I think this is mistaken in that you are labelling what is obviously (to me at least) not democratic (Traktion affecting policy by overriding democratic processes), and using the faults of this democratic system to say democracy is worse than the utopian non-aggressive world you describe (which doesn’t exist either).
I agree in principle with non-aggression up to the point it works, just as I agree in principle with democracy up to the point it works, and is in fact democratic.
Its called greed. Just look at the hoarding in the world, it is reaching unsustainable proportions, with a very tiny minority controlling the majority of the wealth (=resources, assets) and this often leads to it being taken out of use (ie hoarding). For example: in one London Street in the City of London, 70% of the houses are second homes. In the captial as a whole, housing prices are so inflated, that in one of the largest cities in Europe only thirty homes are within reach of first time buyers. Thirty! And one of the factors in this is the hoarding of property by overseas investors, most of which is not even rented out, but left empty.
Now of course, there is an idea that as an investment, this property will at some point be released, but the hoarding behaviour is causing massive problems both in costs (human not just financial) for the community who actually live, work in and keep the city alive), and to the country/ecology which must find places and resources to build more homes.
As I say, you can’t say all hoarding is bad, nor that hoarding doesn’t cause excess consumption. To me there are plenty of areas where it has reached damaging proportions, and I have provided one example one to illustrate my point.
The group, or Society, democratically. Given that the resources are jointly owned within an environment and are limited to start with, then it is fair and reasonable and indeed moral I think to democratically decide as a group to re-distribute the pie that the greedy fat bastard in the corner is stuffing his face with.
This argument assumes there is a cheaper replacement for oil available and does not address the more fundamental case of a scarce resource that cannot be replaced. Is it not simpler to just re-distribute the oil to society as a whole’s benefit?
Just because something doesn’t violate “non-aggression” does not mean it is therefore moral. This is the trickery used in the video.
Agreed, @fergish, I think hoarding can be aggression - e.g. if I acquire more food than I need, and hoard in order to starve you to death, or to deprive you of the means to live decently, or to coerce you into working for me at a reduced pay, or…
I haven’t watched the video, so I’m not taking sides on that, just commenting on the arguments that stand out on this thread as spurious to me.
Thanks, David. I appreciate that you are willing see that I might have a point beyond the flaws that might be contained in my analogy. This is the stuff that has been in debate for millennia.
Anyway, I can’t answer your question without understanding what you mean my indirect aggression. Could you clarify?
I understand. Of course, hoarding and many other things could be considered aggression in certain circumstances. As I said above, there are always gray areas but that doesn’t mean we can invalidate a principle because someone constructs or brings up a circumstance which the principle doesn’t deal with 100% every time.
I’m just trying to isolate the basic principle of self-ownership and see what people consider the limits of it are, or if it can be viewed as a fundamental by a broad group.
“Democracy” can be a slippery concept and I don’t necessarily advocate throwing it out the window completely. I just think that is given a lot of reverence that masks some flaws, based upon ignoring the principles of self ownership and non-aggression.
What I’m trying to examine is the basic concept of “Who has the right to rule you.” That is really the key underlying the concept of “governance”.
Watch the Philosophy of Liberty presentation (it’s not long). Does it articulate principles with which you can agree. It’s not whether it immediately gives a clearcut answer to all the worlds problems, but is it a valid principle?
People who support the concept of free markets because of philosophical principle will, of course, promote the moral principles underlying them. That doesn’t mean that corporate robbers don’t use the term “free markets” to do nasty stuff. You really should be able to see the difference.
I’m sorry but you really don’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. Your and the videos argument is restricted to Economics, a moral guiding principle encompasses other Societal concerns too. The argument is essentially about how to create an efficient economy, not a moral Society. It completely ignores social welfare or the well being of the population, so therefore it is an advert for for an Economic Theory, not a moral principle.It is also necessarily reliant on charity, therefore I would disagree with it as a guiding principle, on moral grounds, simply because of this.
Just the fact that this is exactly the rulebook being proposed by those of an Austrian Economics leaning, to bring about an Economic environment conducive to the Tea Party’s ideas flourishing, is enough for me to say No, not a good idea if this is the inevitable ends.
It’s not about economics at all, at its core. At least not the way you’re looking at it.
Exchange is a basic action of all existence. In that case life is ALL about economics.
So painting it with the brush of “it’s just about economics and not social justice” is a red herring. If we assume that we are the property of someone other than ourselves, the stage is set for all manner of social injustice. “Who owns you” is the key to everything you do, not “just economics.”
I still think it is. The video is basically 2 things. It is promotional material for the book, (based roughly on Mises Economic Model) and it is also the Moral argument behind the book/Mises Theory.- It is nothing beyond this.
It is like you basically have said “Hey guys, what do you think of the argumentbehind Mises Economic Theory explained in video form - any more info required, click the link to buy the book”
None of this has anything to do with a Morality that extends any further than the scope of Economics.
Wow…OK…Exchange is abasic action, yes. It is not the only basic action - therefore life is not ALL about Economics. This is the part omitted, the social safety net, If you think life is all about Economics, then I think this would be a crucial difference between us.
How so, given all I’ve just said?|
That is fine insofar as it goes or is reasonably feasible, no argument with self-ownership, but we also have responsibilities to the larger group and especially the vulnerable within it, so any guiding principle would have to take this into account - a higher order of guiding principle is needed.
I’m interested to know in what way you feel both Democracy and Rights are slippery slopes by the way.
PS, about the other thing, I’m just comparing diaries with Warren and we can make the night in question and yes “An evening with Warren and Al” sounds fine as a working title for the upcoming show
Edit:
Let me come at this from another angle. What you mean (I assume) by self- ownership is autonomy of thought and action. (I’m not happy with the term “ownership”, because it suggests property, which is transferable.)
The guiding principles that are currently used to ensure we have as much autonomy and protections as can be agreed - are Human Rights. These are the fundamental principles as I see it. This is why I asked why you think Human Rights are a slippery slope?
If you can see how the video, ignores all the main Human Rights issues, then you can see how it must havc a different interpretation of self-ownership, one that is based on the idea of property. So the perfectly reasonable sounding “self-ownership” principle is not as reasonable as it sounds. I would advise against replacing Human Rights as guiding principles, with some vague Misean interpretation of what self- ownership even means.
If you can do that without causing water, then great.
I was responding to the idea that it was wasteful to hoard. If it is being kept to one side, then it can just be used later. Just use whatever definition of consumption plugs into this assertion.
Hoarding is greed? What happens when there is an oil shock and suddenly that greed leads to people having some expensive oil, rather than no oil at all?
If you are using force in order to make your hoard valuable, then clearly it is morally dubious. However, that is the force that is to blame, not the hoarding.
Demanding everyone use X type of money and demanding bloated rents (above the price of actual materials) based on a location you claim can be owned, can be considered using force. I agree that this is bad. This is quite a different problem though, even if they appear to be the same.
But why would you be in such a life boat example, when you are free to roam, farm, trade , etc? It is the invisible cage - maintained through force - that puts people in the terrible position in the first place.
I think, like many things, it’s just a matter of degrees - we go wrong when we start talking about moral absolutes. For example, of course it’s prudent to save a nest egg, it’s not fine when we have to rape the planet and de-forest swathes of land in order to build a nest big enough to house the greedy Banker’s/Corporation’s giant golden egg, laid by the perpetually laying goose of Capitalism.
General Sherman fought the Natives by hunting their food supply…
But here in the US we burn corn in our SUV’s because Iowa is a important political state, causing the third world not to be able to afford tortillia’s…
So I can see misusing resources as being an act of aggression… For the most part however, the market will work if the market is allowed to work – Politics trumping the market tends to lead to bad consequences i.e. the ethanol scam… (85 cent per gallon government subsidies) I.e. killing buffallo…
Let’s not forget that the US war machine used more oil in recent wars than the entire Indian economy uses in a year.
Let’s also not forget that state mandated interest rates have driven consumption in the west of many goods in the east. The bill to fix this damage in lost jobs, opportunities and debt will be experienced by those who were not even born at the time.
Let’s not forget the millions who are unable to house themselves, as they are not allowed to build on free land. Instead forced to pay rent to those who monopolise the land which has been built on, with the backing of the state.
It is easy to cite endless counter examples, which is exactly why principles are needed. No aggression is ever justified. If aggression is suspected, then let it be heard and judged.
Perhaps there are edge cases when hoarding is genuinely an act of aggression. If that is the case, clearly it should be challenged. However, I suspect these cases are almost always due to something being blocked or taken from others, driving them towards shortage.
Whether it is borders preventing access or existing property claims being abused, I suspect there is usually hidden truths to blame.
Lol…Ok, I would blame the dynamic of Banks/Corporations corrupting and subsuming Govt function and power. However, lets not quibble, the solution to both our problems is to de-centralise the function and powers where applicable (we still need to delegate some things) which is what the thread is about.
I think that where we are up to, is that we cannot feasibly have any kind of coherent global Democracy, in an environment of wildly varied Absolutist (religious) moral codes - because we could not agree on what fundamental Rights would be.
We can however, aim to de-centralise within Countries’ borders.
Actually, life IS all about economics. You seem to think that economics is just about money, but at the same time you talk about “the social safety net” as if it has nothing to do with economics!!
Economics is in play every moment of our lives, and our economic decisions determine how we spend our time, energy and passion, as well as our money.
For instance, I’ve had to question repeatedly the economics of spending time engaging your assertions and rebuttals here on the forum. If it were just you and me, I’d probably opt out a lot more often. But it’s a community thing and I’m trying to provide a bit of a social safety net on the philosophical front. I consider the lack of principled approach to these matters as a sure road to intellectual, as well as physical, poverty. Ignoring the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression leads to poverty in many manifestations, not principally money.
You assert self-ownership repeatedly in asserting your position and rightness. My assumption is that there may be failure to grant it to others. You do seem to miss that the principles of non-agression and self-ownership are ALL about recognizing that the principles apply to EVERYONE, not just oneself. That leads to a recognition that the survival and prosperity of others is vital to one’s own, even if one is otherwise inclined toward selfishness. There’s the social safety net.
How can you go on assuming that such things as concern for the welfare of others must be enforced by some outside force, yet at the same time talk about the benefits of democracy. If individuals are all out for themselves, then they will never vote to sacrifice for the benefit of others. If they will vote for equitable social policies, what makes you decide that that concern for others must be enforce on them by “public policy” or whatever. This really breaks down logically.
You speak of decentralization as a solution. I agree. But what does decentralization accomplish? It empowers the individual ultimately, and disempowers dictatorial hierarchical action, from which the “social safety net” would supposedly come, if you listen to the those who insist that “state control” is necessary.
A principle is only as useful as it can be universalized. I think that the principle of self-ownership and the non-agression principle, if actually understood, go all the way. If they don’t go all the way, it’s back to the questions I posed earlier:
(a) is there a fundamental truth to the principle of self-ownership?
(b) if so, at what definable point does it cease to be true and some other principle of action (the greater good, or whatever) override it?
I propose that you probably agree with the principle, but there are aspects of society that are so engrained as “truths” and "of course"s, that thinking gets derailed. This is an invitation to look beyond the ideas which have been drummed in by tens of thousands of hours of indoctrination in schools and the media. Take them apart and only keep those perspectives that hold true to first principles.
[edit: Thanks for the challenges that require me to break this down. I’ll continue to engage if you care to enter discussion rather than combat. Otherwise, that’s all I have to say.]
It’s pointless debating when you both leap to construct things I did not say (“hoarding is greed” - see the question you asked) and counter a point I make without addressing it (“why would you put yourself…”).
If you can’t see what I’m saying that’s ok, but it makes it pointless for me to say it.
You have accused me of skipping you point before, when I had no intention to.
I asked why it would be economically advantageous to hoard and you responded with an assertion that it would be driven by greed. This implies that hoarding must be driven by greed.
How is greed economically sustainable/viable, if there is a cost overhead for hoarding? The only conclusion I can reach is that the hoarding is done in conjunction with abusing various state sanctioned monopolies (specifically land ownership in your example).
