Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism


Recommended Posts

Before commenting on a subject, you should take the trouble do a little reading in advance. Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes. It is the law of equal liberty, defined by Herbert Spencer as the idea "that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man."

I know. I got that much. That's why I'm asking you. If libertarianism is "only" an ethical theory, then you are merely saying that free markets should maximize consumer satisfaction. But, this whole time you were arguing that free markets do in fact maximize consumer satisfaction.

Now, in this case, if "should" implies "is", then your whole argument collapses in on itself. That there are objective ethical standards, such as the principle of non-initiation of force, implies that there are things all people will find objectively valuable.

Objective value belongs to the concept man--what is universal through human being. Thus objective ethics and politics respecting the protection of rights. Valuing as such is always subjective and to some even death could be a value for valuing. Thus air is an objective value. So is freedom*.

The economic consequences of laissez faire are somewhat tricky. Based on historical evidence, generally the more freedom the more prosperity and economic advancement over time. Problems appear here and there that need to be dealt with first in an ad hoc way then when a better way becomes apparent replace statism with contra statism. There's a reason air travel is so safe. Safety standards are set by the Federal government. Internationally governments cooperate to the same effect. If you're going to radically monkey with that in today's world you might ask if your priorities might be wrong; they are.

Psychologically more freedom economically and in all other respects is tremendously beneficial and if we were moving in principle toward more and more freedom, careful as we go, most of those benefits would appear long before the actual concomitant freedom would be objectively justified if all were frozen in place, as in a snapshot, for human beings are naturally highly dynamic forward looking creatures, not frozen. Freezing in place is the "virtue" of slavery.

--Brant

*non-initiation of force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Before commenting on a subject, you should take the trouble do a little reading in advance. Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes. It is the law of equal liberty, defined by Herbert Spencer as the idea "that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man."

I know. I got that much. That's why I'm asking you. If libertarianism is "only" an ethical theory, then you are merely saying that free markets should maximize consumer satisfaction. But, this whole time you were arguing that free markets do in fact maximize consumer satisfaction.

Now, in this case, if "should" implies "is", then your whole argument collapses in on itself. That there are objective ethical standards, such as the principle of non-initiation of force, implies that there are things all people will find objectively valuable.

Let there be no mistake: given a certain population and certain limited resources, the free market performs better than socialism at meeting the wants of the vast majority of individuals.

Can the market meet the wants of the rapist, the cutthroat, the vandal? Obviously not, for satisfying the desires of sociopaths would necessarily negate the present and future satisfaction of their victims.

It's true that we cannot mass tell murderers what is in their best interests (other than to say, don't kill if you don't want to be killed yourself). That does not change the fact that societies that centrally plan what their citizens are supposed to need will end in economic stagnation or collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let there be no mistake: given a certain population and certain limited resources, the free market performs better than socialism at meeting the wants of the vast majority of individuals.

Can the market meet the wants of the rapist, the cutthroat, the vandal? Obviously not, for satisfying the desires of sociopaths would necessarily negate the present and future satisfaction of their victims.

It's true that we cannot mass tell murderers what is in their best interests (other than to say, don't kill if you don't want to be killed yourself). That does not change the fact that societies that centrally plan what their citizens are supposed to need will end in economic stagnation or collapse.

The bolded seems to contradict:

Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes.

It seems to me that an ethical theory which cannot tell mass murderers not to mass murder is no ethical theory at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let there be no mistake: given a certain population and certain limited resources, the free market performs better than socialism at meeting the wants of the vast majority of individuals.

Can the market meet the wants of the rapist, the cutthroat, the vandal? Obviously not, for satisfying the desires of sociopaths would necessarily negate the present and future satisfaction of their victims.

It's true that we cannot mass tell murderers what is in their best interests (other than to say, don't kill if you don't want to be killed yourself). That does not change the fact that societies that centrally plan what their citizens are supposed to need will end in economic stagnation or collapse.

The bolded seems to contradict:

Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes.

It seems to me that an ethical theory which cannot tell mass murderers not to mass murder is no ethical theory at all.

Dear Hitler: It's wrong to start wars and kill people. See this here ethical theory?

--Brant

use the theory to go kill the bastard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let there be no mistake: given a certain population and certain limited resources, the free market performs better than socialism at meeting the wants of the vast majority of individuals.

Can the market meet the wants of the rapist, the cutthroat, the vandal? Obviously not, for satisfying the desires of sociopaths would necessarily negate the present and future satisfaction of their victims.

It's true that we cannot mass tell murderers what is in their best interests (other than to say, don't kill if you don't want to be killed yourself). That does not change the fact that societies that centrally plan what their citizens are supposed to need will end in economic stagnation or collapse.

The bolded seems to contradict:

Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes.

It seems to me that an ethical theory which cannot tell mass murderers not to mass murder is no ethical theory at all.

A. We cannot mass tell murderers what is in their best interests.

B. We can mass tell murderers what is in their best interests.

A and B are in contradiction. I choose A.

Now, having chosen A, I may go on to say that everyone has a right to his own body and thus to be free of aggression from others. I do not have to know what is in any one person's best interests to recognize the law of equal liberty. No one has refrained from telling mass murderers not to mass murder. To repeat, satisfying the desires of sociopaths would necessarily negate the present and future satisfaction (and rights) of their victims.

A society that protects the individual from aggression may not please everybody. The rapist, the cutthroat, and the vandal may prefer a realm where such protections do not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

Although you're being consistent within your ethics in that you recognize that your ethics can't actually tell people that mass murder is not in their best interest, I think you are still kind of biting the bullet.

A while ago you said (and this is what started this whole aside):

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest.

Now, you've admitted that you cannot tell mass murderers what is in their own best interest. But here's the catch. How can you then say that socialism is not in anyone's best interest? What if a bunch of people decide that living in a socialist society and forcing the rest of the world to be socialist as well is in their best interest? Can you tell them that it is not in their best interest to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never made the statement that socialism is not in anyone's best interest. Obviously, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and certain others derived great personal benefit from imposing a socialist order in their countries and then securing a position of absolute authority over it.

The argument for the free market is not that every single person's wants will be perfectly satisfied. Obviously, voluntary exchange cannot serve the desires of the murderer, the rapist and the vandal. To the extent that the desires of predators are met, the desires of their victims are negated. This has been stated before--or have you not been paying attention? The great benefit of the market is that it is the most efficient system for delivering resources to a population. Moreover, it is the only economic system consistent with the recognition of man's rights.

Yesterday, your presumed exception to the free market was a psycho-killer. Today it is the hard-line socialist. Tomorrow, I imagine, your devastating rebuttal will include a homicidal religious nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never made the statement that socialism is not in anyone's best interest. Obviously, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and certain others derived great personal benefit from imposing a socialist order in their countries and then securing a position of absolute authority over it.

The argument for the free market is not that every single person's wants will be perfectly satisfied. Obviously, voluntary exchange cannot serve the desires of the murderer, the rapist and the vandal. To the extent that the desires of predators are met, the desires of their victims are negated. This has been stated before--or have you not been paying attention? The great benefit of the market is that it is the most efficient system for delivering resources to a population. Moreover, it is the only economic system consistent with the recognition of man's rights.

Yesterday, your presumed exception to the free market was a psycho-killer. Today it is the hard-line socialist. Tomorrow, I imagine, your devastating rebuttal will include a homicidal religious nut.

In a sea tossed life boat where water is scarce and bailing absolutely necessary to survival some sort of life-boat "socialism" will be imposed. Those who -can- bail -must- bail and water has to be rationed to help keep the bailers and the rowers alive.

Fortunately such emergency situations can only last a short time. Either rescue happens in which case the passengers of the life boat can get back on land and get back to being their selfish selves or the people in the life boat perish and their problem is "solved".

Ba'al Chataf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never made the statement that socialism is not in anyone's best interest. Obviously, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and certain others derived great personal benefit from imposing a socialist order in their countries and then securing a position of absolute authority over it.

The argument for the free market is not that every single person's wants will be perfectly satisfied. Obviously, voluntary exchange cannot serve the desires of the murderer, the rapist and the vandal. To the extent that the desires of predators are met, the desires of their victims are negated. This has been stated before--or have you not been paying attention? The great benefit of the market is that it is the most efficient system for delivering resources to a population. Moreover, it is the only economic system consistent with the recognition of man's rights.

Yesterday, your presumed exception to the free market was a psycho-killer. Today it is the hard-line socialist. Tomorrow, I imagine, your devastating rebuttal will include a homicidal religious nut.

In a sea tossed life boat where water is scarce and bailing absolutely necessary to survival some sort of life-boat "socialism" will be imposed. Those who -can- bail -must- bail and water has to be rationed to help keep the bailers and the rowers alive.

Fortunately such emergency situations can only last a short time. Either rescue happens in which case the passengers of the life boat can get back on land and get back to being their selfish selves or the people in the life boat perish and their problem is "solved".

Ba'al Chataf

I wouldn't called that socialism unless we want to make the word more devoid of meaning than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never made the statement that socialism is not in anyone's best interest. Obviously, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and certain others derived great personal benefit from imposing a socialist order in their countries and then securing a position of absolute authority over it.

The argument for the free market is not that every single person's wants will be perfectly satisfied. Obviously, voluntary exchange cannot serve the desires of the murderer, the rapist and the vandal. To the extent that the desires of predators are met, the desires of their victims are negated. This has been stated before--or have you not been paying attention? The great benefit of the market is that it is the most efficient system for delivering resources to a population. Moreover, it is the only economic system consistent with the recognition of man's rights.

Yesterday, your presumed exception to the free market was a psycho-killer. Today it is the hard-line socialist. Tomorrow, I imagine, your devastating rebuttal will include a homicidal religious nut.

In a sea tossed life boat where water is scarce and bailing absolutely necessary to survival some sort of life-boat "socialism" will be imposed. Those who -can- bail -must- bail and water has to be rationed to help keep the bailers and the rowers alive.

Fortunately such emergency situations can only last a short time. Either rescue happens in which case the passengers of the life boat can get back on land and get back to being their selfish selves or the people in the life boat perish and their problem is "solved".

Ba'al Chataf

I wouldn't called that socialism unless we want to make the word more devoid of meaning than it already is.

A really nice retort.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're kind of missing the point. If the individual is the highest authority on his own best interest, as you've claimed before, and if there are some individuals who would prefer not to have a free market, then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your argument. What it essentially boils down to is that you're just saying that the free market is in the best interests of those for whom the free market is in their best interests. I don't think that's a particularly compelling point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're kind of missing the point. If the individual is the highest authority on his own best interest, as you've claimed before, and if there are some individuals who would prefer not to have a free market, then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your argument. What it essentially boils down to is that you're just saying that the free market is in the best interests of those for whom the free market is in their best interests. I don't think that's a particularly compelling point.

The difference is, you can live in our society and be free to set up your little communities and run your little system with no interference.

However, you, being a statist, would not allow folks like us to live in your society, unless we live by your rules.

I know that is too simple for you to grasp, however, try in on and walk a few decades in it, you might be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're kind of missing the point. If the individual is the highest authority on his own best interest, as you've claimed before, and if there are some individuals who would prefer not to have a free market, then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your argument. What it essentially boils down to is that you're just saying that the free market is in the best interests of those for whom the free market is in their best interests. I don't think that's a particularly compelling point.

The argument has been reduced to the most rudimentary level in order to correct the misconceptions (or misdirections) of a contributor who falsely represents my argument with questions such as, "How can you then say that socialism is not in anyone's best interest?"

While I have little hope that you will be able to respond to this post with anything but prattle on the order of "How will the market keep child molesters happy?" I will state, once more, that freedom, while benefiting the vast majority of people, will not be to the liking of those who prefer the life of a predator.

I do not know of a social system that will please both the man who thinks that individual rights are sacrosanct and the man who thinks that the rest of men are just dumb animals waiting to be caged or slaughtered. Their interests are completely incompatible, and no one on this forum has ever supposed otherwise.

I have said this twice before: We cannot please both the men who wish to murder and the men who wish not to be murdered. Satisfying the former group negates the latter group.

Therefore, in choosing the free market and a legal system that protects each person and what he has gained through his own work and voluntary relations with others, we don't please everybody but we do maximize the satisfaction of individual wants on the widest possible scale.

If you want to argue with a person who believes that Stalin and Mao can be made happy under laissez-faire, you're talking to the wrong fellow.

What's compelling about the free market is that it raises the quality of life for people across the board (even people who now vote Democratic). Unfortunately, government-subsidized schools and colleges have successfully preached the doctrine that an unregulated market leads to economic economic chaos and misery--despite all historical data to the contrary.

This forum (in a small way) works to correct such socialist propaganda. But too often we have visitors who are not here to engage in honest discourse but to waste our time.

I'm done with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since my opponent has grown tired of the debate, I guess I'll have to deliver the closing remarks.

His position is based on a moralistic fallacy. The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy. Whereas the naturalistic fallacy says, "this is how things are, therefore that's how they should be", the moralistic fallacy says, "this is how things should be, therefore that's how they are." In the specific case of Mr. Ferrer's belief, his argument is that, "people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference should result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants, therefore people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference does result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants." Furthermore, people's interests and wants are defined in such a way (namely, through the subjective theory of value) that this claim can never be disproven by any evidence. So if we were to point out, say, a few people who are starving as a result of laissez-faire policies, the laissez-faire proponent would always claim, "it's ok, because the market ensures the most efficient allocation of resources by default, and therefore any attempt to 'correct' it can only make things worse."

This type of conclusion naturally leads to the strange (in my opinion) belief that any government action (outside of a very specific and limited domain) is necessarily bad. The reason I find it so strange is that nothing else in reality has this bizarre property of near-absolute incompetence. It reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean character. Although the character tries to perform very basic and innocent everyday tasks, it inevitably ends in disaster for him and laughter for the audience. The fact that this kind of phenomenon can only be found at the center of a comedic performance says something about the credibility of the Mr. Bean theory of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're kind of missing the point. If the individual is the highest authority on his own best interest, as you've claimed before, and if there are some individuals who would prefer not to have a free market, then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your argument. What it essentially boils down to is that you're just saying that the free market is in the best interests of those for whom the free market is in their best interests. I don't think that's a particularly compelling point.

The difference is, you can live in our society and be free to set up your little communities and run your little system with no interference.

However, you, being a statist, would not allow folks like us to live in your society, unless we live by your rules.

I know that is too simple for you to grasp, however, try in on and walk a few decades in it, you might be surprised.

Don't tell me you believe the nicel little (classical) liberal myth of neutrality, Selene. You too want to force people to live by your rules. Do you think an animal rights activist would be fine with meat eaters and fur manufacturers simply continuing what they do some place else? Or have you never heard of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that challenges Japanese whalers on the high seas? You've uttered before that left anarchism can exist inside an anarcho-capitalist society. It can't. You'd be trying to get them to buy into the very policies that they seek to reject.

Selene, I'll be the first to admit that I think my political views are the correct ones and that I have zero problem forcing them on others--same as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we were to point out, say, a few people who are starving as a result of laissez-faire policies, the laissez-faire proponent would always claim, "it's ok, because the market ensures the most efficient allocation of resources by default, and therefore any attempt to 'correct' it can only make things worse."

You are not qualified to make a critique of a political system that you willfully misrepresent. The advocates of laissez-faire do not say that charitable contributions to the hungry are corrections of the market. Any voluntary action is part of the market. Thus you have demolished an argument that no one here has advanced. The starvation claim is especially rich since whatever amount of hunger existed in semi-free countries of the past pales in comparison to those who starved under Stalin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since my opponent has grown tired of the debate, I guess I'll have to deliver the closing remarks.

His position is based on a moralistic fallacy. The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy. Whereas the naturalistic fallacy says, "this is how things are, therefore that's how they should be", the moralistic fallacy says, "this is how things should be, therefore that's how they are." In the specific case of Mr. Ferrer's belief, his argument is that, "people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference should result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants, therefore people acting in what they think is their own best interest absent outside interference does result in the maximization of the satisfaction of their wants." Furthermore, people's interests and wants are defined in such a way (namely, through the subjective theory of value) that this claim can never be disproven by any evidence. So if we were to point out, say, a few people who are starving as a result of laissez-faire policies, the laissez-faire proponent would always claim, "it's ok, because the market ensures the most efficient allocation of resources by default, and therefore any attempt to 'correct' it can only make things worse."

This type of conclusion naturally leads to the strange (in my opinion) belief that any government action (outside of a very specific and limited domain) is necessarily bad. The reason I find it so strange is that nothing else in reality has this bizarre property of near-absolute incompetence. It reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean character. Although the character tries to perform very basic and innocent everyday tasks, it inevitably ends in disaster for him and laughter for the audience. The fact that this kind of phenomenon can only be found at the center of a comedic performance says something about the credibility of the Mr. Bean theory of the state.

He's not your "opponent." He considers you not worthy. You deserve a slightly higher opinion, so far, it would seem from some others. Note, I am only replying to your first sentence. Francisco's opinion is slightly higher than mine. The essential problem is your lack of courtesy in not engaging the ostensive philosophy of a site dedicated to it, implicitly, trolly, belittling it and who are here by pretending it doesn't even exist. So, one way or the other, you're going to get bitch-slapped all over the joint. You do it to us and we do it to you. Quid pro quo.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not qualified to make a critique of a political system that you willfully misrepresent. The advocates of laissez-faire do not say that charitable contributions to the hungry are corrections of the market. Any voluntary action is part of the market. Thus you have demolished an argument that no one here has advanced. The starvation claim is especially rich since whatever amount of hunger existed in semi-free countries of the past pales in comparison to those who starved under Stalin.

Actually, you're the one misrepresenting my argument right now. It's perfectly clear from the context of the debate that I was referring to government interventions in the market, and I didn't say anything about charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is, you can live in our society and be free to set up your little communities and run your little system with no interference.

However, you, being a statist, would not allow folks like us to live in your society, unless we live by your rules.

I know that is too simple for you to grasp, however, try in on and walk a few decades in it, you might be surprised.

This kind of political permissiveness is yet another weakness of the pure laissez-faire system. It would inevitably result in a political collapse once people figure out that they can have their own little fiefdom with a bit of money and a few guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Selene, I'll be the first to admit that I think my political views are the correct ones and that I have zero problem forcing them on others--same as you.

Easy there. Force is the crux. What type and how is it done?

--Brant

Forcing views in this case only means do not initiate force--an anarchist can have no truck in a government that does--but what government doesn't outside a theorectical context?

Liberalitarianism seems to be a parent-child relationship with the liberalitarians the Mom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of political permissiveness is yet another weakness of the pure laissez-faire system.

Gary:

Let's define some terms, shall we?

Yes we shall.

Your terms, so you go first.

"political" to Gary means _____________________________;

"permissiveness" to Gary means ________________________; [i assume, that there is a "permissor" who

can grant something to a "permissee" who seeks something from the "permissor"];

"pure" _____________________;

"laissez-faire" ________________;

"system" _________________;

Then you can request some definitions.

A..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of political permissiveness is yet another weakness of the pure laissez-faire system.

Gary:

Let's define some terms, shall we?

Yes we shall.

Your terms, so you go first.

"political" to Gary means _____________________________;

"permissiveness" to Gary means ________________________; [i assume, that there is a "permissor" who

can grant something to a "permissee" who seeks something from the "permissor"];

"pure" _____________________;

"laissez-faire" ________________;

"system" _________________;

Then you can request some definitions.

A..

"Laissez-faire" = unregulated business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now