Classical Liberalism vs. the CPC

[The Terrible Sweal]

Don't you really mean that in your opinion classical liberalism is inconsistent?

Sure. Strictly speaking, in my opinion the earth is round and orbits the sun, gravity causes things to be pulled back to the ground, 2 and 2 make 4, and you are being evasive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evasive? Of what?

[Hugo]

Of the points in my previous post. You didn't address any of them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Of the points in my previous post. You didn't address any of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmm? I ascertained that you had digressed from a discussin of classical liberalism and veered into your traditional advocacy of anarco-objectivist-supra-rational-whatevrmacallitism. That being the case, there was no call to address comments which were tangential to the topic of the thread: classical liberalism.

But since it might please you, I'll share my thoghts on one or two of your comments:

'Welfare' - do you know what it means/how it's used in economics? Your response made me think perhaps not.

'Coercion' - your approach to debate can frequently focus rather too much on defintional wordplay and not on essences. I don't care whether you want to call restraint of 'thieves' "coercion" or not, and what you choose to call it doesn't matter to the validity or invalidity of my point.

[Hugo]

I ascertained that you had digressed from a discussin of classical liberalism and veered into your traditional advocacy of anarco-objectivist-supra-rational-whatevrmacallitism.

Your immature name-calling against a well-established and accepted school of thought does your argument no favours. I'm not making such slurs against your principles. This school of thought is often known as anarcho-capitalism, pure capitalism, right-anarchism or (radical) libertarianism. There's no need for petty insults.

'Welfare' - do you know what it means/how it's used in economics? Your response made me think perhaps not.

A lot of traditional economic definitions are not accepted in Austrian economics. For instance, the Austrian school rejects the notions of Pareto optimality and information assymetry. Austrian economists don't accept 'welfare' as being a macroeconomic function. It's pointless to pursue notions of social desirability because 'society' doesn't 'desire' anything. Individuals desire things, thus, welfare increases/decreases can only be assessed by individuals.

No, you don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to be an Austrian economist, although many of them are anyway.

'Coercion' - your approach to debate can frequently focus rather too much on defintional wordplay and not on essences. I don't care whether you want to call restraint of 'thieves' "coercion" or not, and what you choose to call it doesn't matter to the validity or invalidity of my point.

It is not just a matter of definitions. I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force. You, apparently, are not. From what I can gather, you are telling me that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was ethically equivalent to the Holocaust, whereas I would say that the uprising was not wrong, because it did not initiate force, whereas the Holocaust was wrong, because it did. In the same way, I say that restraining a thief is not wrong, because it does not initiate force, but to steal is wrong, because it does. To simplify this, I use terms like "coercion" and "aggression" to distinguish initiated violence from responsive violence, and to include the threat of the initiation of violence, or the initiation of fraud.

Anyway, if you wish to get back on-topic, go ahead. Before it got off-topic I was waiting from a response to my points regarding the incompatibility of classical liberalism and economic interventionism, because such interventionism violates the liberal ideas of contracts and liberty. I merely took it further to show that without a compromise, classical liberal ideas must inevitably reject the state in toto.

[August1991]

your breed of anarco-libertarian-objectivist-whateveryoucallitism.

That description of Hugo deserves a quote.

For instance, the Austrian school rejects the notions of Pareto optimality and information assymetry.

Do you have evidence?

----

I skipped thorugh this thread and in your discussion of crime and criminality, you put far too much emphasis on the cost of incarceration and far too little on deterrence. We don't put a person in prison because of "justice". We put the person in prison to minimize the likelihood of having to put other people in prison. In the movie Titanic, a minor irony was locking Leonardo di Caprio up when everyone was going to die anyway. It is impossible to talk about our judicial system (heck, it's impossible to talk about any social system - heck, any system at all), without noting the role of incentives.

Based on liberal analysis I'd say the government has a proper role for action where:

-individuals might otherwise be excluded from equality of opportunity ; and/or

-where the general welfare (as determined in our democratic institutions) can be improved without invidious harm to individuals;

ON THE Condition that the state action has a sensible prospect of being successful.

It appears that definition of government came out of an undergraduate economics textbook, circa 1971.

But Sweal, I get your point and I don't entirely disagree. Government can improve welfare.

To be consistent as a classical-liberal is to reject the state. To accept the state requires a concession on at least one liberal principle, and as a libertarian once said, then it stops being a principle and becomes a guideline, then a goal, then finally, a lie. Compromise once and it becomes far easier to compromise again. We are, after all, dealing with human beings here.

Yeah right. And if you start smoking cigarettes the next thing you know, you'll be mainlining heroin.

There is a twofold attack by the state upon economic activity: firstly, the outlawing of perfectly acceptable business e.g. prostitution, drugs, liquor (in Ontario, anyway, the state monopolises it), gambling, medical services (except the state's own monopolists), etc. Then there are the attacks via licensing laws and regulations upon businesses regarded as legitimate, for instance, the difficulty in operating a taxi or bus line, or any kind of business in which you employ other people.

Hugo, you make the State sound like a terrible beast that has suddenly appeared and is now doing evil. It is people - frequently small businesses, wives and many others - who support the State in what it is doing. If the State didn't exist, we would have to invent it.

Before it got off-topic I was waiting from a response to my points regarding the incompatibility of classical liberalism and economic interventionism, because such interventionism violates the liberal ideas of contracts and liberty. I merely took it further to show that without a compromise, classical liberal ideas must inevitably reject the state in toto.

I see no contradiction between being a classical liberal and defending the existence of a coercive state.

Sweal claims to be a classical liberal but he uses terms like a child uses toys at Christmas, the marvel of discovery.

As for myself, I'm probably more conservative than liberal if only because I've seen far too many crazy schemes eventually cause more trouble than they're worth.

And that leads to my main criticism of this thread: you imagine these ideas, as physcists often do, in a frictionless universe. And as they say, in a frictionless universe, a feather and a penny would hit the ground at the same time.

In any social interaction, there are numerous costs incurred to get to the transaction. Those transaction costs are critical to understanding the social interaction, and any social scheme you may want to devise. It is absurd to talk about feathers falling without taking into account friction.

I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force.

Please, please, do not get into this argument. The argument ultimately is the proverbial chicken-egg question. "Mine." "Is not." "Is too." "Here first." "Were not." "Was too." And on and on.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It is not just a matter of definitions. I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force.

This fundamental problem with your position was raised in another thread, and you were unable to answer it there, either.

To the thief, you keeping things that he/she needs to survive locked away in your house is an act of force. He is merely using force as a response to your force.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I ascertained that you had digressed from a discussin of classical liberalism and veered into your traditional advocacy of anarco-objectivist-supra-rational-whatevrmacallitism.

Your immature name-calling against a well-established and accepted school of thought does your argument no favours.

Please. I don't even know what well established school of thought you claim to be following here. I'll adopt your suggested terms.

'Welfare' - do you know what it means/how it's used in economics? Your response made me think perhaps not.

A lot of traditional economic definitions are not accepted in Austrian economics.

Is this a "no", then? (BTW, did I already mention something about your resort to definitional disputation?)

For instance, the Austrian school rejects the notions of Pareto optimality and information assymetry.

Indeed. The Austrian school's insistence on reductionist analysis and tendency to exclude information which doesn't fit its conclusions is well known.

Individuals desire things, thus, welfare increases/decreases can only be assessed by individuals.

See what I mean. At a stroke the Austrian school dismisses the whole concept of 'aggregate'! (No doubt to resurrect it under a clever altenate name as it may suit some passing fancy.)

I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force.

And again I tell you your distinction, as it applies to the creation of rights, relies on a faulty assumption: That your opponent in a confrontation will accept your view of initiation, and will care.

You, apparently, are not. From what I can gather, you are telling me that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was ethically equivalent to the Holocaust,...

I am not making any assessment of ethics at all.

...In the same way, I say that restraining a thief is not wrong, because it does not initiate force, but to steal is wrong, because it does.

All of which has no bearing on the points I have made. You think he's a theif, he thinks you're the theif. Now what?

... I was waiting from a response to my points regarding the incompatibility of classical liberalism and economic interventionism, because such interventionism violates the liberal ideas of contracts and liberty.

I believe you agreed that your point was in fact that classical liberalism is inconsistent in accepting government action while claming to be based on individualism, right?

I don't agree that there is any inconsistency in this because I believe free individuals may freely agree to join a cooperative and accept its duties in excahange for benefits.

[Hugo]

Do you have evidence?

Yes. Go to www.mises.org and do a search for "Pareto optimal" and "information assymetry" or "imperfect information."

Hugo, you make the State sound like a terrible beast that has suddenly appeared and is now doing evil.

Historically the state has appeared through violence and conquest. States come into being with violence and continue their existence with violence. Now, rather than mindlessly saying "no it isn't" as you and Sweal so often do, perhaps you could construct an argument, with an example?

And let's never mind any ideas that people would just gather together and say, "Hey, we need a government." It never happened. Find me an example in history of a society that did that.

It is people - frequently small businesses, wives and many others - who support the State in what it is doing. If the State didn't exist, we would have to invent it.

People are like water, they take the path of least resistance. Faced with the existence of the state, they don't tackle the public-goods problem of trying to destroy it, they try to exploit it as it is to benefit themselves. This is why the state is such a bad idea.

Please, please, do not get into this argument. The argument ultimately is the proverbial chicken-egg question. "Mine." "Is not." "Is too." "Here first." "Were not." "Was too." And on and on.

Again, in a physical universe that exists independently of humankind, this isn't true. It will be the case that in any dispute like this, one person will actually have had it first, and the other is lying. Rather than just walk away in defeat, one should try to find the truth.

In any social interaction, there are numerous costs incurred to get to the transaction.

It's a perennial favourite of yours to blather on about transaction costs. It's ironic that you accuse Sweal of waving jargon around like a child with new toys at Christmas, but this is exactly what you do! "Oh, transaction costs, transaction costs!" Not once have you ever demonstrated to me that the state is able to reduce theses costs in any kind of welfare-improving way! You've never even demonstrated that transaction costs are a bad thing!

Yeah right. And if you start smoking cigarettes the next thing you know, you'll be mainlining heroin.

Oh? Well, then perhaps you can explain to me why all states grow in size and power, August? Perhaps you'll name me a government in the world that's interested in reducing its power and influence? Am I fundamentally misinterpreting the progession of the US government from a minarchist state that levied no income tax and raised no standing army to the modern Leviathan that accounts for over a third of national GDP?

But Sweal, I get your point and I don't entirely disagree. Government can improve welfare.

When? How? It's easy to talk of what's possible. Many crazy and outlandish things are possible, but never actually happened and probably never will happen.

[Hugo]

To the thief, you keeping things that he/she needs to survive locked away in your house is an act of force.

If the thief spoke of this as 'force', the only thing that demonstrates is the truth behind the idea that lack of education is a factor in crime, because the thief doesn't know what the word 'force' means.

Please. I don't even know what well established school of thought you claim to be following here.

I've already told you. You can read published authors of this school: David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Henry Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, etc.

The Austrian school's insistence on reductionist analysis and tendency to exclude information which doesn't fit its conclusions is well known.

Example?

At a stroke the Austrian school dismisses the whole concept of 'aggregate'!

No, it reinterprets it, to say that when we observe what appears to be aggregate action, what we are really observing is the aggregate effect of many, many individual actions, and everything about economics is reducible to the actions of individual humans. For instance, we talk about an increase in consumer spending, but 'the consumers' have not been spending more - this aggregate increase is the overall effect of thousands or millions of instances of one guy going down to the store and buying something he didn't buy last month or last year.

Now, do you have a refutation? From what you've said it becomes plain you have no understanding of the Austrian school, so I'd be surprised if you did.

And again I tell you your distinction, as it applies to the creation of rights, relies on a faulty assumption: That your opponent in a confrontation will accept your view of initiation, and will care.

If this affects the creation of rights, then what you are telling me is that there are no ethics, and no morals, and human action is solely limited to what is possible - there is no right or wrong, and the Holocaust, the Purges and the Cultural Revolution are all acceptable to you, because there exist no rights independent of the willingness of others to respect them or the ability of the right-holders to defend them.

I.e. Nazis don't respect the right of Jews to live, and Jews lack the ability or will to defend that right, therefore, Jews have no right to live. That's what you have just told me. You're comfortable with that?

I am not making any assessment of ethics at all.

Exactly. I'm curious to know how you reconcile this with your ideas of social contract and state measures to improve welfare. By your ethical standard neither should exist.

All of which has no bearing on the points I have made. You think he's a theif, he thinks you're the theif. Now what?

We've already had this discussion. Your only response thus far has been to posit that the universe does not exist outside of human perception, which is such radical solipsism that I don't feel we have any common ground to continue on - after all, if you don't accept that the universe exists, you don't accept that anyone other than yourself exists, so what's the point of debating government or economy? According to you we might as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't agree that there is any inconsistency in this because I believe free individuals may freely agree to join a cooperative and accept its duties in excahange for benefits.

This doesn't make sense. In this case there would be no need for government, because as I have said in another thread, you don't need to form a coercive government to force people to do what they want to do anyway. If a group wanted to create a government because they wanted that government to do things like provide welfare, why would they not just provide welfare themselves without the government?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It will be the case that in any dispute like this, one person will actually have had it first, and the other is lying.

What if he doesn't lie? Instead he says: yeah, you had it first, but now that I have come, as the X of HF it is mine by right - your stewardship is ended and you must yield it up to me, its rightful ownr.

In any social interaction, there are numerous costs incurred to get to the transaction.

It's a perennial favourite of yours to blather on about transaction costs.

I suppose the Austrian school has imagined transaction costs out of existence as well?

Not once have you ever demonstrated to me that the state is able to reduce theses costs in any kind of welfare-improving way!

Hugo, do you realize how loopy that comment is? Any generalize reduction of trans costs increases welfare. Issuance of common currency reduces transaction costs. States have issued currency. Egro, states have contributed to welfare.

You've never even demonstrated that transaction costs are a bad thing!

Hugo, have you evr read any economics OTHER than Austrian school?

[The Terrible Sweal]

To the thief, you keeping things that he/she needs to survive locked away in your house is an act of force.

If the thief spoke of this as 'force', the only thing that demonstrates is the truth behind the idea that lack of education is a factor in crime, because the thief doesn't know what the word 'force' means.

No, the 'theif merely interprts the situation in radically different terms than you do.

The Austrian school's insistence on reductionist analysis and tendency to exclude information which doesn't fit its conclusions is well known.

Example?

You mean other than dismissing pareto optimal and whatnot?

At a stroke the Austrian school dismisses the whole concept of 'aggregate'!

No, it reinterprets it, to say that when we observe what appears to be aggregate action, what we are really observing is the aggregate effect of many, many individual actions, and everything about economics is reducible to the actions of individual humans. ... Now, do you have a refutation?

Refutation? No. I see nothing there:

-particlarly startling to mainstream economics,

-problematic, or

-which takes your arguments forward.

And again I tell you your distinction, as it applies to the creation of rights, relies on a faulty assumption: That your opponent in a confrontation will accept your view of initiation, and will care.

If this affects the creation of rights, then what you are telling me is that there are no ethics, and no morals, and human action is solely limited to what is possible -

Here we are at cross-purposes again, I guess. For some reason, your way of discussing these matters makes me think you are purporting to have a descriptive point, but each time it turns out your really prosletysing a normative viewpoint. Are you causing that confusion, or is it some quirk in they way I'm reading you?

... there is no right or wrong, and the Holocaust, the Purges and the Cultural Revolution are all acceptable to you, because there exist no rights independent of the willingness of others to respect them or the ability of the right-holders to defend them.

I fail to see the connection between the one and the other. The metaphysical idea to which you seem to subscribe, of when a 'right exists' is quite beside the practical policy matters I tend to be concerned with, as a liberal.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Contd. ...

I.e. Nazis don't respect the right of Jews to live, and Jews lack the ability or will to defend that right, therefore, Jews have no right to live. That's what you have just told me.

Do you have to lie and make grossly offensive comments like this? It's a real piss off, you know.

Your only response thus far has been to posit that the universe does not exist outside of human perception, ...

False.

I don't agree that there is any inconsistency in this because I believe free individuals may freely agree to join a cooperative and accept its duties in excahange for benefits.

This doesn't make sense. In this case there would be no need for government, because as I have said in another thread, you don't need to form a coercive government to force people to do what they want to do anyway.

Again, your whole argument hinges on your beg-the-question definitionalizing. Amuse yourself with such sophistry if you like, but your not engaging meaningfully with the observed universe.

If a group wanted to create a government because they wanted that government to do things like provide welfare, why would they not just provide welfare themselves without the government?

If a previously atomistic group of people suddenly coalesces to collectivle provide for a collectively chosen objective, they have created a 'government' in so doing.

[Hugo]

What if he doesn't lie? Instead he says: yeah, you had it first, but now that I have come, as the X of HF it is mine by right - your stewardship is ended and you must yield it up to me, its rightful ownr.

What are you on about?

I suppose the Austrian school has imagined transaction costs out of existence as well?

No, the Austrian school accepts transaction costs, but has the following additions to more traditional theories:

1) Transaction costs are unavoidable and no system can be devised where they do not exist (e.g. nobody can know everything, therefore, there will always be information assymetry)

2) Transaction costs are not universally welfare-decreasing but must be assessed on a case-by-case basis

3) No evidence suggests that government intervention reduces transaction costs.

Hugo, do you realize how loopy that comment is? Any generalize reduction of trans costs increases welfare.

Unless you were the one pocketing the transaction cost, in which case, its reduction decreases welfare. It's perfectly possible for a transaction with a high cost to be Pareto optimal. In fact, it would be impossible to make a transaction more Pareto optimal by reducing transaction costs, since the transaction costs go to an individual or individuals whose welfare will be decreased by that reduction, and the definition of a Pareto improvement is one where somebody's welfare can be increased without reducing anybody else's welfare. Therefore, even unimaginably massive transaction costs are, in fact, Pareto optimal. This is one of the beefs that the Austrian school has with Pareto optimality - it's not useful for the real world.

Issuance of common currency reduces transaction costs. States have issued currency. Egro, states have contributed to welfare.

Two problems with this example. Firstly, if common currency reduced transaction costs, the free market would arrive at that anyway. There are many examples of market action reducing transaction costs without any state intervention, for example, why credit and debit cards are all the same size and are intercompatible, or why credit bureaus share information. In history, when currency has been privately issued, the market quickly arrives at a common currency anyway, most usually gold. So we don't need government for that.

Secondly, when considering inflation and fiat money, the fact is that state provision of currency has increased transaction costs. Computing for and predicting inflation creates inefficiencies that would not be there were it not for fiat, inflatable money. As Hayek and von Mises have explained, it is pretty much inevitable that a state will inflate centralised money, and this is certainly borne out by empirical evidence since the Roman Empire was involved in currency debasement and inflation.

Hugo, have you evr read any economics OTHER than Austrian school?

Yes, I'm a former Marxist and am familiar with Marxism and socialism. I'm also familiar with Chicago school capitalism or monetarism, Keynesianism and even Galbraith (though it would be a stretch to call his ideas a school).

No, the 'theif merely interprts the situation in radically different terms than you do.

Unless you believe that interpretation can actually alter the universe and history rather than just our view of it, that does not affect my argument one bit.

You mean other than dismissing pareto optimal and whatnot?

The Austrian school does not dismiss it, it rebuts it. If you'd actually read any Austrian economists you would know this. There are pages and pages of text from Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and more on this subject. Again, going to www.mises.org and searching for "pareto optimal", you'll see a lot of works on the subject, in addition to their e-book selection - hardly dismissive at all!

Refutation? No. I see nothing there:

-particlarly startling to mainstream economics,

-problematic, or

-which takes your arguments forward.

Good for you. However, I wasn't attempting to do any of the above. You made a point, I rebutted it. I don't particularly care how you feel that impacts on things I was never trying to address.

[Hugo]

Here we are at cross-purposes again, I guess. For some reason, your way of discussing these matters makes me think you are purporting to have a descriptive point, but each time it turns out your really prosletysing a normative viewpoint. Are you causing that confusion, or is it some quirk in they way I'm reading you?

The latter. Austrian thought holds that there are a priori truths to be found in the universe. It generally explains events as coming from these truths, for instance, the theory of money, credit and the business cycle is held as a priori truth as it is a fact that, given various situations, humans as a whole will react in a certain way. Once that is known, it is easy to predict the results of e.g. inflation, and sure enough, every historical example of an inflatory economy is easily explained with the Austrian cycle theory. This is because the theory is based on a relatively simple a priori truth.

Regarding the theory of rights, there are a priori rights that are inherent to humanity: the right to property (of which self-ownership is a party) is ultimately the only one that matters. All other rights can, if they are just, be traced back to this one. Events in history can be described in terms of this a priori knowledge.

I hope that this isn't new knowledge to you. You'd bragged of having some kind of post-graduate economics degree, or at least study - one hopes that you didn't go to such a bad university that they could teach such a course and never mention even the basic principles of the Austrian school (today, demonstrably the most influential school amongst economists as a whole, although not in other disciplines).

I fail to see the connection between the one and the other. The metaphysical idea to which you seem to subscribe, of when a 'right exists' is quite beside the practical policy matters I tend to be concerned with, as a liberal.

You are telling me that you are a man without principle? I find that hard to believe. Even the most rigid utilitarianism must have at least some idea of what 'welfare' is so that it can strive to improve it.

Do you have to lie and make grossly offensive comments like this? It's a real piss off, you know.

You find that grossly offensive? I suggest you need to revise your ideas, then, because these are your ideas that you are finding so repugnant. Don't bother with your usual "liar liar pants on fire" crud, I've already explained the point and you haven't enlightened me as to how it is untrue. Therefore, we'll assume it is true until you can prove otherwise.

If a previously atomistic group of people suddenly coalesces to collectivle provide for a collectively chosen objective, they have created a 'government' in so doing.

Perhaps according to your useless definition. I'm familiar with that little gem. However, I'm not willing to accept that priests, teachers and www.consumerguide.com are governments.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What if he doesn't lie? Instead he says: yeah, you had it first, but now that I have come, as the X of HF it is mine by right - your stewardship is ended and you must yield it up to me, its rightful ownr.

What are you on about?

I am pointing out that he may honestly hold a completely different view of what constitutes ownership. He may be a theif in your eyes, but not his.

No, the Austrian school accepts transaction costs, but has the following additions to more traditional theories:

1) Transaction costs are unavoidable and no system can be devised where they do not exist (e.g. nobody can know everything, therefore, there will always be information assymetry)

2) Transaction costs are not universally welfare-decreasing but must be assessed on a case-by-case basis

3) No evidence suggests that government intervention reduces transaction costs.

1) I'd accept that as a practical reality, but not a reason for complacency.

2) Okay, the issue being sorting transaction costs which decrease welfare from those that don't decreas welfare.

3) I disagree.

Issuance of common currency reduces transaction costs. States have issued currency. Egro, states have contributed to welfare.

Two problems with this example. Firstly, if common currency reduced transaction costs, the free market would arrive at that anyway.

Prove it.

Secondly, when considering inflation and fiat money, the fact is that state provision of currency has increased transaction costs.

Do you have hard evidence for this?

There are pages and pages of text from Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and more on this subject.

No doubt.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Nazis don't respect the right of Jews to live, and Jews lack the ability or will to defend that right, therefore, Jews have no right to live. That's what you have just told me.

Do you have to lie and make grossly offensive comments like this? It's a real piss off, you know.

You find that grossly offensive? I suggest you need to revise your ideas, then, because these are your ideas that you are finding so repugnant.

You are a sleazy liar.

[Hugo]

I am pointing out that he may honestly hold a completely different view of what constitutes ownership. He may be a theif in your eyes, but not his.

His argument would be inconsistent and logically indefensible.

3) I disagree.

The problem is that government is unable to do this, because it lacks the price mechanism, which is the method of feedback between consumer and provider. Because it does not have this mechanism, it cannot judge the value of things correctly, and thus could improve welfare only by blind luck. I would say that even that never happens, because government intervention itself is inherently net welfare-reducing because it consistently misjudges value (it has no means of correctly judging value, therefore, any judgement it makes is almost automatically wrong, much like any attempt to describe a print by a blind man) and thus misallocates resources, which is wasteful, and can be viewed as a transaction cost. It is possible that government may, by blind luck, correctly assess value, however, remember that the economy is not a snapshot but a process, and all values are moving targets, so any success in this won't be anything more than fleeting.

Prove it.

I already did. Please pay attention.

Once again for the cheap seats (and you): in societies where government has not been involved in currency, markets will arrive at one anyway. Usually it is gold, however, objects as diverse as seashells have been used as currency. This is because currency is not something created by government but an extension of the barter system that develops quite early in human societies. If people barter amongst themselves, they will use money amongst themselves once their society evolves past anything beyond the most primitive mode of human existence.

For examples, you can take any society that had no governmental involvement in money and see that they did, in fact, generate currency. There's the vikings (hacksilver), the Anglo-Saxons (gold), and us. If you look at the history of our currencies in the Western world, like dollars, pounds, or francs, they come not from government, but from free-market currency (mostly gold). Even their names are terms for weights of gold or silver (the pound sterling is so named because it was originally the value of one pound of sterling-grade silver). Most governments just appropriated them for their own purposes at various times (the US government during the Civil War, the British government around the start of WWI, etc).

Do you have hard evidence for this?

Yes. How many financial analysts and economists are employed to try and predict inflation and money markets? Every day, in the Wall Street Journal you can read predictions for the interest rate and inflation. The people producing that analysis and reporting it are doing that purely because the government is in the business of counterfeiting money - sorry, inflating currency. If the government was not involved in this, those people would be working in some other line of work, possibly working to better human existence rather than just trying to compensate for the harm that government policy does to it. The resources allocated to that prediction and reporting are transaction costs. They are inefficiencies, misallocated resources.

So in summary, my hard evidence is the job of every financial analyst who is on the payroll of some company or institution who predicts or analyses the interest rate and its effects.

You are a sleazy liar.

That is unsubstantiated libel, in a public moderated forum, and all copies of your posts are archived, even after you edit them. It is Greg's policy to maintain all such posts should subpoenas be issued for them.

Watch your step. If you're going to make accusations like that you had better have some kind of evidence.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I am pointing out that he may honestly hold a completely different view of what constitutes ownership. He may be a theif in your eyes, but not his.

His argument would be inconsistent and logically indefensible.

He doesn't care. He has a club.

You are a sleazy liar.

That is unsubstantiated libel, in a public moderated forum, and all copies of your posts are archived, even after you edit them. It is Greg's policy to maintain all such posts should subpoenas be issued for them.

Watch your step. If you're going to make accusations like that you had better have some kind of evidence.

Bring it on. You're the slanderous liar who accuses people falsely of supporting the holocaust. If you want to shine a light on your vicious and blatant lies, I'll be only too happy to observe the outcome.

[I miss Reagan]

Sweal,

I really meant to engage you in this topic, but it appears it got away from me. Sorry

[Hugo]

He doesn't care. He has a club.

So, you're telling me that your theory of property hinges on club ownership?

You're the slanderous liar who accuses people falsely of supporting the holocaust. If you want to shine a light on your vicious and blatant lies, I'll be only too happy to observe the outcome.

No evidence, eh? Didn't think so. I already made my argument, and since you won't provide a counter-argument despite my repeated requests, we'll assume that you are a Holocaust apologist and leave it at that, since you obviously lack either the will or the ability to defend yourself.

Here's the original argument again:

Sweal: Your natural rights notion must accept coercion as well, if you intend to defend 'property' against 'theives' for example.

Hugo: I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force. You, apparently, are not. From what I can gather, you are telling me that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was ethically equivalent to the Holocaust, whereas I would say that the uprising was not wrong, because it did not initiate force, whereas the Holocaust was wrong, because it did.

Sweal: And again I tell you your distinction, as it applies to the creation of rights, relies on a faulty assumption: That your opponent in a confrontation will accept your view of initiation, and will care.

Hugo: If this affects the creation of rights, then what you are telling me is that there are no ethics, and no morals, and human action is solely limited to what is possible - there is no right or wrong, and the Holocaust, the Purges and the Cultural Revolution are all acceptable to you, because there exist no rights independent of the willingness of others to respect them or the ability of the right-holders to defend them.

I.e. Nazis don't respect the right of Jews to live, and Jews lack the ability or will to defend that right, therefore, Jews have no right to live. That's what you have just told me. You're comfortable with that?

You haven't refuted any of this. The word 'liar' is not some kind of debating trump card, you know. You sling it out so often when you're losing an argument and without any evidence that I think you believe it is, that I will scurry away when you childishly scream "no fair!" I'm afraid it's not so.

Sweal,

I really meant to engage you in this topic, but it appears it got away from me

I believe you will be wasting your time. Either Sweal does not understand what classical liberalism is, or he is not one. His repeated defence of economic interventionism e.g. minimum wage laws is completely and utterly at odds with classical liberal thought. I think you were right on the money in your first post when you stated that he would be happy with the NDP, because his arguments reveal that he is, in fact, a 'third way' democratic socialist who believes in big government and distrusts free markets, and as such is a sworn enemy of classical liberals.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... we'll assume that you are a Holocaust apologist and leave it at that, ...

This is an outrageously false, sick, and malicious slander.

I've reported this to Greg because I don't think anyone here should ave to put up with this sort of attack.

I don't know what kind of dementia drives you Hugo, it's repellent and I have no intention of corressponding with you anymore.