/liberty/ - Liberty

>>70209

>especially when they're young and don't know what's best.

Rothbard acknowledged that. He said that young children are only potential self-owners, and must actualize this potentiality. That leaves no room for paternalism for adults, however, because once they have self-ownership, they have it. There is no such thing as partial self-ownership.

You can lose your self-ownership later, I'd say, if you become mentally infirm or enter a coma. Even then, you remain a potential self-owner, and are thus protected by the NAP.

You can also prevent an adult from harming himself if he doesn't know what he's doing, but only until You can also risk it and trust that he won't take action against you, for example with family members or friends, but also with strangers.

>>70209

What if we've discussed this multiple times already and there's plenty written and said on it?

>>70211

>>70214

What if it's in my best interest to be made to pay taxes? Not because I'm stupid, but because I benefit from the state. And the state depends on taxes

>>70226

Look, I discussed this above. There is almost no place for paternalism among adults. Merely knowing better what's good is not sufficient. You can only act on behalf of a rational adult if he is missing crucial information. You can keep him from stepping on a minefield if he doesn't know it's there, but once you informed him, you cannot keep him from running across it. You cannot prevent his making a certain choice on the grounds that his weighing of risk and benefit is irrational.

Even if you were right, it wouldn't prove anything. You'd have to show that paying taxes actually is in your interest. In practice, no paternalist uses this criterion, ever. They are fine with a likelihood that what the state does is in your interest, as determined by the state. And when the state is wrong in its assessment, they refuse to hold it accountable. If all goes well, good; if it doesn't, then everyone bears the costs but the state.

You should lead discussions in good faith in the future. I already knew where this was likely going, but I at least trusted that you'd read my post. Alas, you didn't.

>>70226

Also, just in case I misunderstood you:

>Not because I'm stupid, but because I benefit from the state. And the state depends on taxes

Doesn't change a thing. The state cannot lawfully demand that you pay for a service that it forced on you. What would be more coherent would be if it was entirely in your disposition how much you pay. Coherent because allowing the state both to force a service on you and to determine how much that service is worth to you means that we leave the sphere of private activity, wherein two equals contract with each other, completely, and enter the sphere of coercion - a coercion justified on private civic grounds, in this case.

Can't come up with a better explanation because I'm tired and drunk.

>>70230

>>70231

>You can only act on behalf of a rational adult if he is missing crucial information.

And why is this? That's not the only conceivable time coercion may help someone.

>Coherent because allowing the state both to force a service on you and to determine how much that service is worth to you means that we leave the sphere of private activity, wherein two equals contract with each other, completely, and enter the sphere of coercion - a coercion justified on private civic grounds, in this case.

I realise that. I'm saying coercion can be justified when it's in the person's best interest.

>>70248

>when it's in the person's best interest.

Only the person can decide what his interest is, not you.

>>70248

>And why is this? That's not the only conceivable time coercion may help someone.

Because then, you are not substituting your judgement of value or utility for his own. You do not thwart his intention, instead you help him achieve it in the first place. It's actually completely different from paternalism.

>I'm saying coercion can be justified when it's in the person's best interest.

It can't. That would be a violation of their self-ownership. You cannot propose what you just proposed without both implicitly denying and asserting your own self-ownership, and that makes it incoherent. Claiming that you're the only person with self-ownership is no way out, as it would be special pleading.

>when they're young and don't know what's best.

Honestly I don't see how this line of reasoning holds; nobody knows the future or the full or eventual consequences of any action they take. Even obvious and immediate consequences of actions are often unknown.

Furthermore it's very common for children to be more intelligent and knowledgable than one or both of their parents before they reach legal adulthood. In that case there's an actual problem, especially if the parents genuinely believe they know best.

>>70251

>Furthermore it's very common for children to be more intelligent and knowledgable than one or both of their parents before they reach legal adulthood.

Children don't actually develop all their mental abilities until late in their childhood(with lengths and quantities it's around the age of five, with volumes it's around the age of seven). Vid related.

>inb4 the Piaget tests are faulty

They are actually quite good experiments, for the fact that they are easy to reproduce, all you need is a small child, and a few objects(sticks, coins and so on) and do the same tests with the child, and most often than not the results are the same.

>>70250

>substituting your judgement of value or utility for his own.

That's not an inherent quality of using force on an adult either. If I tax someone to create a monopoly on coercion which makes life better for everyone then how am I substituting my own preferences over theirs?

>>70277

>That's not an inherent quality of using force on an adult either. If I tax someone to create a monopoly on coercion which makes life better for everyone then how am I substituting my own preferences over theirs?

You have to prove that it does make life better for everyone. You also have to show that it actually aligns with the values of everyone, in other words, you have to prove that philosophical anarchists do not exist. Again, it doesn't stop being paternalism just because it's in the persons interest, as declared by you personally, it must also be in conformity with that persons values. So if someone rejects the state because he doesn't view it as legitimate, perhaps because he sees it as the tool of foreign conquerors or because he objects to democracy, monarchy or aristocracy on principle? In short, what if he wants to pay taxes to someone, but not to the government in charge?

Also, good luck justifying most of what the modern state does with this rationale. Is welfare in my own, personal interest, and does it align with my values? Foreign wars? The war on drugs? Secularism? Islamization? Cooperation between the state and the Churches?

>>70277

If you seize someone's property because you personally find yourself more worthy of managing it you are engaging in a rationalization of extortion. For your position to be true you'd have to prove you can provide a better service and acquire a voluntary contract that can be terminated if the consumer wishes to. Play philosopher king all you want, as long as that doesn't involve subjugation. Until you acquire consent all you have is a glorified protection racket.

What will it take for you to understand that you are in no position to define what someone else wants and is good for them? At least attempt to give us some sort of Objective proof that you can read minds. That won't legitimize your actions legally, but you would at least have something to base your reasoning on other than feeling anointed.

>>70252

When I say "child" I obviously mean legal minor. Humans don't reach full intellectual development until mid-20s and IQ can increase for quite a while afterward depending on lifestyle. However a certain intellect is not usually used as the criterion for self-ownership.

Even if we assume that every parent everywhere reaches and stays at the zenith of their intellect until a child is legally an adult it's still the case that many parents are dumber than their kids and then not only is it morally reprehensible to claim that a child is owned by a parent but even the fucking utilitarian argument fails.

The real challenge is that nobody "knows better" because nobody knows the full consequences of any action. It would take literal omniscience to make the statement "I am morally justified in violating your self-ownership" even if we were to grant that utilitarian arguments of this type could ever be valid.

>what if people don't own themselves unconditionally

either you do not understand ownership or you believe in mind control

>>70287

>>70294

>You have to prove that it does make life better for everyone

I was imagining a group with no philosophical anarchists. I'm saying I could then make things better according to their preferences by introducing taxation. At least it's easy to imagine a situation where that is the likely outcome.

If there were one libertarian anarchist then he would have to be taxed as well, but most people are not libertarian anarchists, so it would still have been the likely outcome

>>70307

>I was imagining a group with no philosophical anarchists. I'm saying I could then make things better according to their preferences by introducing taxation.

So you assume a group that already agrees with what you do per default. Do you not see how that's a botched methodology? I mean, they agree with you. Why would you need any other justification for taxing them if you have their consent already?

>If there were one libertarian anarchist then he would have to be taxed as well

Why? Then it isn't paternalism anymore, it's plain democratic coercion. If that is legitimate, then why argue among paternalistic lines in the first place? Just jump to your immediate justification for the state instead of some secondary one that you will discard anyway as soon as it becomes expedient.

>>70316

>Why would you need any other justification for taxing them if you have their consent already?

I didn't say I had their consent though. It's just that they were made better off.

>Do you not see how that's a botched methodology?

It's called a thought experiment.

>Why?

Because if anybody can just ask not to be taxed then the taxation system doesn't work at all.

Still, the introduction of taxation would (I'm imagining) make most people better off. Therefore it would still have probably made him better off. So overriding his absolute self-ownership is justified in that sense.

>>70395

>we explained to you that all the "exceptions" to self-ownership that we accept aren't really exceptions at all… and you kept this premise.

Because they *are* cases in which it is moral to breach the normal regulations of self ownership. Otherwise there would be no debate at all.

And my point is that the same argument for those exceptions can be extrapolated elsewhere. You're attempted counterpoint as that *every other case* in which this was done would be mere 'paternalism' because you would be substituting your own preferences.

My argument (overwhelmingly accepted by everyone except lolberts) is that taxation can make people better off according to their own preferences.

>refused to prove it even after it was challenged

I have to prove that such a situation *can exist* or *does exist*?

If you think it can't exist, then you're just so far in denial of basic economic concepts you don't like that your brain has stopped functioning.

If your point is that it doesn't exist then you must think everyone is very stupid because there are only a tiny number of anarchists in the world.

>>70498

>You'd just do it on your own.

No, because I can't tax everyone, and that's what would make me better off because it provides a good I personally can't afford.

>bullshit hypothetical situation

Totally bullshit. It's the economists who are wrong, after all

>>70498

>It provides the most inefficient service usually at the highest cost

Compared to what? The market? This is not a very honest comparison as the situtation without taxation would not be 'the same amount is spent on the same service, but a market provides it isntead'

You're not taking the opposing side and trying to actually understand it at all.

>>70502

>I understand the argument and that's why I'm on the opposite side of the fence. To try and say that I don't understand the argument of the opposing side without actually explaining what it is that I don't understand is barely above ad hominem in any respect. Go ahead, explain to me what it is I don't understand.

This. I get to hear that too, often from people who haven't researched their own position as much as I have. I go out of my way to learn about what the opposing side says. The first thing I did after realizing that I was turning ancap was to look for some good neomarxist literature to read.

>>70502

> Well then it's a matter of your own self interest, in which case once again, you are A.) A blatant parasite

But that's a complete mischaracterisation because a) I would be contributing and b) everyone would benefit. You're just jamming terms you think will be effective. Put some thought into it next time

>I said that the state "provides the most inefficient service usually at the highest cost ", not the market would provide the same service for the same cost.

I'm not talking about costs I'm talking about how people spend their money. The comparison you're making is 'would the market provide defence better' but that implies people would spend their money on defence if they weren't forced.

Since the entire argument behind public funding of defence rests on that, you clearly haven't tried to understand it at all, which is why you're making bogus comparisons.

>>70502

>I understand the argument and that's why I'm on the opposite side of the fence. To try and say that I don't understand the argument of the opposing side without actually explaining what it is that I don't understand is barely above ad hominem in any respect. Go ahead, explain to me what it is I don't understand. You already failed to understand part of my argument earlier but please, proceed to explain how you have a grip on the argument itself whilst I seemingly have butter fingers and just can't grasp on any concept mentioned whatsoever.

Clearly the part you didn't understand was

>This is not a very honest comparison as the situtation without taxation would not be 'the same amount is spent on the same service, but a market provides it isntead'

You missed the point that people wouldn't continue to spend money on the thing (except a market does it) they might just as much spend money on other things, leaving the public good unfunded

>>70537

>That's a highly subjective statement of "everyone would benefit".

Not really, you can have good objective reasons to think so. Even if not everyone, the point is it's not parasitism to want to fund a public good.

>You're just jamming terms you think will be effective. Put some thought into it next time

This part was referring to your inappropriate use of the term 'parasite' as a kind of strawman of my intentions.

> If they're not buying it in a free market environment then chances are, it's not actually that important.

Not true. How exactly am I, a lone individual, going to buy an army sufficient to defend my property from neighbouring countries.

>. That's the way the market works, if people value something like say a security service for their neighborhood or even their part of the community then they'll pay for it, perhaps they'll pool resources together to maintain a specialized security force or they'll follow a Swiss model in which everyone is part of a militia.

If pooling money is voluntary then anybody can just free-ride and it's rational to do so. So the comparison between government and market doesn't work this way either. Government can form a pool of money through taxation.

> Not really, I read your argument as clear as day. You're the one who failed to expand on it.

You obviously didn't understand it since you keep on going on rants about the superiority of market provision without any real relation to the topic. The argument is about *what people spend their money on* but you still don't understand this.

>If you need to use force to fund an idea, chances are it's not actually that good an idea.

>still not understanding public goods, externalities, etc

>>70521

>In that case, the public good just isn't worth that much to people.

You have no basis on which to conclude that the value the good lowly just because they don't value the act of contributing.

They value the good plenty but the value of their *individual contribution* to the purpose of defending them is practically non-existent. So they make no contribution.

>>70543

It would be parasitical if it was only for my self interest. But it's not. Foolish straw man which you only jammed in to insult me.

> Yeah, a service that no one fucking asked for. If people actually valued the service in question then yet again, people would not have to be forced to do so. You don't need to force people to pay for food as they already do that, and equivocally if security is important then you don't really need to force them to pay for that either.

>still not understanding public good vs private good

>Supposing we raised enough money for a security force for the county (which mind you, was the whole goal) then why would it matter if certain individuals 'free-ride'?

The point is the *potential to free-ride* would make it impossible to pool that money.

>

That's sort of the problem with the idea of externalities, it implies that someone is losing something when really they aren't, in fact people who didn't even pay (free-riders) get to supposedly gain something whilst no one is actually at a loss.

If there were fewer flowers blooming then nobody is 'harmed' but they are indeed harmed in the sense that they could have had more happiness.

The only reason the bee example seems trivial is because it is trivial. That doesn't mean the extrernality idea is stupid.

>>70577

>You have no basis on which to conclude that the value the good lowly just because they don't value the act of contributing.

And you have no basis to assume it has a certain value when no one is contributing to it, because value is subjective. Did you even read the pdf? It's not that long. Are you even trying to understand something or do you want to win an online debate? As far as I'm concerned, there's only people who want to learn and brats.

>They value the good plenty

How do you know?

>but the value of their *individual contribution* to the purpose of defending them is practically non-existent. So they make no contribution.

And the problem with that is? Apparently, their individual contribution (which includes the costs of negotiating and cooperating with others, mind you) is better invested somewhere else.

I'm probably wasting my time explaining this to you, but so be it. I'll take that risk. Underlying the public goods problem is the assumption that costs must be distributed fairly. Obviously, we wouldn't have a problem of funding a beautiful park if some rich guy decided to just fund the entire park himself because having one is worth a thousand dollars to him. We also wouldn't have a problem if a hundred people contributed ten dollars each as part of a fundraiser. However, if the park is in fact enjoyed by ten thousand people, then the economists who believe that the public goods problem is a thing will still object that its costs are not carried by everyone who benefits.

>The only reason the bee example seems trivial is because it is trivial. That doesn't mean the extrernality idea is stupid.

What if we were talking about magical bees, that grant the beekeeper eternal life and untold wisdom and prosperity, but also tell everyone who touches them how to find his true love? Then, according to you, the beekeeper would not get any of these magical bees. He'd eschew eternal life and untold wisdom and prosperity because of those dirty freeriders.

We can make it more trivial, too. You have these magical bees, but you're also the only one who is immune to magic. Do you stop selling honey for that reason? Do you hate it that much when your neighbors are happy?

>>70580

>And you have no basis to assume it has a certain value when no one is contributing to it, because value is subjective. Did you even read the pdf? It's not that long.

So are you admitting that they *could* value the good even though they don't contribute? If so then congratulations on joining the ranks of the sane.

As to how you *know* what public goods are valued, which seems to be the heart of your objection, you obviously don't *know* as perfectly as a market would but you don't need to know exactly how much I don't want an invading army to conquer me, to know that you should spent some money on military defence. And exact nuances are worked out in the political arena.

>What if we were talking about magical bees, that grant the beekeeper eternal life and untold wisdom and prosperity, but also tell everyone who touches them how to find his true love? Then, according to you, the beekeeper would not get any of these magical bees. He'd eschew eternal life and untold wisdom and prosperity because of those dirty freeriders.

Did I ever argue that nobody would ever purchase anything that has a positive externality? I don't think I did. Please kys

>>70583

>I didn't.

Then you still understand nothing.

>Military defense is not a public good.

Yes it is. You can receive the benefit of not being conquered without contributing anything. Why do I even argue with you people who peddle utter nonsense.

>Pic related.

Apparently he doesn't know what 'military' means, what 'invasion' means, or really what any words mean. 'War insurance' doesn't work either for the obvious reason that insurance companies who actually contribute to common defence would simply be outcompeted by those who don't.

>>70590

>While you're at it, please show us how sending tanks into Florida affects California. Because if the public goods problem is truly a problem when it comes to military defense, then California should be affected by an attack on Florida.

No, the point is defending California would help to defend Florida. Which is certainly true if the whole of America is being conquered.

>They wouldn't start their business if military defense was inadequate unless they could make it adequate, because otherwise, they would insure against a risk they couldn't control.

It's not clear to me that insurance companies only start if they are able to control and negate all risk.

And either way you completely ignored the point like a retard. Even if you're correct- once military defence is adequate, new companies can free-ride without contributing anything to defence, and everyone will switch to those companies, destroying the whole system.

>>70590

>Someone give this guy a trophy, he won an online debate. The jury was him.

You're the one who's actually doing this, by attacking my points and then saging.. Tbh, it only reveals you to be scared and butthurt by an online argument :33

>>70594

>So in your world, if California is spending anything at all on its military defense, Florida will not spend a single penny but will rather freeride on the completely inadequate defense that California provides. Correct?

Aha, you are again making this strawman, this is either your favorite hobby or a favorite strategy of your ideology. Both seem bad

>>70634

Learn to read.

>>70635

I can read just fine.

>>70636

>>"LOL LEEE STRAWMAN LE STRRAAAWMAN"

Wow you sure debunked me, how can I recover?

>>70585

Defense is not a public good because it is excludable (as was shown by ancapflag's .png)

>insurance companies who actually contribute to common defence would simply be outcompeted by those who don't.

Why would anyone contribute to companies that are not providing a product/service that they are promising? Do you have any examples?

>>70634

How is his statement a strawman? Did you not portray Florida as a free-rider in your statement:

>No, the point is defending California would help to defend Florida.

>>70681

They're providing the insurance but not contributing to defence.

>No, the point is defending California would help to defend Florida.

Doesn't mean Florida will spent absolutely nothing on defence. It actually means California *ought to spend more* but won't.

And by the way that's not exactly the point either