Political Theory

Re: Final arbiter

Individualist — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:01:24 GMT

wilderness:

Individualist:

Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right?

I agree. Aggression isn't marketable. I also agree with what UK is saying. Natural rights and the free market complement each other and to know one is to know the other. I personally think if I knew more economics I would be able to make better natural rights arguments. Do you see what I mean?

Yes. I think morality/natural law and economics are fundamentally the same thing.

Re: Final arbiter

wilderness — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:06:28 GMT

Individualist:

Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right?

I agree. Aggression isn't marketable. I also agree with what UK is saying. Natural rights and the free market complement each other and to know one is to know the other. I personally think if I knew more economics I would be able to make better natural rights arguments. Do you see what I mean?

Re: Final arbiter

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:36:49 GMT

it leads to the same consequence but it is different. I think you acknowledge as much in your opening post.

Re: Final arbiter

Individualist — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:33:18 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

telling people about the virtues of the market process.

(it may suit you better than telling them about voluntarism and non aggression. if it does then great. different strokes.)

Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right?

Re: Final arbiter

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:26:13 GMT

telling people about the virtues of the market process.

(it may suit you better than telling them about voluntarism and non aggression. if it does then great. different strokes.)

Re: Final arbiter

Individualist — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:20:04 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

thats a fine strategy. go forth and multiply!

What strategy? Do you mean appealing to the market? Just to be sure, this post wasn't sarcastic, was it?

Re: Final arbiter

wilderness — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:36:53 GMT

I'm definitely agreeable to this. To violate life, liberty, and property is to violate the free market. To have a good understanding of the economy, which I admittedly lack compared to others but I'm trying to learn, is to understand the role these natural rights (are the boundaries in how someones better interests are served) apply in a free market. Thus my endeavor is to learn more about the market to help explain and convince how it is as you said, "his interests would be better served, more accepted by the market, by doing as one would have him do."

Excellent!

Re: Final arbiter

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:32:20 GMT

thats a fine strategy. go forth and multiply!

Re: Final arbiter

Individualist — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:26:50 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

Individualist:
I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market.
what does appeal to the market mean to you?

To convince someone that his interests would be better served, more accepted by the market, by doing as one would have him do.

Re: Final arbiter

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:11:21 GMT

Individualist:
I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market.

what does appeal to the market mean to you?

Final arbiter

Individualist — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:06:56 GMT

If an action will be good in the final outcome for what you value, it is right. If it won't be, it is wrong. Is there any higher arbiter in human affairs than the subjective preferences of human beings?

When the state does something wrong in your eyes, to what do you appeal? To appeal to God-given rights would be mild theonomy and would be attended by all its problems. I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market. Am I right?