4 ms·

Eh. One of the many libertarian lies is that all uncoerced transactions are somehow value-neutral. For example, it's certainly a valid question whether it's e

by ezy 12y ago

Eh. One of the many libertarian lies is that all uncoerced transactions are somehow value-neutral. For example, it's certainly a valid question whether it's ethical to support a weapons manufacturer, for example, no matter who's buying. In this particular case, I think this is an ethical positive. I would classify MJ funding as a net good, as it will encourage legalization -- prevent a lot of wasted resources and people.

jerf 12y ago
An uncoerced transaction must result in each person getting something they personally value more than what they are giving up or the trade will not take place, meaning that if you measure society by how much people believe they have, all free transactions produce a net gain. That's not "libertarianism", that's just micro-econ 101. (Any who deny the basic correctness of microecon 101 are so far lost to me that any discussion between us is pretty much useless.) That doesn't mean that if you use another measure that all such transactions have a net positive value to society, though, and I don't feel even remotely non-Libertarian for saying that... where "libertarianism" would come in would be in arguing about what those standards should be and who gets to pick them. A libertarian will be far more inclined to accept the two participant's personal valuation and let micro-econ function with less constraint, but not 100%; 100% would make them anarcho-capitalists, an even rarer breed of person.
- aqme28 12y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding what's being discussed. Two people trading money for guns is a net gain specifically for those two people, but is not necessarily a societal gain.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerf 12y ago
    Read my message again, more closely.
    - aqme28 12y ago
      If you're referring to "...if you measure society by how much people believe they have...", I still don't agree with you. Transactions can cause externalities that can be a negative for third parties. If you're referring to something else, then I'm curious.
      - jerf 12y ago
        (X -> Y) !-> X. Or, in English, "Saying if X then Y is not a claim that X is 'true'". So, if you measure society by how much people believe they have, then blah blah blah, is NOT a claim that such a measurement is "correct"... to the extent that a measurement even can be "correct" or "incorrect", rather than "useful" or "useless". Had you kept reading, you would have seen an acknowledgement of that in my next paragraph (which is still there if you'd like to check, HN posts can't be edited after an hour). Incidentally, it's going to be very hard to understand any sort of serious analysis of anything above the level of brute propaganda if you read (X -> Y) as a claim that X is true... you ought to consider the possibility you've been misreading lots of things for a long time. No sarcasm.
- bluecalm 12y ago
  >>meaning that if you measure society by how much people believe they have, all free transactions produce a net gain. Let me stop you right here. Ever heard of notion of social dilemma ? Your assertion is just incorrect. 2 people may believe they have gained, others around will believe they have lost. Often overall that will be a net loss.
  - jerf 12y ago
    Check the "if". It was not extraneous.
    - bluecalm 12y ago
      I understand that. The sentence is still not true. For example in world economy if you buy oil from ISIS for half the price they believe they have gained, you believe you have gained and people they are going to kill with newly acquired weapons believe they have lost. There is overall loss from this transaction even measured by what people believe they have. That's why it's valid to consider questions as if should drug trade be allowed and to what extent as ethical questions even if you believe that you shouldn't force any value system on parties making those transactions.
- stolio 12y ago
  > Any who deny the basic correctness of microecon 101 are so far lost to me that any discussion between us is pretty much useless. Really? I seem to remember learning in micro that "minimum wage causes unemployment" and then years later finding out what that model was based on, i.e. you must assume a healthy market clearing process exists, wages aren't sticky, labor is liquid, perfect information, no market power, etc. Physics 101 on the other hand has "basic correctness" in the sense that within reason (like if you're well under the speed of light and much larger than an electron) it's an accurate description of reality. But finding a low-end labor market where minimum wage is even the main cause of unemployment seems next to impossible.
  - jerf 12y ago
    "Really? I seem to remember learning in micro that "minimum wage causes unemployment" and then years later finding out what that model was based on, i.e. you must assume a healthy market clearing process exists, wages aren't sticky, labor is liquid, perfect information, no market power, etc." That sounds macro. There's a reason I distinguish between macro and micro. Macro I simply don't believe in due to it being anti-inductive (google it if you like). I've actually seen micro reformulated into physics via thermodynamics, and seen it used to model ecosystems. It's far more fundamental than humanity itself. Microecon is like thermodynamics, in that crazy applications of it can cause various effects that may initially seem to violate the theory, but are really just complication macro systems that produce seemingly-micro-defying results, like how a refrigerator is not a violation of thermodynamics. If you don't believe in microecon, you are not justified in then becoming a Marxist or declaring that governments are the solution or whatever other agenda you may have... you are declaring that we are profoundly ignorant and have no useful economic model whatsoever, and can claim nothing. If you can't believe in a free trade between two agents producing a net gain for both without political ideas intruding and immediately trying to reformulate this micro case in politically-loaded macro terms, you are not capable of thinking about economics at all. You're only thinking politics. (And if you read this as me trying to sneak a macro model in on you, you're still having trouble. This is basic stuff like the basics of how atomic bonds form; what glorious life forms may form out of those are wildly varied, and very difficult to derive just from a description of how molecules bond.)
anigbrowl 12y ago
Well, investing in weapons is not necessarily at odds with that, given the frequency with which weapons are employed to coerce transactions. So you could be a libertarian and still decline to invest in such things without being intellectually dishonest.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> One of the many libertarian lies is that all uncoerced transactions are somehow value-neutral. Its not so much a lie as true-by-definition that all uncoerced transactions are, at worst, value-neutral if you make: (1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction". OTOH, what is debatable is how much relevance this has to real world transactions wherein actors do not adhere to the assumptions about them in the rational actor model, and, even when they do, real transactions very often do have negative externalities somewhere, so few completely meet the definition of "uncoerced".
- bluecalm 12y ago
  >>(1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction". You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. >>real transactions very often do have negative externalities somewhere, so few completely meet the definition of "uncoerced". Well, here it is almost. Still the two actors gain, they are not coerced. The problem is other people lose and there might overall loss in the system. You would need to redefine coercion to pretty big extent to cover for what is actually the problem.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. No, I didn't. The definition of uncoerced in #2 ("no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction") along with the rational actor model (#1) makes that unnecessary -- if any person other than the decision-makers in the transaction experiences negative net utility compared to the best alternative without consenting, the transaction is not uncoerced, and they won't consent to that without violating the assumptions of the rational actor model, so the decision-makers don't need to be alone in the universe for the statement to be true as long as #1 and #2 are assumed. All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent.

by ezy 12y ago

jerf 12y ago

An uncoerced transaction must result in each person getting something they personally value more than what they are giving up or the trade will not take place, meaning that if you measure society by how much people believe they have, all free transactions produce a net gain. That's not "libertarianism", that's just micro-econ 101. (Any who deny the basic correctness of microecon 101 are so far lost to me that any discussion between us is pretty much useless.) That doesn't mean that if you use another measure that all such transactions have a net positive value to society, though, and I don't feel even remotely non-Libertarian for saying that... where "libertarianism" would come in would be in arguing about what those standards should be and who gets to pick them. A libertarian will be far more inclined to accept the two participant's personal valuation and let micro-econ function with less constraint, but not 100%; 100% would make them anarcho-capitalists, an even rarer breed of person.

aqme28 12y ago
I think you're misunderstanding what's being discussed. Two people trading money for guns is a net gain specifically for those two people, but is not necessarily a societal gain.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 12y ago
  Read my message again, more closely.
  - aqme28 12y ago
    If you're referring to "...if you measure society by how much people believe they have...", I still don't agree with you. Transactions can cause externalities that can be a negative for third parties. If you're referring to something else, then I'm curious.
    - jerf 12y ago
      (X -> Y) !-> X. Or, in English, "Saying if X then Y is not a claim that X is 'true'". So, if you measure society by how much people believe they have, then blah blah blah, is NOT a claim that such a measurement is "correct"... to the extent that a measurement even can be "correct" or "incorrect", rather than "useful" or "useless". Had you kept reading, you would have seen an acknowledgement of that in my next paragraph (which is still there if you'd like to check, HN posts can't be edited after an hour). Incidentally, it's going to be very hard to understand any sort of serious analysis of anything above the level of brute propaganda if you read (X -> Y) as a claim that X is true... you ought to consider the possibility you've been misreading lots of things for a long time. No sarcasm.
bluecalm 12y ago
>>meaning that if you measure society by how much people believe they have, all free transactions produce a net gain. Let me stop you right here. Ever heard of notion of social dilemma ? Your assertion is just incorrect. 2 people may believe they have gained, others around will believe they have lost. Often overall that will be a net loss.
- jerf 12y ago
  Check the "if". It was not extraneous.
  - bluecalm 12y ago
    I understand that. The sentence is still not true. For example in world economy if you buy oil from ISIS for half the price they believe they have gained, you believe you have gained and people they are going to kill with newly acquired weapons believe they have lost. There is overall loss from this transaction even measured by what people believe they have. That's why it's valid to consider questions as if should drug trade be allowed and to what extent as ethical questions even if you believe that you shouldn't force any value system on parties making those transactions.
stolio 12y ago
> Any who deny the basic correctness of microecon 101 are so far lost to me that any discussion between us is pretty much useless. Really? I seem to remember learning in micro that "minimum wage causes unemployment" and then years later finding out what that model was based on, i.e. you must assume a healthy market clearing process exists, wages aren't sticky, labor is liquid, perfect information, no market power, etc. Physics 101 on the other hand has "basic correctness" in the sense that within reason (like if you're well under the speed of light and much larger than an electron) it's an accurate description of reality. But finding a low-end labor market where minimum wage is even the main cause of unemployment seems next to impossible.
- jerf 12y ago
  "Really? I seem to remember learning in micro that "minimum wage causes unemployment" and then years later finding out what that model was based on, i.e. you must assume a healthy market clearing process exists, wages aren't sticky, labor is liquid, perfect information, no market power, etc." That sounds macro. There's a reason I distinguish between macro and micro. Macro I simply don't believe in due to it being anti-inductive (google it if you like). I've actually seen micro reformulated into physics via thermodynamics, and seen it used to model ecosystems. It's far more fundamental than humanity itself. Microecon is like thermodynamics, in that crazy applications of it can cause various effects that may initially seem to violate the theory, but are really just complication macro systems that produce seemingly-micro-defying results, like how a refrigerator is not a violation of thermodynamics. If you don't believe in microecon, you are not justified in then becoming a Marxist or declaring that governments are the solution or whatever other agenda you may have... you are declaring that we are profoundly ignorant and have no useful economic model whatsoever, and can claim nothing. If you can't believe in a free trade between two agents producing a net gain for both without political ideas intruding and immediately trying to reformulate this micro case in politically-loaded macro terms, you are not capable of thinking about economics at all. You're only thinking politics. (And if you read this as me trying to sneak a macro model in on you, you're still having trouble. This is basic stuff like the basics of how atomic bonds form; what glorious life forms may form out of those are wildly varied, and very difficult to derive just from a description of how molecules bond.)

anigbrowl 12y ago

Well, investing in weapons is not necessarily at odds with that, given the frequency with which weapons are employed to coerce transactions. So you could be a libertarian and still decline to invest in such things without being intellectually dishonest.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> One of the many libertarian lies is that all uncoerced transactions are somehow value-neutral. Its not so much a lie as true-by-definition that all uncoerced transactions are, at worst, value-neutral if you make: (1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction". OTOH, what is debatable is how much relevance this has to real world transactions wherein actors do not adhere to the assumptions about them in the rational actor model, and, even when they do, real transactions very often do have negative externalities somewhere, so few completely meet the definition of "uncoerced".

bluecalm 12y ago
>>(1) the assumptions of the rational actor model, (2) the definition that "uncoerced" means "no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction". You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. >>real transactions very often do have negative externalities somewhere, so few completely meet the definition of "uncoerced". Well, here it is almost. Still the two actors gain, they are not coerced. The problem is other people lose and there might overall loss in the system. You would need to redefine coercion to pretty big extent to cover for what is actually the problem.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You forgot: (3) the assumption that two actors deciding on transaction are alone in the universe. No, I didn't. The definition of uncoerced in #2 ("no person not actively consenting experiences any negative utility as a result of the transaction") along with the rational actor model (#1) makes that unnecessary -- if any person other than the decision-makers in the transaction experiences negative net utility compared to the best alternative without consenting, the transaction is not uncoerced, and they won't consent to that without violating the assumptions of the rational actor model, so the decision-makers don't need to be alone in the universe for the statement to be true as long as #1 and #2 are assumed. All negative externalities are coercion, because people are forced to bear costs to which they do not consent.