Foseti comments on both exit and left-libertarianism, and I'm inclined to believe he misunderstands both, and that the misunderstandings are related.
Exit:
There is an entirely different KIND of relationship between me and the guy who sells me oranges at the local farmer's market than there is between me and a robber.
In case #1, I can (a) decide to buy oranges from a different guy, or (b) decide not to buy oranges. My interaction with him is entirely based on positive sum trades. We are BOTH better off, by choice, and in our own cognition after we trade than before.
In case #2, (a) do as I'm told, (b) get shot, (c) both. After the trade, he is better off, and I'm screwed.
The difference is simple...and obvious to anyone who isn't trying to argue something that relies on conflating the two. In one case, it's trade/ voluntary /autonomy/etc. In the other case...it's violent evil thuggery. Why do we organize to suppress #2. Because we all know it's bad/not fair/immoral/strong taking advantage of the weak. Duh!
Case #3 is the case of government monopoly: (a) do as I'm told (b) get shot (c) go somewhere else where I have the same choices. Fundamentally, it's an interaction where I get screwed by having the interaction at all.
Exit: The notion that voluntary interactions are better than involuntary ones. Not real complicated.
Libertarianism is the notion that #3 is roughly equivalent to #2.
Left Libertarianism is the notion that many things that we think of as case #1 are, due to the actions of thugs who label themselves a government, much closer to #2/3 than #1. Libertarians who lean mildly left think that IP is 90% government violence deployed to make rich folks richer. More left would be the position that the Federal Highway System constitutes a massive subsidy to large corporations contra smaller local enterprises. Further left-ness would specify that any property rights not based on value-added use are a case of #2/3 instead of #1.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Are all government functions of type 3?.
That is, is all government
reducible to providing service to customers?
Gyan,
I'm well past that point. I think all government (#3) is reducible/equivalent to Armed Robbery (#2), with clever stories layered above it, to make folks less upset. Mafia & Government are distinguishable only by who owns the printing presses.
I suppose you disagree with Man is (a) Political Animal.
Politics is the concern with the common good.
EO Wilson, who did work on kin selection theory of altruism, now seems to have developed a theory of altruism based upon group selection. Now non-kin based group selection requires a notion of Common Good (i.e. survival of the group, and things relevant to it such as group harmony).
So upon what empirics you base your rejection of Common Good and Politics in human communities?
I reject the common good as an explanation for what politics is actually doing. I accept it as a good cover for what's actually happening though.
I am familiar with EO Wilson and his group selection.
I would say that politics is the discussion of the public good in such a way as to make the person talking better off at the expense of everyone else.
Yout two statements seems to imply that many people are deluded
1) many things that we think of as case #1 are, due to the actions of thugs who label themselves a government, much closer to #2/3 than #1
2) We are BOTH better off, by choice, and in our own cognition after we trade than before.
So people who mistake #2/3 for #1
have error in their cognition?
Post a Comment