NAP, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law: Differentiating Morality, Practicality, and Legality

[ProIndividual]

The Non-Aggression Axiom, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law: Differentiating Morality, Practicality, and Legality

The non-aggression axiom is, to me, the moral standard. It says basically no coercion can be used unless in response to initiated coercion. This means initiation of force breaks this axiom, and in some views even self defense violates it. It judges ethics according to intention, not consequence.

Utilitarianism is, to me, the practical standard. It's a rejection of the concept of rights, deontological morality, law, and is instead the belief in "the choice that lessens pain or increases happiness for me/mine". It takes into account ethics only once the consequences are known. This means if the act in question lessens your pain (or increases happiness), or is the choice that leads to the lesser coercion given other possibilities, that it is the practical choice. Acting upon any other motiviation breaks this principle.

Natural Law Theory is, to me, the standard of all law. It says that if you harm or defraud then you are breaking Natural Law. This includes evaluation of laws of the state themselves, attempting to discern if a law is truly "just" or not. This concept also says unalienable (also spelled inalienable) rights exist, either bestowed by the Creator or by simple virtue of our humanity (depending on your religious beliefs or lack thereof). Natural Rights are a necessary aspect of Natural Law, although it differs little in application from the non-aggression axiom. Natural Law is often refered to as the "Do No Harm" principle, although unlike the non-aggression axiom it does not include pacifism. The non-aggression axiom can be taken to a logical end (although it isn't often taken that far) to mean pacifism, whereas Natural Law always allows for lawful self defense.

These three concepts often find sharp contrast when compared. It is my opinion that all three exist simultaneously at times, and independently at times. The trick is finding the UPB (Stefan Molyneux's concept of Universally Preferred Behavior). I will attempt to show how all three concepts operate independently for certain applications, and yet overlap due to each of their shortcomings in the other two areas. I'll endeavor to prove none of these concepts are wrong or right totally, and that all are right and wrong given the specific application. I'll use extreme and moderate examples to prove my case.

I'd also like to point out, before advancing further, that often times the deontological judgements pre-action (of the non-aggression axiom or Natural Law) will match the consequentialist judgements (of utilitarianism). The difference may be strictly semantic in nature when all is said and done. The same can be said of a lesser used ethical theory called pragmatic ethics (used mostly in science). But for now, I'm attempting to show their similarities, differences, successes, and failures in application.

Let us first say where each idea is best used. The NAP (non-aggression axiom/principle) is the best standard for ethics/morality (in my opinion). Utilitarianism is best used to discern a practical and rational action when the NAP increases pain (thereby decreasing necessary happiness) for the individual (or their treasured persons, possessions, or property) or coerces the individual (or their treasured persons, possessions, or property) in it's application. The Natural Law and Natural Rights are best used to determine what is lawful and to settle disputes.

Hypothetical situations: Moderate and Extreme

Let's say you want your neighbor's food because it is better than the plentiful food you have. Would this be moral/ethical? According to NAP, obviously not.

By utility you should take the food if your neighbor lacks the ability to stop you or take it back, retaliate, use law to retaliate, or otherwise raise your level of pain or coercion upon you.

By Natural Law this is theft of a serious nature.

Now let's assume the extreme scenario where you and your children are starving to death. Is it moral/ethical to steal the food now? No, not according to the NAP.

By utility you should again take the food, but this time because it will definately reduce pain and the coercion of the NAP, regardless of retaliatory scenarios, which restricts your ability to steal. Afterall, starving to death is worse pain (and less happiness) than the consequential penalties.

By Natural Law this is theft of less serious degree, but theft nonetheless.

From this example you should see that the NAP retains it's moral standard, but also in the extreme it increases pain and coerces. You should also see utility violates the law and NAP, but in the extreme is the practical answer to decrease pain and to restrain the coercive nature of the NAP in such extremes. Lastly, you should see that the NL (Natural Law) always acknowledges the illegality of stealing and the NR (Natural Right) to possession/property. In the extreme or in the moderate the NL takes into account individual corroborating and mitigating circumstances. A legal arbiter/judge would always take each case on it's own merits and circumstances. The NL never puts blanket standards on any crime, although it will retain it's criminality.

I'd also like to point out, NL does not require a state in any way. It can be practiced in common law settings, private arbitration, et cetera.

Another Moderate and Extreme Scenario:

Let's say you want to tax your neighbors to pay for some prefered project (like roads or what have you). Would this be moral/ethical? According to NAP, no it's not.

By utility this is a question, again, of what causes the least coercion for you, or the least pain. Let's assume in this example, unlike the last one, that the neighbor is capable of defending their possessions/property. So, in this case utility says do not tax your neighbor.

By Natural Law tax is extortion on the threat of violence or kidnapping (prison). It is, therefore, illegal.

Now let's assume you are starving to death again, and this prefered project is standing in the way of survival. Is this moral/ethical now, according to NAP? No.

Is there proper utility to tax? Yes.

According to NL this tax is still a crime, albeit a lesser one due to circumstances. Punishment is still required, at least in terms of renumeration, as NL lays no cover for extortion and threats.

You should see a pattern. You should be able to apply the ideas now with insight.

The NAP is always in effect given it does not coerce you into a painful situation beyond that of utility. Even when not in effect, it still bears the standard of morality and ethics. Judging ethics based on simple intention can have the failing of disregarding consequence.

When the utility in acting coercively (aggressively) lessens pain or leads to less coercion than inaction, utility becomes the practical path. It does not make the act moral/ethical however (in my opinion). Judging ethics based on simple consequence can also have the failing of defending accidental "good" outcomes when ill intent was the cause.

The NL will always side with the NAP, except in cases of pacifism, but will do so in degrees. The NAP is a right/wrong situation, whereas the NL is more a matter of severity when punishments for that right/wrong act occurs. Only when utility is applied does the normal person act unethically/immorally/amorally, and in doing so break the law. You can use utility and not break a law as well.

It's also possible that these things will overlap in terms of NAP being right, utility opting for the same right choice by the NAP, and the NL deeming these acts legal/lawful. Also, the NAP can show something to be wrong, utility can be lacking in acting against the NAP's appraisal, and the NL will of course side with both.

What we have are three separate pendulums that all swing independent of the others, but may collide, or swing in unison, at certain times. You can picture this as a blue circle for NAP, a green circle for utility, and a red circle for NL/NR. Imagine all three circles overlap. You'll notice that NL/NR, if you imagine it in the center, utility on the left , and the NAP on the right, is overlapped by both quite a bit, whereas NAP and utility barely overlap each other. Many activities will not be illegal, but will be immoral/amoral (because of the pacifism contained in NAP, depending on interpretation). Regardless, when they are not in agreement one must not confuse practicality for legality or morality, legality for practical solutions or moral standards, and morality for practicality or lawful standards.

The UPB will be what is moral in some cases, what is practical in others, and what is legal to varying degrees in still others. It is universally preferable for theft to be unlawful, but in cases where you are starving to death and it reduces pain and coercion (inspite of the law and morality) it's illegality will be a matter of degree. In the latter case, I would say the UPB is stealing the food. Afterall, lessening coercion should always be preferable in the absence of a non-coercive choice.

This is the important conclusion: that in the absence of a non-coercive choice, the "path of least coercion" should be chosen.


(Thank you for reading all that, please comment or critique below. The preceeding is an excerpt from a book I'm thinking of self-publishing; a collection of essays I've written on anarchism as I see it.)

 

[Xerographica]

Sounds fairly pragmatic to me...so that's definitely a step in the right direction. Personally, I would have liked to see at least a few appeals to authority. Here are some that I shared in my post on the Magna Carta Movement...

I now return to the fundamental question with which I began this article: What is the difference between a just king and a great robber? For Aquinas, the difference is that the just king provides a public good: peace. By diligently defending justice in the community, he shows himself worthy of his keep in the form of tolls and tributes limited by the fundamental law of the land, and he does not extract more than the maintenance his state requires. - Christopher Todd Meredith, The Ethical Basis for Taxation in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas

Public taxes, even with the nation's consent, are a violation of property rights, since they can be levied only on values that have been produced by the land, the capital, or the industry of private individuals. Thus, whenever they exceed the indispensable minimum necessary for the preservation of society, they may justly be considered as an act of plunder. - Jean-Baptiste Say

If the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. It is quite evident that organized charity would, in this case, do much more permanent harm than temporary good. - Bastiat, Justice and Fraternity

And here's Robert Nozick side stepping the issue...

The question of whether these side constraints are absolute, or whether they may be violated in order to avoid catastrophic moral horror, and, if the latter, what the resulting structure might look like, is one I hope largely to avoid. - Robert Nozick, Side Constraints

The problem is that if you ask 100 people what constitutes a "catastrophic moral horror" then you're going to get 100 different responses. This is simply because values are subjective. So rather than trying to draw a line for an entire nation...it makes so much more sense to just allow taxpayers to draw the line for themselves by giving them the freedom to directly allocate their taxes.

 

[ProIndividual]

Personally, I would have liked to see at least a few appeals to authority.

But appeal to authority is an informal logical fallacy...I try to avoid those. I have very few reference points in any of my essays. I think the validity of the ideas should stand on their own.

I would also say, I'm anti-pragmatism. I'm also anti-democracy, and anti-state. But, I don't want to offend you, as I know you are into pragmatism...but pragmatic ethics to me are simply scientific and pretty much have no real application elsewhere (there are exceptions of course). But I think you mean a more general definition for pragmatism when you use the word...so to be fair, I'm not necessarily against what you're calling "pragmatism". I think you mean "realistic", "practical", and "not dogmatic"; not pragmatic ethics per se.

I'm also against the Magna Carta, btw. As other anarchists have pointed out, it bebefited nobility more than the common man. It's not a document that supports natural rights, although it does have some relation to the subject and in some ways "granted" (as this is what it claims to do) more rights than most of our Founding documents in the USA.

Thank you for your thoughts and critiques...perhaps I'll consider references and lengthening the essay to include them. This is one of the shortest essays in the book so far.

AS to the authorities you quoted:

Thus, whenever they exceed the indispensable minimum necessary for the preservation of society, they may justly be considered as an act of plunder. - Jean-Baptiste Say

Say is suffering from the flaw in logic that society (a collection of individuals) is somehow defended by the state, or is held together by government at all. The state assaults individuals and society regularly through it's decrees. It's the great parasite of society. It's a "dead hand" on society and civilization. Private defense is much preferable.

If the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree.

I do not agree. If you want welfare, re-privatize it, as it was previous to being outlawed and monopolized by the state. Extortion cannot be used to feed the poor. Donations can be used to that end. If in fact such a tax is levied, then the crime of extortion must be punished through renumeration, if not also retribution. I agree, the penalty for extortion to feed the hungry is less than extortion to fund wars of aggression...but both are nonetheless crimes under Natural Law.

So, do what is (as you might call it) "pragmatic" (what is necessary in the extreme according to utility when the NAP coerces as I explained above), but always know you face penalties for these crimes. Hunger is no excuse for stealing...but it may be a mitigating circumstance that allows for lesser punsihment (such as renumeration and not retributive penalties).

Bastiat, I feel, goes on to describe the private means of feeding the hungry...but does not go on to explain if this is not enough, and theft is needed to feed the hungry, that it is essentially a crime and needs to be treated as such. I think it's incomplete to assume that such conflicts in the NAP and utility will not come into play. Growing up poor, I can tell you, theft for need is rampant...and theft for want is also rampant because many "wants" are perceived as "needs". The utility in freedom from prison is just not high enough to match the higher utility of attaining things via crime. The poor feel freedom is already so limited by the economic and statist conditions that anomie occurs, and leads directly to conflicts of utility and the NAP. Much of this is imagined, and could be solved by perspective and education, but much of it is not solvable so easily...and that's where NL must be used to judge what renumeration and retribution (if any) is required to set right the wrongs commited for the sake of utility (whether inflated by imagination and false perspective or not).

We, as a society, must seek to increase the utility of freedom from prison for the poorest among us to avoid such conflicts with the NAP. Education, proper parenting, perspective, and ethics are all important ways to do this...and not an exhaustive list.

The question of whether these side constraints are absolute, or whether they may be violated in order to avoid catastrophic moral horror, and, if the latter, what the resulting structure might look like, is one I hope largely to avoid. - Robert Nozick, Side Constraints

This is exactly what I've attempted to do...address these places where utility overrules morals. And when you say ask 100 people and get 100 different answers...this is the problem with appealing to crowds (argumentum ad populum). I don't give a damn what "people" think about morals...they're almost always wrong. It's an informal logical fallacy to even consult them (hence why I'm anti-democracy as well). We know what moral principle is universally preferable (UPB)...the NAP. And when utility overshadows the NAP, we can expect behavior according to utility...hence that becomes the UPB. We shouldn't seek opiniopn polls on NL, or we reduce NR to nothing, and turn law into a lynch mob.

Let's foget what the people constitute as "catastrophic moral horror". It's clearly relative to percieved utility and the NAP. What we can do is let a private law system determine via a court (arbitration) what penalties are to be assessed for the crimes commited, allowing the arbiter to adjust not the renumeration (which must be paid), but the retribution, to fit the crime in question. If you perceive your utility too skewed, you may face retribution or higher retribution. If you do not overestimate utility, then you will face low retributive consequences if any. What is clear is that the NAP is the standard, and that when utility overcomes it in valuation marginally, there will be crime. How that crime is punished is the only reason to take into account "catastrophic moral horror", and that will be at the discretion of the arbiter of the dispute.

There may be (and I believe there is) a way to more scientifically make valuations about utility. For example, income and wealth relative to cost of living may be used in a formula to determine how high actual utility should be in a particular property crime. Possibly the same can be true in terms of physical well being (like fear of death versus sickness). But I'd leave this to the natural lawyers and other legal scholars and sociologists. I'm sure if Durkheim could judge when anomie and fatalism were likely to occur, extrapolation of lesser degrees of utility valuations can be made pretty well uniform for arbiters.

Not all values are subjective. Some are objective. The NAP is objective to human liberty and individual NR (or the utilitarian equivalent; human happiness). What values are subjective are gotten via marginal utility...so it can be worked out mathematically what those valuation should be to a rational consumer (of freedom versus theft, for example). The more irrational the "consumer" of these "goods", the more skewed their utility valuations will be. We simply use the rational valuations when judging the penalties perscribed for the crimes commited when individual utility (subjective) exceeds the NAP (objective). The difference will be the how levels of punishment are handed down. The UPB can be according to the NL, NR, and the NAP...but it can also be according to utility. When utility is the UPB that does not excuse it's illegality, nor does it mean you are excused from all penalties. You may be excused from of retributive penalties (like time removed from society), but you will never be excused from renumeration given to the victim of the crime (fines and penalties).

As far as taxpayers (extortion victims) deciding for themselves...well I stop that at tax to begin with. It'a crime, as I pointed out in the essay. It must be treated as such. Tax must simply be viewed as another crime out of utility against the NAP, as it logically violates the NAP. I see no reason to tax if they are to directly allocate the taxes...just stop extortingthem and let them spend their resources as they choose so that no crime is commited (tax) which needs to be judged and fixed via renumeration and possible retributon.

I'm not so "pragmatic" as to legalize extortion.

Thanks again for your thoughts...feel free to give me more ofthem

 

[Xerographica]

But appeal to authority is an informal logical fallacy...I try to avoid those. I have very few reference points in any of my essays. I think the validity of the ideas should stand on their own.

I wouldn't have used the exact phrase "appeals to authority" if I wasn't fully aware that it is a logical fallacy. Clearly it wouldn't make any sense for me to tell you to include logical fallacies...especially given that the authorities I shared are all recognized experts in the subject at hand. The point of including some snippets from recognized experts is to demonstrate that you've thoroughly researched the subject and to provide the subject in other people's words. Sharing how other people have described the subject allows you to hedge your bets in case somebody doesn't understand how you are communicating the subject. Sharing a few relevant experts also helps anybody interested in the subject to research the subject on their own.

Say is suffering from the flaw in logic that society (a collection of individuals) is somehow defended by the state, or is held together by government at all.

Couldn't he say the same exact thing about you? Couldn't he say that you suffer from a flaw in logic that society is not held together by government? What evidence can you offer that society would not disintegrate if we abolished the government? As a pragmatarian I say that society may or may not disintegrate...but it's the height of conceit for somebody to say that they know for certain what the outcome would be. If somebody truly believes that they have a crystal ball then it's really hard to take them seriously.

Let's foget what the people constitute as "catastrophic moral horror". It's clearly relative to percieved utility and the NAP. What we can do is let a private law system determine via a court (arbitration) what penalties are to be assessed for the crimes commited, allowing the arbiter to adjust not the renumeration (which must be paid), but the retribution, to fit the crime in question.

Who said anything about crime? Who are you going to prosecute when there's a deadly outbreak of a virulent disease because there is no Center of Disease Control?

The heart of the matter is that you're arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand. There's no "natural law" outside ourselves. You can't go into a lion's den and expect them not to violate your property rights. Any law that we agree to only has legitimacy because we, as a society, agree to it. Why should somebody agree to the NL or NAP? It's not enough to say that they maximize freedom. You have to show people exactly how and why they benefit from freedom. If somebody can't see the benefits of freedom...then it's because you're not showing it to them.

If you want to show somebody the benefits of freedom...then it's useless to talk about theft or imprisonment. Instead, it's necessary to talk about the economic benefits of allowing people to pursue their goals, dreams and ambitions. Exactly how do we all benefit? What exactly is it about taxes that prevents us from living our lives? Why would we be better off without taxes? If people did not have to pay taxes...then what would they spend their money on that would be so much better than the Center of Disease Control...or public transportation...or public education?

Whenever somebody makes a moral argument for freedom...I take it to mean that they don't understand the economic arguments for freedom. Anybody that can discuss the economic arguments for freedom as easily as they can discuss the moral arguments for freedom is more credible than somebody that can only discuss the moral arguments for freedom. When somebody can easily discuss both arguments it clearly demonstrates that they have done their due diligence. It means that they are subject matter expert in freedom...not just a subject matter expert in a specific brand of morality. Of course somebody can prefer moral arguments over economic arguments...but their preference only has credibility if they thoroughly understand the economic arguments for freedom.

 

[ProIndividual]

The point of including some snippets from recognized experts is to demonstrate that you've thoroughly researched the subject and to provide the subject in other people's words.

I appreciate your constructive criticism on "appeals to authority". Perhaps I should expand my essays (most of them are a lot longer than this one) to include at least some of these references to "hedge my bets" as you say.

Couldn't he say the same exact thing about you? Couldn't he say that you suffer from a flaw in logic that society is not held together by government?

No. Say could not say the same thing about me..clearly society is not held together by the state...anthropologists have proven 80% of human history was organized w/o a state, they had laws, defense, etc. Say didn't have the benefit of this..we do. Since we know society existed w/o a state, we also know it survives inspite of the state (not because of it). The state is simply a parasite on the economy and society at large. Modern exmaple? Somalia still has society...and in fact has measurably improved in almost every measurable category since it's state collapsed. It's not anarchism (an Enlightened transition to statelessness) per se, but it is certainly stateless. It's economy is larger, it's disease rates are down, it's lifespan is up, it's infant mortality down, and it's incomes are higher. I could go on for 50 more categroties of improvement.

Say was wrong, plain and simple. It's not his fault, he didn't have access to the information we have today. We KNOW what caused civilization, and it wasn't the state...it was trade.

Who said anything about crime? Who are you going to prosecute when there's a deadly outbreak of a virulent disease because there is no Center of Disease Control?

You suggested tax...tax is crime. It's simply extortion by the state (mafia). As far as your question about virus outbreak...what makes you assume any service the state monopolizes out of the market at the point of a gun couldn't be handled in the market when that monopoly is ended? I understand in communist nations that monopolized food distribution it was difficult for them comprehend how food would ever be distributed when communism fell...but it was distributed just fine like every other service and good inthe market. The idea you need a CDC is ridiculous. If the service is needed someone will find a way to make a profit from it's distribution in the market.

And then you ask about several other things that can also be done in the market. I'd ask you to google these questions and get easy answers. None of these things require a mafia monopoly in order to be distributed in the free market. BTW...how well are your raods run now? How about those 50% dropout rates? The idea the state, or any coercive monopoly, can better handle these services or goods is bunk. It's proven failure...as anyone versed in market economics would expect. No competition equals higher prices and lower quality services/goods.

And to suggest there is no natural law doesn't matter to essay, as I covered utilitarianism (ethical egoism)...the only alternative ethical theory. Unless you're suggesting we should all think like sociopaths (believing that unethical egoism is how we should organize society and law), then your point makes no sense to me. What other ethical theory do you propose as the UPB? If not the NAP or NL, or utilitarianism...the what? It's those, statism (unethical egoism), or nothing at all. Our current standard for jurisprudence RIGHT NOW is NL. So it's not even a change, except it's going to be ACTUALLY held to in the market as there is competition in law. You cann call it utility, NL, or NAP...butthey're all the same. It's not some arbitrary line...it's the objective line of ethics. There's nothing subjective about it for anyone except sociopaths. Statists happen to be sociopaths, or "useful idiots" for sociopathy, for the most part...but surely we're not suggesting we shouldgive in to such primitive pre-human standards, right?

So, the objective standard is utility, NAP, and NL (all the same thing effectively). People may be okay with proxy aggression (tax for example), but they aren't okay generally for direct extortion (tax) or violence of other types when it's commited against them or they are asked to commit them. It's the one degree of removal that allows the state to function at all...it's memes of "tax is the cost of civilization" are designed to keep the reality of the violence one level below consciousness, in the subconscious.

BTW, you going into the lion's den is called stupidity...it's not relevant to human to human property righs. Surely, you aren't suggesting we take lions to court, right?

Law has legitimacy in the market when you agree to it...but not as a society, but as consumers. Watch the videos I posted in the following thread about anarchic legal order:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369158-Deconstructing-the-state&p=4316866#post4316866

Bottom of the page, watch at least the last 3 videos...but I suggest you watch Roderick Long's hour and a half video also. You speak like someone who has yet to be exposed to polycentric legal theory. It's existed in the past, and will exist again in the absence of the state monopoly of force held over the market of law. And when consumers want legal protection guess what they purchase?...they purchase someone to stop aggression against them, and to compensate them when they are aggressed against, and to get retribution when that aggression is for unreasonable reasons. Again, we're back to the NAP, NL, and utility. It's not some magic thing the state creates...it's a service the market demands. Supply and demand, nothing more.

Taxes are extortion on the threat of kidnapping (prison). If you resist the kidnapping, the mafia (state) will murder you. Therefore it is illogical to think we can have a free society with a state and tax. That's not a state of liberty with a state and tax...it's a form of light tyranny. If that's what you seek, I say you have yet to take your ideals to their logical conclusions. Seek the answers to your questions (to what you seem to think impossible) online, in philosophy, economics, etc...start with the videos on free market law I posted and linked to. My goal will never be to maintain a state and tax...I'm not infavor of mafia and extortion, even for the best of intentions.

As Benajamin Tucker once said: "Some say the state is a necessary evil...then it must be made unnecessary." And: "The anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. That government is best which governs least...and that which governs least is none at all."

I hope we're clear on this. You will NOT be swaying me to small government statism. It's an ideology, not a philosophy, and is an advocation of mafia and extortion. No thank you, respectfully.

I understand market economics very well. I understand those arguements do not overrule ethics as well. For you to suggest those that make moral arguments do not understand economics is silly. Economics is a soft science at best anyways...read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb. No economic theory is worth a damn, really. They can predict nothing with any accuracy. What is necessary to understand is simply how wealth is created, how society raises standards of living to beat inflation, etc....other than that, it has no place in overruling ethics.

Ethics ALWAYS overrules economics. Free markets are derived not from economic understanding (it's Smith's ideas from when the fallacious LTV was still how valuation was derived)...free markets derived from property rights and contract law, both of which predate the state (again, see anthropology). The markets flourish more the smaller the state gets. Abolish the state, you get maximum economic benefit to society. Lose the parasite political class and embrace panarchism and panarchist synthesis.

If you'd care to read my writings on economics please go to my Campaign for Liberty blogs under this same name. I've written quite a bit on economics on that site (the alpha site).

BTW, you have no economic arguments that will conflict with my ethical arguments...once you realize in a true free market there is no govt interference (including the state's monoploies on the things you wrongly assert can't occur without a state) in the market, by definition.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[Xerographica]

Let me start off by saying that I completely understand that the private sector CAN supply everything that the public sector currently supplies....so no need for you to bark up that tree.

Now, let me bold a few things in what you said...

Somalia still has society...and in fact has measurably improved in almost every measurable category since it's state collapsed. It's not anarchism (an Enlightened transition to statelessness) per se, but it is certainly stateless. It's economy is larger, it's disease rates are down, it's lifespan is up, it's infant mortality down, and it's incomes are higher. I could go on for 50 more categroties of improvement.

You suggested tax...tax is crime. It's simply extortion by the state (mafia). As far as your question about virus outbreak...what makes you assume any service the state monopolizes out of the market at the point of a gun couldn't be handled in the market when that monopoly is ended?

And then you ask about several other things that can also be done in the market. I'd ask you to google these questions and get easy answers. None of these things require a mafia monopoly in order to be distributed in the free market. BTW...how well are your raods run now? How about those 50% dropout rates? The idea the state, or any coercive monopoly, can better handle these services or goods is bunk. It's proven failure...as anyone versed in market economics would expect. No competition equals higher prices and lower quality services/goods.

Law has legitimacy in the market when you agree to it...but not as a society, but as consumers.

It's existed in the past, and will exist again in the absence of the state monopoly of force held over the market of law. And when consumers want legal protection guess what they purchase?...they purchase someone to stop aggression against them, and to compensate them when they are aggressed against, and to get retribution when that aggression is for unreasonable reasons. Again, we're back to the NAP, NL, and utility. It's not some magic thing the state creates...it's a service the market demands. Supply and demand, nothing more.

If that's what you seek, I say you have yet to take your ideals to their logical conclusions. Seek the answers to your questions (to what you seem to think impossible) online, in philosophy, economics, etc...start with the videos on free market law I posted and linked to. My goal will never be to maintain a state and tax...I'm not infavor of mafia and extortion, even for the best of intentions.

I understand market economics very well.

The markets flourish more the smaller the state gets. Abolish the state, you get maximum economic benefit to society. Lose the parasite political class and embrace panarchism and panarchist synthesis.

Yet here's what else you said...

As far as taxpayers (extortion victims) deciding for themselves...well I stop that at tax to begin with. It'a crime, as I pointed out in the essay. It must be treated as such. Tax must simply be viewed as another crime out of utility against the NAP, as it logically violates the NAP. I see no reason to tax if they are to directly allocate the taxes...just stop extortingthem and let them spend their resources as they choose so that no crime is commited (tax) which needs to be judged and fixed via renumeration and possible retributon.

There's a huge disparity between your thoughts on how the free-market works in the private sector and your thoughts on how the free-market would work in the public sector (tax choice). I don't understand why this disparity exists. You devoted quite a bit of time and effort and sentences and words to convince me that the private sector is better at supplying things that consumers want. You emphasized that the evidence is clear and obvious and objective and indisputable. Yet you object to tax choice.

Why this disparity? Something doesn't follow. You can't say that A is clearly, indisputably better than B but consumers shouldn't be allowed to choose between A and B. Well...you can...but there's a clear contradiction in there. Can you object to tax choice on economic grounds without contradicting everything you said about the private sector being clearly better at supplying the things that consumers want? Why wouldn't tax choice reveal to everybody what you KNOW to be true about the private sector? How could it be possible that 150 million utility maximizing, self-interested, psychic-profit seeking, purposefully acting taxpayers (aka "victims") would fail to notice that the private sector is clearly better at meeting their needs than the public sector is?

You ardently profess rock solid faith in the private sector...yet your faith immediately and obviously crumbles when confronted with tax choice. Why is this?

 

[ProIndividual]

Let me start off by saying that I completely understand that the private sector CAN supply everything that the public sector currently supplies....so no need for you to bark up that tree.

Now, let me bold a few things in what you said...

Yet here's what else you said...

There's a huge disparity between your thoughts on how the free-market works in the private sector and your thoughts on how the free-market would work in the public sector (tax choice). I don't understand why this disparity exists. You devoted quite a bit of time and effort and sentences and words to convince me that the private sector is better at supplying things that consumers want. You emphasized that the evidence is clear and obvious and objective and indisputable. Yet you object to tax choice.

Why this disparity? Something doesn't follow. You can't say that A is clearly, indisputably better than B but consumers shouldn't be allowed to choose between A and B. Well...you can...but there's a clear contradiction in there. Can you object to tax choice on economic grounds without contradicting everything you said about the private sector being clearly better at supplying the things that consumers want? Why wouldn't tax choice reveal to everybody what you KNOW to be true about the private sector? How could it be possible that 150 million utility maximizing, self-interested, psychic-profit seeking, purposefully acting taxpayers (aka "victims") would fail to notice that the private sector is clearly better at meeting their needs than the public sector is?

You ardently profess rock solid faith in the private sector...yet your faith immediately and obviously crumbles when confronted with tax choice. Why is this?

First, if you concede that the market can provide any service or good that the public sector does, then what do you need a state for?

Second, if the "public sector" isn't completely voluntary (which it isn't in a state, even if that state is minarchist) then it's not a free market. For you to say "how the free-market would work in the public sector (tax choice)" is self-contraditcory. Why? Because it's not a free market if the state forcibly provides a service. By definition a free market is one where markets are not regulated beyond harm and fraud (NL, NAP, utility, ethical egoism, whatever you want to call it). If the state taxes (involuntary payment, extortion, protection money, whatever you want to call it) then it isn't voluntary and therefore is regulated coercively. That's not a free market. It's a regulated, coerced, monopolized, and managed market. So, what do you mean "how a free-market would work in the public sector (tax choice)". I know what "tax choice" is...it's a self contradictory idea. Tax is not a choice...so giving people choice in how to spend their extorted money is redundant...just let them spend it by letting them keep it. End of problem.

I object to tax choice because tax is extortion on the threat of kidnapping (prison), and if you resist this kidnapping, the agent's of the state will murder you. I'm anti-mafia, so I'm anti-state. Therefore, I'm anti-tax. So I don't want extortion choice, I want to abolish legalized extortion. It's antithetical to the NAP, NL, NR, utility, and ethical egoism (or any other ethical method you choose, deontological or consequentialist). If you MUST tax (as described in the original essay) then it is stil a crime, and must be treated as a crime; renumeration and possibly retribution must be assigned for the victims to the perpetrators. Anything else is legalizing crime.

Having a system like tax choice is just attempting to perpetuate the system of legalized extortion in a "more moral" way. You can't make murder less unethical, nor can you make extortion less unethical. It's either ethical or it isn't. If you have to steal from others, then do so and then expect punishment...but don't codify a way to steal from others and then give them "choice" in how to spend what you've stolen from them. As that might describe a kindly mafia Don, it's still just a mafia Don. He stole the money to begin with...him being kindly about how those resources are alloctated and giving people more choice in how it's spent doesn't solve the underlying fundamental problem: extortion is a crime and needs to be stopped, not codified further.

What tax choice does in my mind is make a more comfortable farm for human tax cattle. It's the same reason farmers have learned to give milk cows more room in their pens...they tend to bash their heads against the wall if they have too little room, so they gave them each more square footage to increase profits. It's not out of sympathy or morality...it's to make better producing cattle. I don't want people to contnue to be tax cattle; I want them to be free. Tax choice or just tax as we have it, you are not free. You aren't MORE free with tax choice, anymore than milk cows are with more square footage in their pens on the farm are MORE free. You're just tax cattle for the famers (state).

Why wouldn't tax choice reveal to everybody what you KNOW to be true about the private sector?

Because it's not private...it's some monopolized service. And even if we assume all monopolies of the state are ended in tax choice (which defeats the purpose of any state to begin with), then why tax them at all? Why not just unleash the free market and allow them to spend their money on their own? Why pay some middle man to collect and distribute taxes? What's the purpose? It's redendant, and expensive (those middle men aren't free).

(aka "victims")

If you don't consider people who pay against their will to be extortion victims we have a very different understanding of the NAP, NL, NR, utility, ethical egoism, and ethics in philosophy altogether. How is it not a victim? Do the ends justify the means to you, is that it? Ethics are highly important...and extortion creates victims.

NOW, let me say this:

If you want tax choice as a transitional process to move us toward anarchy by showing people that the private sector actually works...well then I'll agree. I'll overwhelmingly agree!!! I'd also agree that Constitutionalism is a good transition process to devolve the state to the eventual end of anarchy. However...if tax choice (or Constitutionalism for that matter) is your end goal, not simply a means to achieve stateless and voluntary society, then I vehemently disagree. In fact, I think minarchism is far more dangerous than other forms of statism...as it ismply unleashes the free market in large sectors and allows society to become so wealthy that it can withstand higher levels of extortion, a much more well funded state therefore, and allows the state to eventually grow so large (as now) that it's uncontrollable. We're better off in totalitarianism in a poor country, where the state will collapse (like Egypt) when the price of food goes up ever so slightly and revolts begin, than we are in minarchy in a wealthy country...because eventually it will just end up a HUGE totalitarian state that doesn't collapse so easily, kills more people, and can make it's cattle more comfortable and still extort the crap out of them without causing a revolt. In a poor country the price of bread goes up $1 and a revolution occurs...but in a rich nation prices have to rise exponentially more before the serfs will revolt.

You ardently profess rock solid faith in the private sector...yet your faith immediately and obviously crumbles when confronted with tax choice. Why is this?

It's not faith first of all...faith is a belief and a lack of facts. The data is in....the markets better provide every known service and good it's allowed by the tyrannical states of the world to provide. There has yet to be an exception. And the "problem of the commons" is more of a problem for the state that it is for the markets...hence national debt. BUT, to your point...tax is not free market activity. This is steering the markets. It's making people pay rent on their property, not allowing them to own it (income tax makes you rent your own labor from the state, property tax makes you rent your land from the state, and so on). Some state official is paid to collect and distribute those tax funds...that decidely anti-market. To call that market is really a stretch. So I might ask you:

Why do you have so little faith in markets that you wish to tax people at all?

I'm definately morally and economically opposed to tax (in that order). BUT, again, if you want to use it as a method to achieve a larger goal (anarchy) I'm all for it. But if it is an end unto itself, I oppose it completely. We'd be better off with the tyranny of lack of tax choice, that way the cattle will more quickly come to the realization they are in FACT just tax cattle. The sooner they realize they are serfs, and it's just one big tax farm, the better. Slowing that process of self awareness without the end goal of full statelessness would harm the people, not help them.

So, what are your motives? Is tax choice an end, or a means?

 

[Xerographica]

On this page...Unglamorous but Important Things...I've compiled 61 responses to pragmatarianism. All those responses reveal a simple, basic fact. If you make an honest and genuine effort to read through those responses then you'll quickly discover that the problem has absolutely nothing to do with ethics...and everything to do with economics. Those 61 responses clearly reveal that people do not understand economics. So you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to preach morality or by trying to get people to hate the state. Why waste your limited resources trying to tackle something that is clearly not the problem?

Tax choice is certainly just a means to an end. But what makes it valuable is that it's completely neutral as to what that end might be. Obviously it would be a useless strategy if I tried to sell it to liberals as a means to achieve anarcho-capitalism. The value of tax choice is that it provides a completely neutral platform to help people consider the problems with 538 people trying to allocate 150 million people's taxes. There's absolutely no economic justification for 538 people spending 150 million people's taxes. The only explanation is historical.

Some state official is paid to collect and distribute those tax funds...that decidely anti-market. To call that market is really a stretch.

There are two ways to distribute public funds...the invisible hand method (150 million taxpayers) and the visible hand method (538 congresspeople). Tax choice advocates allowing the invisible hand to distribute public funds among the various government organizations. As those 61 responses to pragmatarianism clearly indicate...people do not understand the value of allowing the invisible hand to distribute public funds. Does trying to teach them ethics help them understand the value of the invisible hand? Nope. Does trying to teach them to hate the state help them understand the value of the invisible hand? Nope.

First, if you concede that the market can provide any service or good that the public sector does, then what do you need a state for?

Why do you have so little faith in markets that you wish to tax people at all?

The obstacle is neither ethics...nor the state...nor morality...nor taxes. The obstacle is simply that people do not understand why they should trust the invisible hand instead of the visible hand. I have enough faith in the invisible hand to trust whatever it does to the public sector. Tax choice is a means to an end. What are the "means"? The "means" are the invisible hand. If you trust the "means" then why worry about the ends? Putting all your energy into justifying the ends does not help people understand why they should trust the means.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. - Murray N. Rothbard

It's not a crime to be ignorant of economics...but we can't make any progress unless we help people understand the basic economic problem with 538 congresspeople allocating 150 million people's taxes. The obstacle before us is clearly defined. You've got great energy and enthusiasm...so why waste it trying to tackle some problem that clearly does not exist? The only reason you think it exists is because neither Molyneux nor Block nor Rothbard thought to test exactly where the problem was.

As a computer programmer I'm trained to find bugs in the code. In order to find out where a bug is...I remove sections of code until I isolate exactly where the problem is. That's what I've done with libertarianism. In order to find the bug in libertarianism I removed the tax rate and the technical definition of a public good and all the ethical arguments...until all I was left with was the invisible hand. As the 61 responses to pragmatarianism clearly indicate...this is exactly where the bug is.

Given that we've never before isolated exactly where the problem was...we've been all over the place with our efforts. Now that we know exactly where the problem is...we can all focus our combined energy on solving it. It really won't be that difficult to do given that there's absolutely no economic evidence to support the myth that committees can determine the "optimal" level of funding for organizations.

 

[ProIndividual]

So you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to preach morality or by trying to get people to hate the state.

They should dislike tyranny I think...and the state is tyranny.

Also, morality should trump economics ALWAYS. Why else would I not rob my neighbor? It obviously has economic value for me to take what his his...but morality prevents me. You trying to assert either that I don't understand market economics, or that somehow ethics aren't more important in philosophy than economics is, well, nonsense. There are many aspects to philosophy...economics isn't one of them. It's epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, logic, and aestethics. Economics can be part of a complimentary philosophy...but it is not the root of any philosophy.

So you seem to be espousing some ideology on the basis of economic goals (however you're ignoring the state's role as a parasite on those economic goals), not a philosophy at all. Giving the ideology a name that ends in "-ism" hardly makes it a philosophy.

And for you to assert the state is not the root problem in state capitalism as opposed to free markets (which by DEFINITION are markets WITHOUT government regulation), or in the pursuit of human freedom is, well, again nonsense. It's the tyranny of the state that has made the USA the most incarcerated nation in the world in total (keeping in mind the USA is like a small town compared to China and India), and per capita, putting it's own citizenry in chains and cages for nonviolent "crimes". You seem to think it's in the wrong hands, not that the insititution itself isn't prone to have it's top levels of hierarchy occupied by sociopaths. Clearly it's the latter. Without the state the economy would be much larger and more productive, and the people would be much free-er and have a better standard of law (in competition of the market, alw would be more responsive to the consumer).

I find your blindness to these two things largely self imposed (as it is with most people). But turening a blind eye to these facts do not make them go away. You, not I, appear to be focusing on the wrong solutions.

Tax choice is certainly just a means to an end. But what makes it valuable is that it's completely neutral as to what that end might be. Obviously it would be a useless strategy if I tried to sell it to liberals as a means to achieve anarcho-capitalism. The value of tax choice is that it provides a completely neutral platform to help people consider the problems with 538 people trying to allocate 150 million people's taxes. There's absolutely no economic justification for 538 people spending 150 million people's taxes. The only explanation is historical.

I completely agree...but you still didn't tell me your ends. I don't care if you need sophism to sell it to liberals and conservatives, or any other type of statists, but I'm asking you to sell it to me, an anarchist. If you need to PM me the answer to keep it out of the public and to have plausible deniability, feel free. But answer the question. And if I find you sophistic (that you lied to me) later, I'll turn against the idea on a dime.

There are two ways to distribute public funds...the invisible hand method (150 million taxpayers) and the visible hand method (538 congresspeople).

The Invisible Hand are "unintended consequences". Have you read Wealth of Nations? I mean it is 900+ pages, but still. You miss the point...there is one free market method here; not taxing them to begin with. You can not tax them, tax them and them redundantly let them spend their tax money, or tax them and let the 538 tyrants spend it. You skip the only one free market method. The methods you suggest are not free market, they're interfering with Adam Smith's free market. And they will both quite clearly have unintended consequences that the "Invisible Hand" will have to sweep away. We've seen the consequences of one, but it doesn't take a lot to see the possible consequences of the other as opposed. Tax, except property (land) tax, always has Dead Weight Loss...and that isn't mitigated by allowing tax choice.

Tax choice advocates allowing the invisible hand to distribute public funds among the various government organizations. As those 61 responses to pragmatarianism clearly indicate...people do not understand the value of allowing the invisible hand to distribute public funds...

I dpn't even understand what you mean here...because you are fundamentally misusing the phrase "invisisble hand" to mean something it doesn't mean at all. It's what happens as a result of unintended consequences in the market. Moral hazard is an example of an unintended consequence, and the market failure (when collective irrational results come from individual rational pursuits) such moral hazard can create is and example of Smith's Invisible Hand. So, no offense, I don't understand what you mean here. I thin you're trying to say something regarding what happens when consumers are able distribute their own funds...but then, once again, why the hell are taxing them to begin with given that logic?

The "means" are the invisible hand

I'm guessing, again, that you mean unleash the market...but again, then why the hell do you want to tax them at all, given that logic?

Does trying to teach them ethics help them understand the value of the invisible hand?

No...but it's irrelevant. I think Wealth of Nations might help YOU to understand the Invisible Hand...no offense, but you don't seem to grasp the concept. Once you do grasp it you'll realize tax itself had DWL (Dead Weight Loss), which is an unintended consequence and calls forth the Invisisble Hand to clear the market of those consequences.

Does trying to teach them to hate the state help them understand the value of the invisible hand? Nope.

No. It teaches them to them to be free and to have real consistent ethics and philosophy...something far more important to human freedom than ideology like economics. I want them to wake up and realize their tax cattle on a tax farm owned by a sadistic mafia run by sociopoaths (facing reality). You want them to buy into an ideology that won't free them at all...or at least can only be a step to freedom IF it's a means to the proper end. Either way, awareness of ethics and philosophy is FAR more important to their freedom and well being than economic ideology.

The obstacle is neither ethics...nor the state...nor morality...nor taxes. The obstacle is simply that people do not understand why they should trust the invisible hand instead of the visible hand.

I couldn't disagree more. They can choose to be socialist anarchists for all I care...it won't effect you or I in the pursuit of market communities given we get rid of the state that makes us fight over what system we will impose on the other. In panarchist synthesis we can all exist simultaneously with no interference to the other. So, again, there is reason to value idology in economics above ethics in philosophy.

I have enough faith in the invisible hand to trust whatever it does to the public sector

Let's say this "invisible hand" you describe (the markets I think it what you mean) doesn't ablish the state...well then, we have a departure here. I absolutely will not tolerate the state even if it's "pragmatic". What is preferable is statelessness, in that it is maximum liberty. Preserving the state would be a deal breaker for your ideology for me.

If you trust the "means" then why worry about the ends?

Because the ends are for more important than the means. I wouldn't suggest any means are justified by the ends, but the ends are far more importantthan the means. I mean otherwise, your means (tax choice) are your ends. That's a shortsighted plan, imho. I want to know your end golas, not your plans with little understanding of where it will lead. By far, a world run without coercion of the mafia (state) is more important than some particular method to get there. We're getting lost in the details, in the weeds, if you will, otherwise. I want to see the forrest for the trees, not see the trees and forget about the forrest.

Putting all your energy into justifying the ends does not help people understand why they should trust the means.

Sure it does. The most important reason to want anarchy is because the state is fundamentyally immoral and tyrannical. The means may or may not include your ideology...it's not the only way. If you want me to back it, I suggest you think about the more important goal...the ends. More people are swayed to this movement (liberty) by ethics than economics. What grabs people's hearts? Ending the drug war tyranny? Or deregualtion? The answer is clear. The only reason End the FED got so mo such momentum is because it became clear to people it WAS an ethical problem...not that it was just economics. When they saw millions of people's life savings going up in smoke on Wall Street during the collapse, the moral ramifications became clear. Most that chant that slogan have no clue what DWL is, what Division of Labor is, etc.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. - Murray N. Rothbard

Doesn'tthat apply to your misuse of the phrase Invisible Hand?

It's not a crime to be ignorant of economics...but we can't make any progress unless we help people understand the basic economic problem with 538 congresspeople allocating 150 million people's taxes. The obstacle before us is clearly defined.

No, we can...depending on what our goals are. My goals find ethics far more persuasive than economic ideology in convincing people how immoral the state really is, and how it destroys lives (170 million in the last 100 years, not counting wars). If your goal is a more palatable extortion (tax) system then to YOU ideology will be more important to a larger philosophy.

The obstacle before us is clearly defined.

The obstacle is the brainwashing that has been done to people everyday for most of their lives from the time they have been children to believe the state is benign, or worse beneficial.

You've got great energy and enthusiasm...so why waste it trying to tackle some problem that clearly does not exist?

I'm not sure you're aware of what the real root of the problems are.

The only reason you think it exists is because neither Molyneux nor Block nor Rothbard thought to test exactly where the problem was.

Actually no...I'm more of a fan of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Henry David Thoreau....but all of them and the above mentioned understand what the actual problem is...the sociopathic murder machine of tyranny and slavery...the state. All it's coerced monopolies must be ended, and it's territorial claims to law must be abolished for a free society to exist. No free society exists while the state and it's forced extortion payments (tax) exists. How could it? Where there is coercion there is no liberty.

As a computer programmer I'm trained to find bugs in the code. In order to find out where a bug is...I remove sections of code until I isolate exactly where the problem is. That's what I've done with libertarianism.

I don't know what you think you found...but the "bug" is the state, clearly. There is no "bug" in the philosophy of anti-statism. Statism and nationalism are mental disorders, and sadistic ones at that.

I removed the tax rate and the technical definition of a public good and all the ethical arguments

Once you removed the thics you no longer had a philosphy..that's where you went wrong. You took a coherent philosophy and reduced it to an incomplete ideology. You simply can't do that and keep it a philosophy.

until all I was left with was the invisible hand

Something you keep misdefining...and something in other ideologies like classical liberalism, conservatism, etc....so why stay around libertarians if you have reduced it's philosophy into a mud puddle of ideology? You don't need us...you can sell this to conservatives (another ideology). Look, no offense, but I have no respect for ideologies untop themselves as goals...they lack necessary aspects to give people coherent views of the world because they are NOT philosophies. They often pursue Utopian goals that solve nothing (and worse, create more problems).

As the 61 responses to pragmatarianism clearly indicate...this is exactly where the bug is.

Not at all.

Given that we've never before isolated exactly where the problem was...we've been all over the place with our efforts.

Not at all. The effort is to abolish the root of the problem...the state.

Now that we know exactly where the problem is...we can all focus our combined energy on solving it.

Whenever you're ready to abolish the state as an end goal, let me know.

It really won't be that difficult to do given that there's absolutely no economic evidence to support the myth that committees can determine the "optimal" level of funding for organizations.

Fair enough...but since we know that the "optimal" (as you're using the word) results come from NOT taxing people and just letting them pursue their own interests...why make a big deal out of this tax policy (assuming it's not just a means to an end of anarchy)? In that case, just rail for no taxes.

This is why I ask you if your goal is anarchy (which I think it's not), because it you goal is not to abolish the state, it is my belief that your tax system will be worse rather than better for my goal of abolishing the state...as I explained earlier. I don't want happier human cattle...I want them to wake up and realize they are cattle on a tax farm.

I read the link you gave me...you seem to wan t the state to keep monopolies on services and just to let the people fund them via "taxpayer Division of Labor". Stop trying to be smarter than the market. Just end the damn monopolies and let people fund the through their choices...otherwise they don't need funded. You maintaining state monopolies over these services and goods makes the prices higher and the quality of them lower (a predictable unintended consequence of all monopolization).

I'm sorry, I just buy your economic arguments. I gave you a link to the movies that explain why your concerns over aggression when a monopoly on law is abolished. Watch them.

If you understand how the Invisible Hand works...and know that the private sector can do X, Y and Z better than the public sector can...then advocating for the abolition of the government organizations responsible for X, Y and Z does nothing but distract people from learning about how the Invisible Hand works. Why shoot yourself in the foot with bells and whistles?

Because it's not necessary for everyone to understand economic ideology to understand the much simpler and more important concept: ethics. The state is the problem, not teaching people the finer points of economics. You admit the market can better handle X,Y, and Z, but ignore X is law, Y is defense, and Z is a free society.

And Molyneux is making the right argument in that video...we aren't trying to win any elections as anarchists. Iff we do, we do..if not, oh well. It's education that wins this fight. Molyneux ideas on parenting are far more important than your tax plan.

Advocating for the abolition of any government organization in no way, shape, or form helps people understand how the Invisible Hand works.

But our goal is NOT informing people how the Invisible Hand works...it's abolishing the STATE. Got it?

If they don't understand how the Invisible Hand works then they'll never understand what advantage the Invisible Hand has over congress.

The more convincing argument is ethical, not ideological and economic. People are bored to death by economics...but they love ethical discussion.

You also mention Socrates...how was he killed? Oh YEAH..the STATE killed him.

Plato, the moron, decided from the seminole event that a "Utopian State" was the answer to all the world's problems. He became the world's most famous "philosiopher" extolling the nonsense solution of statism. MEANWHILE philosophers like Lao Tzu, his successor Zhuangzi, Antithenes, Diogenes of Sinope, Zeno of Citium, and Hipparchia of Maroneia (to name just a quick few) cam up with the solution of ending the state. They knew that "Utopian State" was an oxymoron. Yet, who is taught in Universities to brainwash students in ever state in the world? Plato. Interesting isn't it? I think so.

And Plato's Forms was another stroke of idiocy...but I'll critique plato the statist some other time.

Socrates was right...and the state killed him for no reason. And he was dumb enough to allow it...because he actually thought he should follow tyrannical rules simply for speaking (freedom of speech). He was murdered by the state for words and ideas. How can the state NOT be the problem? Think about it.

And who runs the state? The SOPHISTS who Socrates always complained about...those who make the better arguments for the worst case. The intellectually dishonest habitual liars. He was brilliant in one way...and dumb in another. His faith in monopolized law was the death of him. It has been the death of many others since. When will we end such a cycle of endless stupidity?

You mention efficiency of goverment..which is like saying efficiency of mafia...I'd rather not make mafia more effcient, thank you very much.

You mention externality...but fail to critique it's fallacouis nature like Coase does. Coase showed why it's mostly nonsese. Also, I've personally addressed irrational actors in markets, which Coase did not. So there are easy answers to the statist economic case on externality fallacy.

I notice in the comments some one brings up the free rider problem...why didn't you mention the government falls victim to that NOW. 50% of people (roughly) don't pay net taxes...so they're all free riders. If in a stateless society the same occurs (50% pay for everything people use), then the siutation hasn't changed. BTW, the free rider problem of anarchism has been throroughly answered. Try to look it up you will find sufficient answers. For example, it was supposed to be impossible to have free markets handle things like lighthouses...and yet the private lighthouses did materialize w/o govt funding! Amazing how profit motives cause people who want to make money solve problems that sociologists and political scientists are so sure are impossible to solve without force and extortion.

The free rider problem is no real problem at all. By making society completely voluntary in anarchy people will gravitate (not necessarily physically either) to systems they prefer. If they want a particular type of law and organizational type (for example democracy) in panarchism and panarchist synthesis, they will simply purchase it (or join a non-profit or mutual exchange society, alternatively). If they want a particular economic system, they'll just choose to partake in it. All options, as opposed to one monopolized version, are available. This voluntary use of labor in differing economic systems also unleashes greater productivity as marginal utility in productivity is raised as compared to the statist system. This means the economic pie will be in total larger. Also, one system will specialize (Division of Labor) in one service or good, while others will specialize in other services or goods. There is no reason to think free markets are the best system to produce all goods and services voluntarily. For example..we know that some diseases have little profit incentive to cure...but if enough people have some emotional stake in it, or any other motive besides profit, those problems may be solved via syndicalism, or communism, or some regulated form of markets. All in all, the best of all possible worlds is in fact possible and both collective rational and individually rational.

But I don't expect you to agree. Based on what I've read you've really dug in your heals in an idology and have shed all philsophy in doing so.

Pragmatariainsim is not a philosophy...it's an ideology.

The only thing I'll give you is that most of the criticisms you list are fairly well swatted down...but you seem to ignore the root problem is that which you want to tinker around the edges to "fix"...the state and it's monopolies.

 

[Xerographica]

I completely agree...but you still didn't tell me your ends. I don't care if you need sophism to sell it to liberals and conservatives, or any other type of statists, but I'm asking you to sell it to me, an anarchist. If you need to PM me the answer to keep it out of the public and to have plausible deniability, feel free. But answer the question. And if I find you sophistic (that you lied to me) later, I'll turn against the idea on a dime.

That you're asking me what "my" ends are indicates that you're not quite clear on the concept. It's really simple. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. This is the universal economic principle. Now...what happens when we apply this universal economic principle to the public sector?

Well...given that you're an anarcho-capitalist the answer should be simple. According to you...the private sector provides more bang for people's bucks than the public sector. Therefore, from your perspective the "ends" of tax choice would be anarcho-capitalism.

However...if somebody is a socialist then the answer is simple for them as well. They believe that the public sector provides more bang for people's buck than the private sector. Therefore, from their perspective, the "ends" of tax choice would be pragma-socialism.



People aren't going to pay an organization in the public sector to do something that an organization in the private sector is better at doing. Likewise, people aren't going to pay an organization in the private sector to do something that an organization in the public sector is better at doing.

Also, morality should trump economics ALWAYS. Why else would I not rob my neighbor? It obviously has economic value for me to take what his his...but morality prevents me. You trying to assert either that I don't understand market economics, or that somehow ethics aren't more important in philosophy than economics is, well, nonsense.

Thou shalt not steal is one of the 10 commandments...but for some reason you think that people don't understand this fundamentally basic concept. Who do you think your target audience (TA) is? Are you telling taxpayers...aka the "victims" of theft...that they shouldn't steal? If so...why would you preach to the victims? Are you telling voters...aka the beneficiaries of theft...that they shouldn't steal? If so...why would they even listen to your sermon? Are you telling the state...aka the "evil" organization...that they shouldn't do what voters tell them to do? If so...why bother preaching to the state?

My TA is obviously the taxpayers. The large majority of them believe that taxes are necessary. Trying to dissuade them of their belief will only hamstring my efforts to help them understand the problem with 538 people spending other people's money in the public sector.

If you want to put it in ethical terms...it's wrong to impose our perspectives onto others. But we do it all the time with friends and family. We tell them to do this instead of that...we grab their keys if they try and drive drunk. In most cases it's not so wrong because we know the people we are imposing our perspectives on. However, it's still wrong if we do it to such an extent that we smother somebody else's perspective.

It's really wrong for 538 congresspeople to impose their perspectives onto 150 million taxpayers. They've never met you...they don't know your name let alone your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge.

So...in a sense we're saying the same thing. We're saying that freedom matters...but we're saying it in different ways. You're looking at the ethical aspects of restricting people's freedom...while I'm looking at the economic aspects of restricting people's freedom. From my perspective...you're not telling people anything that they do not already know. On the other hand...people clearly do not understand the value of integrating 150 million people's perspectives into the public sector.

Everybody understands that theft is wrong...but few people understand that perspectives should matter. Let's consider it on the individual level. Say I added you to my ignore list. Did I steal from you? Nope. Did you steal from me? Nope. Was there any type of coercion involved? Nope. So was I harmed at all in blocking your perspective? Of course I was! Right? How was I harmed though? Well...you know the value of your perspective. So what if I added somebody else to my ignore list. And then another person...and then another person...until I had 150 million people on my ignore list. There wouldn't be any theft involved...or any coercion involved...or any state involved...but clearly I harmed myself by engaging in self-tyranny.

If I ignore you...then I'm saying that your perspective does not matter. If you ignore me then you're saying that my perspective does not matter. If we ignore each other then we are like two countries that do not trade with each other. We would both lose. Lose what though? Can you articulate exactly what it is that we would both lose if we ignored each other? Can you articulate exactly what it is that we would both gain from discussion? Discussion is nothing more than free-trade. When we engage in discussion then we freely trade our perspectives with each other.

Learning not to disregard other people's perspectives is what led me to pragmatarianism. I was a libertarian that decided not to disregard the perspectives of anarcho-capitalists. In order to become a pragmatarian...perhaps you have to decide not to disregard the perspectives of statists. Was it easy for me to not disregard the perspectives of anarcho-capitalists? Nope. Would it be easy for you to not disregard the perspectives of statists? Nope. Would it be worth it? Yup.

Pragmatarianism encourages free-trade between liberals, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. We should all agree that we all stand to benefit by freely trading with each other.

 

[Pragmatarian]

Pragmatarianism encourages free-trade between liberals, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. We should all agree that we all stand to benefit by freely trading with each other.

Hear hear! Pragmatarianism is the one system, where all can determine the needs of all, and all have a say, both in the votes for government agencies, and in which government agencies they choose to fund.

 

[Cabal]

Pragmatarianism is the one system, where all can determine the needs of all

Oh god. There's another one. And it's just as nonsensical as the first.

 

[Xerographica]

Hear hear! Pragmatarianism is the one system, where all can determine the needs of all, and all have a say, both in the votes for government agencies, and in which government agencies they choose to fund.

Well...I really appreciate your enthusiasm...but perhaps you might as well stick to just quoting me. Oh wait. I forgot. You're the minister of misinformation...so carry on.

 

[Pragmatarian]

What are you saying Xerographica? Minister of misinformation? HOw? =( =(

 

[Xerographica]

What are you saying Xerographica? Minister of misinformation? HOw? =( =(

How? Well...there's a huge disparity between what you say I say and what I actually say. I like your avatar though.

 

[Pragmatarian]

Xerographica says:

How? Well...there's a huge disparity between what you say I say and what I actually say. I like your avatar though.

What did I say that you don't believe in sir? =(

Can you please explain or quote me? I will revise my beliefs accordingly. I am humbly at your service, good friend.

I want to start a pragmatarian revolution. I want to help you. I firmly believe in the principles of pragmatarianism.

 

[Pragmatarian]

I cannot emphasize more that I am your loyal follower. I just really really would like to help. A lot sir.

 

[Xerographica]

Xerographica says:
What did I say that you don't believe in sir? =(

Can you please explain or quote me? I will revise my beliefs accordingly. I am humbly at your service, good friend.

I want to start a pragmatarian revolution. I want to help you. I firmly believe in the principles of pragmatarianism.

Yeah, if I genuinely believed your sincerity then it might be worth the effort to point out the disparities. But clearly you're just spoofing me. It's a good spoof. I liked the 16 private messages you sent me. They were all pretty funny.

 

[Pragmatarian]

Yeah, if I genuinely believed your sincerity then it might be worth the effort to point out the disparities. But clearly you're just spoofing me. It's a good spoof. I liked the 16 private messages you sent me. They were all pretty funny.

No, sir! I actually truly believe in pragmatarianism. The 16 messages on your user wall were sincere; they were all legitimate questions I had to ask. Questions I had saved in my word document since I was a closet pragmatarian.

Perhap, perhaps...it was better as an anarchocapitalist. I thought the problem with revealing my new ideology would be with my old anarchocapitalist friends. Not with my leader. I actually feel rather sad and rejected.

 

[Pragmatarian]

OK let's try this again. Perhaps I was a little bit too zealous.

Hi, my name is Pragmatarian. How are you doing, Xerographica? Could I help you spread the Magna Carta Movement?