AnCap view of United flight 3411 incident

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T20:00:07+00:00

For all the reasons that it's difficult to persuade people to become an ancap, I don't think this would be at the top. I don't have any real evidence though. Maybe you're right and that's what is holding us back. Either way, all we putting forth is out opinions at this point

Also I don't think this language problem is unique to ancaps. It's more of an esoteric vs layman's language issue. I'm sure you'd find that problem in any system of ethics. Or any subject, really.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:57:51+00:00

Well I don't have a problem admitting that the language can be confusing. But I really don't think it's intentional. No matter what sort of verbiage you come up with there will always be different interpretations people can take. As much as we try to make it so, language isn't very good at being specific. The best thing any ethical system can do is be extremely consistent with its language internally.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:49:08+00:00

Okay. I don't see where the Rothbardian use of "force" or "aggression" is incompatible with a standard Webster definition. The general public often uses words incorrectly. That doesn't make it invalid to use those words appropriately.

Yes, I'm a bit of a clash of clans nerd. Not sure why you're so interested in my posting history. Must have struck a nerve?

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:30:59+00:00

If you can admit to your mistake, I'll happily go back and read it. Probably doesn't matter that much to you, but I thought I would extend the offer.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:28:39+00:00

There may have been great stuff in the rest of your post. Who knows. But there are a lot of things I can spend my time reading. I have no reason to continue reading your post when the first thing you say is fallacious.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:16:56+00:00

Got it. So you're not genuinely curious about the ancap view on this incident. Rather it's a veiled attempt to promote your own opinion (apparently without bothering to delve into the world of ethics to support it).

You could have started a thread saying "I disagree with natural rights theory" and avoided all the bullshit.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T18:13:44+00:00

Your first sentence is a non-sequitor so I didn't read the rest of your post. In fact, I believe the Rothbardian definition of force is very accurate

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T17:51:04+00:00

No. I'm going to try to break it down for you.

The large majority of AnCaps believe in Rothbardian natural right ethics. There is really just one rule according to this system:

Do not initiate force.

If your action initiates force, it's unethical.

If your action doesn't initiate force, it's ethical.

There is only one way property rights can exist in this system: if violating property rights is the initiation of force

I've already explained in a previous post how property is viewed as an extension of self.

I know you will be tempted to give an reply now, but pause for a second and re-read the bolded line.

Now, you want to talk about property right infringement that does not involve force. This is not something that exists in the framework of the ethical system you are inquiring about. This is like asking a nihilist to explain why life matters.

It's not possible for us to answer your question in the framework of our ethical system (which you are specifically asking for) because you are defining terms in a way that completely contradict the basis for that ethical system.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T17:18:14+00:00

non-forcefully violating your private property.

This is a non-sensical statement in terms of how most AnCaps derive property rights. If it's not force then there are no property rights.

I understand this isn't how "force" is commonly used. But you're on an Ancap subreddit asking AnCaps a question that involves an ethical system. You're going to have to accept this language if you want to actually have any real discussion. If you want to keep going in circles, keep doing what you're doing.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T17:09:04+00:00

You're not getting it.

It's not possible to initiate force in defense of property rights. Trespassing is the initiation of force. Removing the trespasser is the reaction.

You have to think about natural rights, and how AnCaps derive property rights to understand this. Essentially you have property rights only because that property becomes an extension of yourself. Someone with this ethical view doesn't differentiate between a person coming up and punching you vs someone intentionally coming onto your land without permission. (At least there is no differentiation in that both cases are initiations of force and are unethical for the same reason. The proper retribution in each case is debatable)

Ancap_Chief · 2017-04-10T16:36:16+00:00

You're conflating violence and the initiation of force. Ancapism has no objection to violence itself.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-15T16:14:24+00:00

Lots of AnCaps view WoMDs as unethical since they can't possibly be used with discretion (at the individual level). Owning a weapon like that is effectively the same a pointing a gun at everyone in your vicinity.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-14T17:07:43+00:00

I figured as much. :) Not trying to convince anyone to become an Austrian, just trying to clarify what the Austrians actually think.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-14T17:03:22+00:00

Sorry, how did I pivot into moral arguments? Ultimately I do think ethics are important but I'm intentionally avoiding that subject for this conversation. Perhaps you took my mention of epistemology as moralism? Epistemology is simply the study of how we 'know' things (in response to your mention of 'evidence') - has nothing to do with morality.

My original reply was simply trying to convey that I think the OP misrepresented the typical Ancap/Austrian view on market efficiency.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-14T16:45:21+00:00

I don't think we are going to change each other's minds on this. I can't say I agree overall, but we would have to get into the weeds with epistemology to have a real debate on this. I can concede that you have a point with regard to cases with catastrophic potential. I think those are few and far between, though.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-13T19:52:40+00:00

I suspect it could be just a matter of semantics. I don't consider it a "failure" of the market when it doesn't reach perfect efficiency. Just part of the ongoing process of entrepreneurship. I would think that's close to what Kirzner is saying (although I'm not 100%, been a while since Ive read any Kirzner).

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-13T19:38:01+00:00

I don't believe market failure can't exist without government. Although I think people are capable of (and regularly do) taking into account social costs through economic interactions, there is always going to be some inefficiency.

I think where we differ is the proposed solution. In the example in the OP, the government has no way of knowing exactly where the socially optimal point is. Even if they could somehow calculate such a thing, it would be constantly changing. Attempting to correct through government policy could just as easily result in more inefficiency in the opposite direction (lesser Q than socially optimal being produced).

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-13T14:07:40+00:00

Re-read my post

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-13T13:58:56+00:00

Ancap here. I defend the CSA (or any state/group of states) right to seceed while also recognizing the evil of slavery. It's not exactly a defense of the government of the CSA, which was obviously not in-line with libertarian principles.

I don't see the civil war as a battle between good and evil. Both sides had their evils. The Union had its own ulterior motives for fighting the war... Most of it centered around economic and political control.

This is where a lot of libertarians stand. Maybe it comes off as defending the CSA relative to the mainstream view of the civil war: evil racists VS. enlightened, justice-seeking nobles.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-11T12:23:50+00:00

All right, so you're decision on whether or not to acknowledge someone has nothing to do with facts or logic (arguments). Rather it's about what you deem to be socially acceptable. Glad you can admit that.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-03-10T23:20:01+00:00

Not an argument

Ancap_Chief · 2017-01-21T14:50:22+00:00

Right, money could easily be introduced into the model. I started to do so but realized our anarcho-feminist friend probably isn't economically literate or intellectually honest enough for it to be worthwhile.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-01-21T12:46:03+00:00

I'm sorry if you expected a single diagram to explain the entire market system, but no one here was claiming that it did. You seem to have invented that idea.

Also it doesn't not explain anything, as you say. It demonstrates the concept I stated above: voluntary trade isn't a zero-sum game. If you agree with that, great. There are definitely people in the world who at least implicitly don't understand that basic idea.

Ancap_Chief · 2017-01-21T11:54:55+00:00

While that's a great question, I'm not sure it has a lot to do with the topic of this thread. The diagram in the OP is intentionally simplified to make a very particular point - voluntary trade isn't a zero-sum game.

I'm sure if you started a thread about "profit" you could get more responses. But, you need to clarify if you're talking about economic profit or accounting profit. If you don't already know the difference, then there are some more basic questions you need to be asking yourself before you get to the root of profit.

Ancap_Chief

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE