The Free Market and Punishment

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guy walks onto Jogger's property. Jogger, believing that trespassing warrents murder, shoots man who is on his property.

I don't think this is what Jogger actually believes, just the example, but in that example, who, if anyone, can punish Jogger. He's acted in a way he deems fit, on his own property. The person wandered onto his land (that's the initiation) and Jogger corrected the problem (albeit harshly).

Again, who's to punish Jogger. Certainly that kind of cold-blooded murder should be punished, but by the "letter of AC" no one should be able to punish Jogger unless he's entered into a contract previous to that. If he's shooting people, it's unlikely he has, and regardless of the contract the other man signed with "Defense Corp.", Jogger isn't bound by the actions of another so long as he isn't unjustly influencing them right. And in this case his "influence" is just because the person came onto Jogger's land.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jogger has violated someone's rights (and I would think murder would qualify), then he is liable regardless of who he has contracted with previously.
It's not as if natural law and basic self-ownership don't apply to someone because they don't have a contract with Defense Corp or whatever. So the family of the deceased would have a legitimate claim against Jogger, and are entitled to compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who decides what Jogger can do on HIS property. Moreover, who gets to punish him.

Certainly you can see how this is the same as statism, except it's no longer 1 state, it's many DROs gunning for Jogger.

Cody

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]

Certainly you can see how this is the same as statism, except it's no longer 1 state, it's many DROs gunning for Jogger.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only cant they see it (or wont admit they can see it), they cant see the Rube Goldberg inefficiency of it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guy walks onto Jogger's property. Jogger, believing that trespassing warrents murder, shoots man who is on his property.

I don't think this is what Jogger actually believes, just the example, but in that example, who, if anyone, can punish Jogger. He's acted in a way he deems fit, on his own property. The person wandered onto his land (that's the initiation) and Jogger corrected the problem (albeit harshly).

Again, who's to punish Jogger. Certainly that kind of cold-blooded murder should be punished, but by the "letter of AC" no one should be able to punish Jogger unless he's entered into a contract previous to that. If he's shooting people, it's unlikely he has, and regardless of the contract the other man signed with "Defense Corp.", Jogger isn't bound by the actions of another so long as he isn't unjustly influencing them right. And in this case his "influence" is just because the person came onto Jogger's land.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jogger has violated someone's rights (and I would think murder would qualify), then he is liable regardless of who he has contracted with previously.
It's not as if natural law and basic self-ownership don't apply to someone because they don't have a contract with Defense Corp or whatever. So the family of the deceased would have a legitimate claim against Jogger, and are entitled to compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who decides what Jogger can do on HIS property. Moreover, who gets to punish him.

Certainly you can see how this is the same as statism, except it's no longer 1 state, it's many DROs gunning for Jogger.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it if he were under some sort of contract with a DRO and did not obligate it he would be ostrisized and if he was not under some sort of contract he would be ostricized. So he would be growing his own fruits and veggies (climate permitting and assuming he has a garden or seeds already on his property) and would be putting out buckets to collect rain water to drink (assuming he doesn't have a well on his property) and shooting pigeons and squirrels for meat to eat.

If he doesn't own his own property I guess he runs cross country and hopes no one has his picuture to post on the interent otherwise he kills himself.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Justice Corp will have to go to Verdicts R 'Us before it can go kill Villian McNasty.

[/ QUOTE ]
So I'm subject to the whims of Verdicts R 'Us because "the market" (a bunch of individuals) decided Verdicts R 'Us is a good and wise leader?

Do you believe "the market" will exhibit better, worse, or the same quality of judgment as it did when it elected George W. Bush president and made McDonalds the number one restaurant in America?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's strange to see a self-proclaimed minarchist libertarian slam against the free market at every possible juncture, even in regards to the restaurant business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's talking ill of the free market, just a 100% unregulated one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right in general - I support the market far more than my posting on here would suggest - but
McDonalds is an especially awful example of a market-spawned abomination. The food (and the advertising) is tasteless, incredibly unhealthy, and expensive. Honestly the popularity is inexplicable... until you recognize that a lot of the time, people left to their own make wretchedly bad decisions. (And let's face it: most of us here found our way to 2+2's website because we recognized that truth, at least, with respect to gambling). If the market did as badly in every area as it has in its eating habits, I'd be chanting "[censored] the market" in the streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

How "badly" has it done? Are you somehow so deprived of options that you're left with no choice but to eat at mcdonalds? Or is this just another "someone has a different opinion than me = ZOMG MARKET FAILURE" complaint? Don't worry, someday you'll get the "right" people identified and installed as absolute (but enlightened, of course) autocrats and "bad" (or "suboptimal" as I think copernicus called them) market outcomes like the existence of McDonalds can be finally rectified.

I'll say a prayer before bed tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only part of what I said is opinion.

Perhaps you can eat a "McNugget" without shuddering. Maybe you think it's mana from the heavens, I don't know. But it's a health disaster with a billion dollar advertising budget and a target audience of nine-year-olds: a recipe (pardon the pun) for market failure if ever there was one.

And remember the context of McDonald's being mentioned was the question: is Verdicts-R-Us (the private law firm that is going to coercively inflict its will on me if I close a force transaction initiated by trespasser) going to be chosen by the same people who brought us George W. Bush and McDonalds?

I gather from your earlier posts that you, like me, find that outcome undesirable, if for different reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between "george w. bush" and "mcdonalds". One of them is imposed upon me and the other isn't. The fact that McDonalds makes a lot of money doesn't make me personally have to eat there. The fact that you conflate the results of a coercive market (where everyone has to deal with the winner) with a non-coercive market (where the "winner" coexists with others simultaneously) is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be much more telling if I was actually conflating anything. The judgment system involving Verdicts-R-Us is coersive.

So: I shoot a tresspasser upon my property in ACland. Yes or no: May a coercive judgment to which I do not consent and did not consent previously be imposed upon me after I shoot said tresspasser?

If the answer to the above is "yes", will Verdicts-R-Us have come to have its coercive power by dint of the same quality of (market) judgment that brought us McDonalds and George W. Bush?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who does a private defense association have the moral right to punish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Justice Corp would have the right to punish anyone directly, unless the "criminal" signed a contract agreeing to accept punishment as decided by Justice Corp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly in a society where everything derives from self-ownership, someone who takes another life will be dealt with. They have opened and initiated a violent transaction of the worst kind. Whether they signed a contract saying they won't murder people or not is, IMO, irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
The heroic property-holder didn't "open" the transaction, he closed it. The trespasser opened it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...I don't think we disagree on this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]... Unless I'm missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guy walks onto Jogger's property. Jogger, believing that trespassing warrents murder, shoots man who is on his property.

I don't think this is what Jogger actually believes, just the example, but in that example, who, if anyone, can punish Jogger. He's acted in a way he deems fit, on his own property. The person wandered onto his land (that's the initiation) and Jogger corrected the problem (albeit harshly).

[/ QUOTE ]

He did significantly more than "correct the problem" in my judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, who's to punish Jogger. Certainly that kind of cold-blooded murder should be punished, but by the "letter of AC" no one should be able to punish Jogger unless he's entered into a contract previous to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's an open interaction left on the table because jogger's response wasn't proportional to the initial violation, according to my opinion of proportionality.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he's shooting people, it's unlikely he has, and regardless of the contract the other man signed with "Defense Corp.", Jogger isn't bound by the actions of another so long as he isn't unjustly influencing them right. And in this case his "influence" is just because the person came onto Jogger's land.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if he's "shooting" "people" (implying that this is a habit), he's going to end up dead, one way or the other. And there won't be too many people crying about it when it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, now we're down to it: coersion is just fine, as long as it's to PVN's personal taste. Welcome PVN: you'll be receiving your "Statistism Forever" membership card in the mail shortly.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
AC removes some barriers are creates other barriers that are far more difficult to overcome, such as labrynthine systems of individual contracts

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds of years of common law are a major blow to your assertion. Just because thousands of transactions CAN be worked through via personal contracts doesn't at all mean that those WILL be the preferred method. Those examples are just rebuttals to those who claim "you can't do X Y and Z without the government" by demonstrating that it is possible, and even currently done to avoid the government.

[ QUOTE ]
If you havent taken a simple business course and dont understand the cost of redundancies (which can be overcome in the production of some but not all goods and services), its not my job to teach you the ABCs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, you have two eyes, why not open at least one of them? You asserted that there were MORE inefficiencies under the market, and MORE costs. You haven't ever written a paragraph, or linked a paper or anything to substantiate the position that the handful of issues you bring up about the market are worse than the inefficiencies that surround a government controlled system.

[ QUOTE ]
costs and benefits of vigilantes? your third rebuttal on the subject and all you do is make yourself more of an anachronism


[/ QUOTE ]

No you see, a rebuttal comes against a position, I have rebutted nothing since you have posted nothing on the subject. I can neither agree nor disagree since no real position has been put forth. I was merely mocking you for failing to put into words (three, or is it four? times now) any kind of argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole premise of "social stigma" reducing the EV is so ludicrous, the opportunity cost is the time wasted discussing it. Why don't you quantify the costs if youreso convinced that they are worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

here's a google page for you

There are tons of papers, and hundreds of books written on the effects of social ostracism, which has been practiced in numerous forms from (at least) 200 BC where we have examples coming from ancient Greece. Even when you change the goalposts you get slammed.

[ QUOTE ]
Patents don't create monopolies, they allow for progress. Without them we'd be living in the 50s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Patents don't create monopolies? WHAT? A patent gives one person (or a group) the rights to X for a certain number of years and no one else can use X for that time period without their consent. The have unique control over whatever X is, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MONOPOLY.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't believe the cost/benefit analysis of the patent system is overwhelmingly positive we have nothing to discuss

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Someone disagrees with you and you don't want to hear it, that's not much of a surprise.

[ QUOTE ]
Stacks of individual contracts are an asinine replacement for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

A strawman and an assertion masquerading as argument, all in just 10 words.

[ QUOTE ]


Apples and oranges. The supposed "100 year head start" is a straw man, because USPS and FedEx serve two different market niches. In the high priority delivery market FedEx is the one with the head start. Try a real example next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niche market? First off Federal express ships mail FOR the USPS, slapping your proposal that the big ole government monopoly will inevitibly provide services better.

Secondly, why was this niche market so open? Why wasn't the USPS with its great incentives filling it? There has been demand for faster more reliable transportation of mail in this country since... well ever. And yet the a system that had huge amounts of funding, and had tons of experience, and masses of useful infrastructure couldn't figure out that there were billions of dollars sitting around just waiting for someone to say- hey if you pay us an extra 10$ we'll get this document there in 2 days.