitalism and the Progressive Era

Daniel — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:52:22 GMT

So how is it that America is still capitalist after going through the Progressive Era? Or did America de-progress since then?

I think am actually rethinking my feelings on secondary education

Democracy for Breakfast — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:29:16 GMT

I never really heard the other side of the opinion until I came here. Other then that, I haven't really met anyone who doesn't think they can do what they want without going through College.

I was just talking to my friend who is concerned about not getting to do what she wants with her life, which is Teach. She said she has no motivation whatsoever to go to College. I recommended that she join the FATA(Future Teachers of America Association) an organization of future educators, and get hands on experience with volunteer tutoring. I am starting to feel how worthless College is, not only am I spending other people's money, but I am not learning anything I could learn on my own and feel dragged down by Gen. Ed requirements.

She finally said, the only reason she isn't taking my advice, is because of the state laws requiring you to have a Master's Degree in order to teach. There is a new State Law here in CT that requires you to have a Master's Degree after 5 years of teaching in order to keep your job. Teaching careers are also restricted with Licensing laws. Fucking bullshit man, this annoys the shit out of me so much. Poverty is natrual, as Rothbard has said, but would have no bearing on your entire life if it wasn't for the State restricting the supply of trade.

Additionally, once you DO have the License, teachers are subjected to LOTS of regulation, and mandates. The federal mandates in schooling reduce teacher's wages, further discouraging the profession. Even if someone can get past that, they are constantly regulated on how they teach. Instead of being able to do what they want, they have to follow state cirriculums and are subject to constant speculation by the state where they could then lose their jobs. I could go on about this, but the regulation in Education is absolutely ridiculous, and the Obama Administration wants to regulate it even further to "raise the bar" by increasing school hours, and requiring community service.

I enjoyed High School, and most of my classes, but honestly I think College is just more work and less of an education then High School =\

So far, the only think I still think its good for is social networking. You can meet pretty girls without having to browse Facebook or Myspace.

I'm not even sure what I want to do right now, with my life. I'm interested in Science, is there anyway I can get my hands on research and volunteering requiring as little schooling as possible? I think I would eventually need to improve my math skills though if I want to get serious with it..

Intellectual property

alimentarius — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:54:13 GMT

I understand that libertarians have different viewpoints regarding IP. What do you say to people who argue that IP protects people's opportunity to make money on their intellectual work?

What Communists think Libertarianism is?

Ansury — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:43:01 GMT

So I'm on this terrible forum in a stupid "communist filled" thread, and some guy (not me) says this to one of them:

"I am Libertarian. So, yes I am capitalist. I support economics and personal freedoms."

The response to this made me laugh out loud... then it hit me and I thought about poking my eyes out so I couldn't read it ever again:

If you're a libertarian you're a pro-capitalist, but not necessarily a capitalist. And I fail to see the rationality in being a pro-capitalist as a non-capitalist.*

Libertarianism is opposite to personal and economic freedoms. Libertarianism is based on the formation of multiple private tyrannies, instead of a state you at least have some influence over.

* = Here I believe he's saying he doesn't think workers can be "capitalists", because they're working for the capitalists...
But I find the last sentence here to be the "best".

Should I bother trying to define libertarianism for this guy, or is it just stupid at this point?

I think radicals like this are more likely to respond and reform (in time, after planting the seeds of doubt and being led in the right direction) and become active supporters of libertarianism than a "lay person" simply because they've shown that they have an interest in the general topic(s). Someone without a strong opinion may be easier to convince, but they're also less likely to be very active and vocal about the topic IMO. (This is why I torture myself talking to these nutjobs, in case anyone was wondering.)

Have you ever seen a marxist turned to libertarian?

Felipe — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:16:22 GMT

I was wondering if someone here has managed to turn a marxist over to libertarianism.

I've just saw one case on another forum where I met a nice ex-marxist that now believed in liberty and capitalism.

That's got to be quite a feat.

Have we defined the State right?

Merlin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:05:12 GMT

While pondering on the State and its nature, a few days ago I was struck by an idea. Please share your thought with me on this one, for I find it important.

Everyone from Weber on defined the State as (roughly speaking) the organization which sports the legitimate monopoly of violence in a given territory. Hoppe goes on to add a second characteristic, the ability to gain its income form taxation (non-voluntary payments), but I’ll rather focus on the first “universal” characteristic as without having a monopoly of force one can’t exact any kind of forced payment form anyone.

So, the story goes, if most people view an organization as having the rightful monopoly of violence in a giver area, that is a State. How misled by Weber have we been!

Suppose a market-anarchic society, in which there is no such a thing as the state. I own a small restaurant and I require every guest not to carry firearms inside. Of course, everyone that enters with a firearms is thus violating my property, allowing me to kick him out.

Or I could even go on further to state, at the entrance of my place, that whoever comes in must agree to my every whim instantly, or else leave. Note that I’m completely entitled to do so, as the restaurant being my property, whoever gets in must do so on my terms. So if I just start to shoot people randomly in my place, and they don’t scream “Stop, I’ll go away!” (indicating they no longer wish to remain in my property), then I’m completely right in my actions (that is legally, not morally).

So, in my own property I’m the lord of the land, I’m the LEGITIMATE monopolist of violence! Just as a state! But how can I be a State if in anarchy there should be no Sstates? Am I really being a State?

Of course not, but all this confusion started out only because we got the State wrong: it in’t the legitimate monopolist of violence in a given territory, for everyone is just that in his own property!

Theoretically a State, in public land can do as it wishes.

So, where do “real” states differ from anarchistic individuals exercising their right on their own property?

Simple,

States exercise their power on other people’s property, not just their own,
States gain their property mostly in a non-voluntary fashion (expropriation, war),
States do not recognize the right unlimited to leave (either by closing borders or seceding with one’s property form the State altogether).

IF a State abided by all these standards, I submit there would be nothing wrong in it. So, the State, I feel, must be redefined as:

An organization perceived by most as having the legitimate right to disrespect property rights.

And this opens up some very interesting insight, but let’s leave those for an other post.

Looking forward to your ideas.

Rights in a war

alimentarius — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:27:09 GMT

Do people have the same rights in a war? Is it for instance legitimate to bomb Teheran is one can prove that Ahmadinejad has WMDs there that he is planning to oblitarate Israel with?

How B.S. and Sophistry Rule

donaldmrembertsr — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:31:07 GMT

It is truly amazing how our congress has been able to deflect the financial turmoil onto our banking and financial systems, when they are directly responsible for creating the turmoil.

Their GSE's Freddie and Fannie; their created moral hazards of implied guarantees; their mindless regulatory schemes and their coersive mandates and dictates have so far escaped public scrutiny. Eventually one would hope that the bright light of truth will surface.

Given that congress has breached the moral trust conveyed to it by our citizens through our constitution, it may happen sooner than later.

The recently passed House Medical plan (with its 1900 unread pages) indicates to me that Congress is totally out of touch with American public opinion.

As we enter the next round of legislative antics, I can't wait to witness the public's push back.

As Von Mises observed, truth is truth even if no one is left to listen.

Mises and the Production of Security

filc — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:13:29 GMT

Does Mises, after Human Action, ever make a consession or consideration regarding the production of Security as being a non-coerced market good, on the same level as every other market good? Does he ever hear the argument that it need not be coerced.

In Human action he seemed to take the standpoint that in order to keep a market functioning you need to make an acception to the production of security in order to foster the market's health in general.

Making a distinction that security is somehow special seems awfully arbitrary for me. Not too mention the slippery slope. With all the insane amounts of wisdom and intellect spewing out of Mises's head I find it hard to believe he didn't stumble on this little paradox he had.

Also, When he refers to 'Anarchists' in Human Action what type of Anarchist is he specifically referring to?

Surviving Anarchy in Argentina

Stranger — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:31:17 GMT

While studying scenarios for how a country collapses into anarchy, I've come across a very interesting and sober blog called Surviving in Argentina. The situation, as the author describes it, is very similar to what Gary North calls the "Great Default". The state has defaulted on all of its obligations, including its regalian ones (providing security). As a result, mass unemployment combined with the absence of any welfare system has created an explosion in crime that no one, trapped in a statist mindset, understands the solution to.

The description of life in anarchy is vivid enough that you know it must be true. For the most part, business, investment and economic growth goes on (the author is a businessman himself), except that leaving and entering one's home requires taking a defensive posture to fight off possible raiders. And so a lot of the advice the blog gives is how to provide personal protection, even though that's only really good for young males, not women and children who can only radically change their behavior.

Frighteningly, one recent post detailed how the biggest TV stars of the country, all rich enough to afford all the private security they could want, got together to beg the nation for someone to do something about the crime. They did not specify who this someone or what that something may be. That is to say, even when the country collapses into total anarchy, the same people who believe that the state is essential to provide security and that a market system of security provision would just result in warlords and raiders, still cannot imagine a market system of security.

I think that everyone should read his account of life in Argentina, because it appears that the USA is following the same script. (The USA would be where Argentina was in 2000.) Europe can't be more than a few years behind.

So events are unfolding where anarchy is going to sweep across the world. There is no longer any reason to engage in philosophical debates over the merits of life in anarchy with statists. Even when the state is gone, they will still not understand. The problem now is providing people a way out of anarchy, not by convincing, but by preparing our system to function the moment when the empire gives up. There is an emergency.

Defence in anarchy

Eric — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:06:43 GMT

Would simply want to know different opinions on how defence from other nations, and defence from domestic threats would be resolved in an anarchial society. ty

Gang Rape and the Greater Good

Daniel — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:14:35 GMT

If the argument that actions must be for the benefit of the greater good is to be accepted as valid, then why not legalize gang rape? After all, dozens of people would benefit at the expense of one, and would be extrapolated as benefiting millions at the expense a few.

Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

AJ — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:56:04 GMT

Can someone direct me to a logical proof of natural law where the terms used are rigorously and unambiguously defined? I looked in The Ethics of Liberty, but alas there was nothing even resembling a logical deduction there. I looked to the Proving Natural Law thread, but the OP just quoted The Ethics of Liberty. I looked elsewhere and found a logical derivation, but the author failed to precisely define his terms. Alternatively, create your own proof.

OR, if no one can supply the above, can we please finally admit that no one can prove natural law or natural rights, any more than a man can prove to a woman that she ought to sleep with him?

Note that I make no criticism of natural law per se even if no proof can be supplied. Many great ideas are purely persuasive notions that gain popularity because they are almost universally appealing for other reasons even if they can't be proven. For example, disapproval of killing an innocent person can't be "proven," but it's an almost universalIy appealing notion. I do, however, suggest that we do no service to the cause of liberty by calling a purely persuasive notion a logically proven theory.

Creative Commons and Libertarianism

Daniel — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:05:45 GMT

Is Creative Commons consistent with libertarianism?