20 ms·

Strictly speaking there is indeed no such thing as a completely voluntary transaction, as every transaction affects a third party, even if in a minuscule way. S

by jules 9y ago

Strictly speaking there is indeed no such thing as a completely voluntary transaction, as every transaction affects a third party, even if in a minuscule way. Similar criticisms can be made of any system, or any word (such as "voluntary") for that matter. The original point of discussion was whether "unregulated market" includes shooting people. As I said above: > Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet. In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. The word "voluntary" becomes completely useless with the meaning you describe. You can do the same to any word, even words such as "apple". If you let an apple rot it eventually becomes compost. Somewhere in between it stops being an apple. By the same type of reasoning you can conclude that "apples are pure fiction". These kind of language games are not very useful.

jahaja 9y ago
> In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. It's just too convenient to define the range to what amounts to a modern version of the divine rights of kings. Where certain meanings - voluntary and property rights in particular - become some sorts of theological constants in which the privileges of the king (or property owner in the libertarian case), which have no bearing in justice, are explained. It's basically ad-hoc law in benefit of the privileged. Bottom-up resistance is violence. Top-down violence/exploitation is a voluntary exchange.
- jules 9y ago
  There is nothing theological about the widely accepted meaning of voluntary. If your definition of voluntary includes putting a gun to somebody's head or does not include exchange of one good for another, then you are the one redefining language in service of your ideology. The problem in the age of kings was that kings enjoyed special rights and the populace did not have property rights. The king could, and often did, take whatever he wanted without consent. We see the conflict between aristocracy and private property even in modern times. Consider how the aristocracy in the UK reacted to Thatcher's selling off government entities to the people who worked in those entities. The aristocracy reacted in horror when they saw ordinary "peasants" getting control of what were previously government entities controlled by the aristocracy. They desperately attempted to throw her out of the conservative party, and eventually succeeded. I would also point out that the places on earth where the poor have relatively good lives are precisely the places with property rights, and that the places where the poor aren't even able to get a loaf of bread (e.g. north korea, venezuela, several countries in sub-saharan africa) are precisely the places without property rights. I'm surprised by the extent to which the recent rise of socialism has even penetrated HN. I fear we need another 100 million cold bodies to relearn that lesson.
  - jahaja 9y ago
    It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. Furthermore I have no idea where I defined it as including "putting a gun to somebody's head". However I do recognize, unlike libertarians, that there's both direct and indirect ways of putting a gun towards someones head. Only acknowledging the former is to, as you nicely put it; "redefining language in service of your ideology". You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. The concentration of capital/property, and thus kings, would be inevitable. I'm sure this is a feature and not a bug given the demographics of libertarians. Also you could've spared me the inevitable "Let's compare the idea I oppose by a measurement than I'm not willing to judge my own idea". I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. But people using this body count rhetoric seldom accept such comparisons.
    - jules 9y ago
      > It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. What libertarians believe is not relevant. I am not a libertarian and do not speak for them. I do not share their dogmatic understanding of the word voluntary. I agree that the meaning is not perfectly well defined and that there is a discussion to be had, but there are limits to which you can stretch its meaning. What of my description of voluntary is not widely accepted? > You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. Except for the fact that it has. Almost all aristocratic families in my country have gone all but bankrupt. They have had to transform their castles into hotels and museums in order to barely break even on the cost of the upkeep. In fact, many of these castles are receiving government help as monuments. > I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. No, you cannot. There are a few, like the Pinochet regime, but the death toll is orders of magnitude off. In fact, although authoritarian politically, Chile did transform from the poorest country in Latin America into the richest. And it transitioned to democracy with very little violence.

by jules 9y ago

jahaja 9y ago

> In order for language to be useful we have to assign a reasonable range of meaning to a word. It's just too convenient to define the range to what amounts to a modern version of the divine rights of kings. Where certain meanings - voluntary and property rights in particular - become some sorts of theological constants in which the privileges of the king (or property owner in the libertarian case), which have no bearing in justice, are explained. It's basically ad-hoc law in benefit of the privileged. Bottom-up resistance is violence. Top-down violence/exploitation is a voluntary exchange.

jules 9y ago
There is nothing theological about the widely accepted meaning of voluntary. If your definition of voluntary includes putting a gun to somebody's head or does not include exchange of one good for another, then you are the one redefining language in service of your ideology. The problem in the age of kings was that kings enjoyed special rights and the populace did not have property rights. The king could, and often did, take whatever he wanted without consent. We see the conflict between aristocracy and private property even in modern times. Consider how the aristocracy in the UK reacted to Thatcher's selling off government entities to the people who worked in those entities. The aristocracy reacted in horror when they saw ordinary "peasants" getting control of what were previously government entities controlled by the aristocracy. They desperately attempted to throw her out of the conservative party, and eventually succeeded. I would also point out that the places on earth where the poor have relatively good lives are precisely the places with property rights, and that the places where the poor aren't even able to get a loaf of bread (e.g. north korea, venezuela, several countries in sub-saharan africa) are precisely the places without property rights. I'm surprised by the extent to which the recent rise of socialism has even penetrated HN. I fear we need another 100 million cold bodies to relearn that lesson.
- jahaja 9y ago
  It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. Furthermore I have no idea where I defined it as including "putting a gun to somebody's head". However I do recognize, unlike libertarians, that there's both direct and indirect ways of putting a gun towards someones head. Only acknowledging the former is to, as you nicely put it; "redefining language in service of your ideology". You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. The concentration of capital/property, and thus kings, would be inevitable. I'm sure this is a feature and not a bug given the demographics of libertarians. Also you could've spared me the inevitable "Let's compare the idea I oppose by a measurement than I'm not willing to judge my own idea". I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. But people using this body count rhetoric seldom accept such comparisons.
  - jules 9y ago
    > It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. What libertarians believe is not relevant. I am not a libertarian and do not speak for them. I do not share their dogmatic understanding of the word voluntary. I agree that the meaning is not perfectly well defined and that there is a discussion to be had, but there are limits to which you can stretch its meaning. What of my description of voluntary is not widely accepted? > You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. Except for the fact that it has. Almost all aristocratic families in my country have gone all but bankrupt. They have had to transform their castles into hotels and museums in order to barely break even on the cost of the upkeep. In fact, many of these castles are receiving government help as monuments. > I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. No, you cannot. There are a few, like the Pinochet regime, but the death toll is orders of magnitude off. In fact, although authoritarian politically, Chile did transform from the poorest country in Latin America into the richest. And it transitioned to democracy with very little violence.