David Ottinger

This is not a moral dilemma. You have 2 options where doing something leads to people dying and doing nothing leads to people dying. So, all we're discussing is scale and of one that is predicated on a value judgment-- which, needless to say, is entirely subjective.

Fraud is immoral because it violates the principle of equal consideration as far as contracts are concerned. In order for there to be a valid contract various elements need to be present, and off the top of my head, some of them are: Clear intent to contract Full disclosure Mental Capacity Offer & Acceptance Without these elements present in a transaction, there can be no consideration. Thus, there can be no valid agreement as consideration is necessary for consent. Any violation of this principle is fraud. And because fraud is a form of economical conquest, it is also a violation of the NAP.

I'm assuming you're not experiencing the same problem then? Because I've refreshed it many times now. Even tried to skip to the 50 min market to see if it would load. Everything loads just up to that 34:49 min mark.

On youtube the video stops working at 34:49. youtu.be/qzba_mU9OgU?list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w

The "market" is just a venue whether real or virtual. And it's no more free of coercive forces than the mall is free of thieves. There is no such thing as 100% security no matter what form of governance one implements. The "market" is also neither inherently moral or inherently immoral as it is just a venue for trade. Hope that helps.

My Thoughts: I was wondering if anyone has gone through this study provided below and what their thoughts were on it. My interpretation is that property rights (thus a sense of self and thus a sense of morality) is a naturally emerging phenomenon as spacial awareness is developed, i.e. it's all an extention of spacial awareness. From the study: Abstract: From the moment children say “ mine!” by 2 years of age , objects of possession change progressively from being experienced as primarily un-alienable property (i.e., something that is absolute or non negotiable), to being alienable (i.e., something that is negotiable in reciprocal exchanges). As possession begin s to be expe rienced as alienable, the child enters “moral space”, a socially normative and evaluative space made of perceived values that are either good or less good, and where accountability and reputation begin to play a prominent role. The aim of the article is to show the close developmental link between possession and morality . Source: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/Possession%20and%20morality%20in%20early%20development%5B1%5D.pdf

I've always summed up the NAP as follows: One does not have the right to claim the natural right or legal right to initiate force against another to inflicit harm to someone's body; to initiate force to cause another to assume losses or damages of property; to defraud another; to extort another; or, to break contract without cause. So, as far as verbal abuse goes, I think it would only be harmful to children as they are still developing. An adult can just walk away until cooler heads can prevail.

Her claim regarding 'a' is the only one that's true. The others need more elaboration and actually do have some truth to them, but they certainly could be articulated better. a) They have an equity based economy, not a debt based economy like the rest of the world. However, that banker is already positioning himself in a way that will corrupt their economy if anyone with a significant amount of fiat money steps in. Given what I saw in the video, the imperialism is already knocking on their door. b) Regarding inflation and deflation, you'd have to explore what she actually meant before you can provide a reasonable rebuttal because the classical definition of inflation and deflation is in regards to the money supply -- which is the definition used by Austrian Economists. However, what does she mean? My guess is that she's referring to the fluctuation of prices. And given that they are using a commodity money, their economy does not experience a hyperized Cantillon Effect as you see with fiat monetary systems, especially ones that are a pure fiat money like we have in the global economy. As a result, you do not have this constant devaluation of the currency. And with that, prices remain relatively the same, especially given that tusks aren't the only currency people are using in that society. c) There is some truth to what she is claiming here, but what she is referring to is imperialism, not capitalism. So, I'd say she is more correct in her assertion than not.

He lost me when he suggested Starbucks makes good coffee, but other than that, that was fantastic.

^I'd rep you to say thank you, but I haven't figured out if you can do that here.

Well, this is actually one of the main grievances us voluntaryists have. There is no requirement of the state to have explicit consent. The fact that you live within the jurisdiction of the given state is treated as acquiescence to its body of order, i.e. jurisprudence. For example, if you go to a store and purchase a DVD, on the box are copyright claims, and while you did not explicity sign an agreement, you however performed actions that were binding. And, while this is all well and good as far as contract law goes, the issue lies in the monopolistic nature of government. This is why you typically get the whole, "If you don't like it, then just leave," argument -- an argument full of flaws that I won't go into here. The point, however, is that due to this monopolistic nature there is a lack of recourse. And, in the absence of recourse, then there is no valid contract because it is by its nature a one sided contract. Thus, what you have is actually called an 'unconscionable bargain'. (UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, contracts. A contract which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848.) While many will mistakenly limit the definition of that term to those of unsound mind (e.g. child or mentally handicap), the term actually encompasses fraud as well as fraud preys upon the ignorance of an individual. And the main aspect of what leads to fraud is the lack of full disclosure. That's why under the philosophy of law as far as contracts are concerned there is a necessity for full disclosure. It's a main element for a sound contract. Basically, without full disclosure there cannot be consideration. In other words, one cannot consent to that which he/she cannot consider. Of course, many will try to circumvent this argument with the claim, "There is no excuse for ignorance of the law." And, while you can argue how no one man really knows all the "law" given the ocean of edicts out there, hence all the specilization in the legal field. But, the real point is that on some level you're perfectly aware there is an order that has juridiction over the geographic area. More importantly, this "law" is not hidden from anyone. It is made public knowledge. Thus, if you're ignorant of it, then you do so out of your own will, hence the claim of willful blindness. In other words, you're choosing to be blind to this body of order -- which is seen and treated as the steward of law. (On a side note, that sort of argument is actually a very clever ruse because the whole argument regarding the unconscionable bargain actually deals with one surrenduring his/her sovereignty, i.e. no one in their right mind would actually surrender his/her sovereignty, unless under duress -- which I can go into conquest later.) And, this is where the notion of the rule of law and legitimacy of government begins to get confusing because in prior legal systems there was an understanding that the law came from God. Hence, the divine right of kings, i.e. everyone had their duties as ordained by God. Whatever class you were born into was in accordance with the will of God. (Mind you, this is an extremely brief overview of the history of western legal system and philosophy of law.) As the Age of Enlightenment came about, this began to question that whole body of order. And, mind you, this sort of questioning didn't begin during the Age of Enlightment, rather that's where particular concepts culminated. Some of these concepts are of sovereignty; equality of law; what is the rule of law; public realm vs private realm; natural rights vs legal rights; and, so on. And, from all of that we have gained insight into what the rule of law might be despite it still being something that eludes us. But, the overall consensus is that it is distinct from the rule by might. The rule by might is what despotism/tyranny is all about. Hence, the need for the consent of the governed. Without it, there is no legitamcy of the government. This consent is the difference between a de facto form of governance vs a de jure form of governance. (Personally, I make a distinction between government and governance as some will say there is no governance without government. But, then, what about self-governance?) And, really, that's what anarchism is all about. It's the ultimate form of self-governance. It is simply the next step in this long progression towards equality of law. (Mind you, I also make a distinction between law and edicts, i.e. the difference between lawful and legal.) Laws are the moral theories that make up a jurisprudence. The edicts are a reference to the legal framework that is chartered in order to uphold the rule of law or whatever order one imposes by might. In other words, the lawfulness of an act is based on its moral standing, and the legality of an act is based on its adherence to the charter, i.e. contract. Thus, issues of legality are issues of contract, not necessarily morality. Hence, how you can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have lawlessness. (i.e. "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.") In other words, just because one can create order via might, that does not mean he/she is abiding by the rule of law. And, as far as this topic is concerned, that is why anarchism is statelessness and not lawlessness as many will try to argue that anarchism is without law or rules or regulations and so on. Further more, this is why I find UPB to be so important to this discussion. It gives us a methodology for evalutating moral theories, thus it gives us insight into real law (i.e. natural law), not the edicts that are colored as law because of how contracts allow us to create laws among ourselves. When you sign a contract, you're taking an oath. That oath creates a law, but it is one that is limited only to those party to the contract. Hence, the whole focus on the idea of a social contract. People understand that some sort of frame work is needed. But, again, the problem isn't that there is a need for some sort of contract, rather that there is a monopoly on it, and worse that it is imposed upon us all by force. So, it's not the rule of law we're actually against. It's this particular order (which is actually a might makes right form of jurisprudence). Otherwise, why is the gun in the room? It serves to *enforce* the monopolistic nature of this particular order. An order we refer to as statism. Thus, one can easily argue that this whole voluntaryist position is all about one's natural right to contract, i.e. sui juris -- a man of his own "law". And, personally, I think that scares a lot of people because they assume the source of law is government as many are ignorant of their own sovereignty, let alone what sovereignty actually is. Thus, they gladly surrender it for some false sense of security which is nothing more than a protection racket. (Which, I find to be the result of epistomological conquest, i.e. indoctrination of the populace.)

Stefan, I thought you might enjoy this bit concerning women's fashion. I suggest watching the whole things because of the build up, but the real focus starts at the 2:29 mark. www.youtube.com/embed/NvVpQ0kvrfg

The message I try to get across: Typically people confuse economics with politics. Economics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Putting forth a policy is putting forth a value judgment. In other words, economics explains what IS going on while policies serve to tell people what OUGHT to be done. However, what ought to be done is entirely subjective because value is subjective. Thus, by putting forth a minimum wage law, you are imposing a value judgment on the populace. This is true for various policies. And it's all these impositions on the populace that move us away from having a free market.Thus, the markets as they exist today are not truly representative of the people that make-up the markets. It is a market system that represents a select few. So, by definition, economical equality is impossible without a free market. Furthermore, economics makes no distinction between whether employment is good or bad. So, the supply and demand graph as it relates to the labor market as well as the implementation of a minimum wage is simply pointing out that there is a max price one is willing to pay for the exchange of labor and a minimum someone is willing to accept for the exchange of labor.That is not up for interpretation. That is simply a fact of reality. So, again, economics does not put forth any moral evaluations. Furthermore, the equilibrium range is set by the market. Thus, if minimum wage laws set the minimum above that equilibrium range, then unemployment will occur. That is the risk of imposing minimum wage laws. There is no dispute to that. More importantly, political risk does not end there. What is commonly overlooked is the desire to cause unemployment. Unemployment tends to cause social unrest -- which can also be exploited. So, it is entirely naive to automatically assume minimum wage laws are this unequivocal counter to exploitation of the populace. No, there are various groups of various interests that want minimum wage laws. For example, big corporations may push for minimum wage laws, thus preventing small businesses from having the appropriate size staff needed for their operation, thereby hindering their competitiveness in the market place. Furthermore, this same corporation will push for welfare policies such as food stamps that can only be used at licensed organization -- which naturally that corporation would be one of them -- thus exploiting the unemployed for profits via proxy of the state, thereby further hindering competition.This is why libertarians argue in favor of a free market. Exploitation might occur in the free market, but that's nothing compared to policies that solidify them into practice by fiat.

I think Stefan could've composed that a lot better. The better stuff was near the end where Stefan is discussing the use of government to achieve a particular social order and how that simply defers the problem to future generations.But, as far as the rest of the stuff goes, I can't exactly agree with Stefan's points. Even if MLK went the socialist route, that doesn't make his grievances any less grounded. And, more importantly, he was representing many people's grievances. And, I think that's why many people protect his image because it wasn't about him. He was just a voice. He was a messenger. So, all the plagiarism and infidelity is really a moot point in my opinion because what was important were the grievances of an entire community of people not experiencing equality of law.So, what I really disagree with at this time is how Stefan argues that MLK went too far with the desire for reparations for an injustice. I agree with Stefan that the vehicle for carrying out those reparations (i.e. government) is inherently corrupt. But, I believe that Stefan has stated in the past -- which I paraphrase -- that we are currently living in an involuntary society, and under such governance we at times are forced to use the courts or police or other socialized services because there are no alternatives. So, given what blacks were going through during that time period, how is their case any different in that regard?

Essentially yes. All those things you listed had to do with economical consent. The colonies were forced to produce goods without having a say in their governance. So they fought to liberate themselves from economic conquest, but that also required the liberation of the lands from monarchical rule.

"The government is either the product of market forces..." I don't see how this is true in any instance. "or the market is subject to the same forces that produce the State." This does happen. But being subjected to the force of others does not mean that this despotic force is the creator of trade. So, to hold that these are the only possiblities would be a false dichotomy. The market is an independent phenomenon of the state. As I stated before, a select group of people under the proxy of government seize control over the market. And, I'm not using the word "seize" for dramatic effect here. It is an act of economical conquest. I don't know if you're familiar with the 3 types of conquest, which are the stages of conquest, but they are: (1) Physical Conquest -- the occupation of a geographic region; (2) Economic Conquest -- the seizure of trade, i.e. flow of wealth, or the production of the masses; and, (3) Epistemological Conquest -- the indoctrination of the populace. All 3 are necessary for a region to be conquered. Governments are a tool, or an institution, of war. They are not a tool of trade. Governments always move towards seizing the production of the masses in order to centralize it for the purpose of war. However, because of great thinkers, as well as the advancement of tools of war, it is becoming more-and-more apparent that this form of governance is leading towards mutual assured destruction, so it is slowly being realized that there are ways for humanity to live in harmony with one another instead of scheming ways to lord over everyone. And in order to achieve that, we need to work those stages of conquest backwards. A free market is part of that -- which we currently DO NOT have. But, there are many people who benefit from this centralization of what are essentially sovereign powers. To claim that this de facto market system you see today is the product of a voluntary society is grossly inaccurate. There is NO reason for anyone to "trade" over his/her sovereign powers for a benefit. That is not an act of trade! That is an act of surrender! But, most people do not know what it means to be a sui juris, i.e. a man of his own law. People are indoctrinaed into believing that there are supposed to be poeple of authority, i.e. rulers. So, no! What you see today is not a voluntary society. The market you see today is an artificial economy, not an organic one (if you permit such terms to make the distinction). Now, I will agree that this threat of conquest will always exist, but that risk is inherent to any and all economic systems because we can choose whether we, as an individual, participates in conquest over others (i.e. adhere to the principles of conquest) or engage in mutual beneficial relationships where the non-aggression principle is upheld as well as the principle of equal consideration -- these are principles of cooperation (or peace).

Well, all the voluntaryist are implying that the NAP is a requisite for a free market to exist. How else does one have voluntary trade, let alone a market? There are no markets without cooperation. Stefan goes as far as to say how we get there. And I agree with Stefan's premise that society is a reflection of child rearing practices. But Peter believes that government is the product of market forces. This is unture. The state does not emerge out of the market. The state emerges out of adherence to the principles of conquest. Eventually, the state seizes the flow of the market. I'll say it again: People coming together to form an allegiance for the purpose of imposing jurisdicitonal controls is not a market phenomenon. It is a product of conquest, not trade (i.e. voluntary interaction).

This is partially correct. In order for a market system to be a free market system, then adherence to the NAP is a necessary element. Otherwise, it shifts from capitalism to imperialism, or even feudalism -- which usually has the powers of conquest consolidated into some sort of statist model. e.g. monarchy or oligarchy. Whether Peter realizes it or not, he's advocating for a technocratic form of totalitarianism.

Nailed it! Though, if anyone wants to go deeper into what Joseph is advocating... It's important to note that he is limiting the topic of scarcity to the scarcity of goods necessary for survival. For example... If there are X amount of people, then you need X amount of weight in food and water; If there are X amount of people, then you need X amount of surface area for shelter (including x amount of materials for the domicile). So, the argument goes: All these needs are quantifiable, and thus if we structure production to fullfill these needs using the most efficient means available/conceivable, then all needs associated with one's survival can be provided for. As such, the quality of life for everyone is raised because this system focuses on allocating resources for the purpose of maximizing public health. It's a very seductive ideology because it pruports the idea: If one is not required to exert physical or mental energy towards acquiring goods for satisfying survival needs, then he/she is free to contemplate other interests -- which are usually more fascinating. After all, what is more important than time? The one thing we cannot produce. Essentially, the idea is akin to advocating perpetual motion. Like wise, Joseph fails to acknowledge the law of diminishing returns insofar as population growth is concerned. There is no perfect equilibrium that can be achieved. A population will grow respectively to economic output. And it will always test those limits. I suppose you could enact population control methods, but you might end up with a society like China where the male/female ratio is grossly disproprtionate. Overall, in order to factor out this notion of structural violence, then one needs to create a system that achieves perfect equilibrium. But, even if you use force, you still cannot homogonize human action. The very act of using force in attempts to homogonize human action inadventely creates a duality -- the one Stefan is always pointing out. That's why adherence to the NAP is going to provide the closest we can get to perfect equilibirum. I believe this pont here is taking into account the uncertainty principle. Another principle Joseph is failing to take into account. And, I'm willing to bet there is a better argument that can be made with respect to the uncertainty principle. But, at this juncture my understanding of the principle is not complete enough to articulate it simply. To put this into better perspective, the below video will indirectly show how close we can get to engineering the perfect sphere. Because, in the abstract we can conceive of the perfect sphere, but implementing it in reality is quite different.

Review of the Debate Stefan and Peter both talked passed each other. The problem was that there was no direction to begin with. Even worse was that there was no defining of terminology, let alone various phrases that alluded to very distinct concepts. The thing is that both have a very good understanding of the subject matter, but that doesn't mean one should not build from first principles when putting forth a concept for discussion, especially a rigorous form of discussion. Peter expressed how he was not being understood, and rightfully so because he's not presenting his argument from first principles. Stefan tried to get him to do that, but it didn't work out, so when Peter said something that caused Stefan to take a double-take, he had to question it -- no matter what it was. No matter where it went! That's how one properly follows a train of thought. However, it was a philosophical fiasco. Had Peter taken the time to establish concepts so that one can follow without drawing assumptions or conflating terms from the different paradigms, then there could've been a more fruitful discussion of ideas. But, Peter felt he was above it all in some manner. It would be like submitting a peer review paper and skipping parts of the proof because, "Well, we all studied the topic matter so you should know this stuff exactly like I do." But that's not how coherent discussions work. It's a tedious process, but you have to do it in order to avoid this kind of a cluster fuck. And then when Stefan presented his ideas advocating the free market and anarchism, those concepts weren't exactly addressed by Peter directly. When he tried, he just loaded on adjectives. And he got called out on it. Eventually, the whole problem that caused this cluster fuck can be seen when Peter says, "Well, that's your definition." This whole lack of conducting oneself formally caused a communication break down, and as a result both tried to get their points across as best as possible by essentially talking passed each other in the hopes that something would stick. If you watch from the start, Peter thinks he's above conducting a discussion like that -- not realizing the importance of arguing from first principles in order to have a coherent discussion. You can see this right off the bat when Stefan has to immediately interject in order to define a term for the sake of argument and the audience's understanding. I don't know if Stefan could've done anything better as much of this falls on Peter's side to communicate his arguments as simply as possible -- which includes defining terms. On a side note, I hope Stefan rewatched the debate and better understood why Peter thinks he's forced to trade, and that the objection about living in the woods is on par with statists telling voluntaryist to go live in the woods if they don't want to participate in government. If not, Peter is asserting that there can be an economic system where trade is no longer a tool for distribution of resources. I find this to be erroneous because a market is simply a location, whether virtual or real, where one goes to assert his/her interests for aquiring goods/services, but nonetheless that is his point.

I appreciate the response. However, I don't think it quite addresses the given assertion. Your response is evaluating the given assertion from the assumption that blood donations would be forced. If that was the case, then that's a pretty clear cut case, imo, of a NAP violation. But, I'm trying to look at this from a point of virtue. So, take that you're not being forced to give blood. This blood example came about because I suggested that if one could establish a universal principle that makes helping others a moral imperative, then it would change my mind in thinking that helping others is not a moral obligation. This really is an age old question: Are you your brother's keeper? 'Brother' being fellow man. Liberals try to make sympathy a moral imperative. They try to argue that the plight of others is everyone's burden. So, I think this belief is one of the core beliefs assumed by liberals -- one of the major advocates of statism. So, I think breaking this down is important as moral arguments are what make up a particular form of governance. They're clearly taking a utilitarian stance that violating the NAP is justified because everyone's overall burdens are lessened. That's obviously a slipper slope. Basically, if a civilization is developed insofar as to have an abundance of resources/goods that would cover the basic needs of survival (e.g. food, water, shelter, medical care), then there is no valid reason those would not be provided, right? I find that Liberals believe that's happening today. i.e. That resources are being horded insofar as to prevent people from being able to satisfy their survival needs. Again, government clearly is not the right answer. Nonetheless, I have to ask myself, is there a universal principle here that we're over looking? I forget what video it was, but it's possible that even Stefan alludes to it. He was addressing a hypothetical, and it went something like, "If there is a guy dying of thirst and you have an abundance of water, and you don't give it to him, then you're a dick." To me that sounds like there is some sort of universal preference that is being overlooked. Otherwise, we wouldn't feel justified in calling that guy a dick. So, if we could break down the blood donation example I provided, then maybe we could dispell this utilitarian paradox. Right, so is there a universal principle there?

First off, I really wish we had more examples broken down somewhere to reference for thought analysis. Anyhow... to the possible error... I might be misunderstanding something, but shouldn't under the 'Universal' column for row 'Running for the bus' be classified as 'not available'? Because, if there is no preference, then why are we evaluating if it is Universal or Personal? Doesn't make much sense, unless I'm missing something here. This confusion came about because I'm trying to evaluate the following assertion: "It is universally preferable for people to live than to die. People need blood to live. If you do not donate blood, then people will not get blood, and they will die. It is thus a moral imperative for you to donate blood in order to prevent people from dying." So, I broke that down into the two respective prescriptive behaviors as follows for evaluation: (1) You should give blood; and (2) You should prevent people from dying. And, I'm having trouble evaluating them... (1) "You should give blood" Is there a preference? Yes Is it universal? No. Enforceable? Yes..right? 'Cause you can forceblly take blood, right? Requires initiating action on part of the victim? No Can violators be avoided? N/A Moral Category: Neutral (personal preference) (2) "You should prevent people from dying." Is there a preference? No..? I mean, it's not really my choice. But, what if I'm doctor? Is it universal? N/A if preference is no, right? Enforceable? No. Requires initiating action on part of the victim? N/A Can violators be avoided? N/A Moral Category: ??? I'm completely lost here...

I'm curious, what's so crazy about Murphey's pov?

I think they both had fun with being radical views in that setting. I don't think Prof. Murphey presented the Austrian School poorly at all. Though, I agree they were definitely talking about 2 different things. The only thing I would like to point out is that (using Warren Mosler's terminology): It's true that the "issuer" cannot default like the "user." However, the issuer's equivalant of default is runaway inflation. And, that's much worse!

http-~~-//youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok DEBATERS WARREN MOSLER is an early developer of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the President of Valance Co, Inc., and Senior Financial Advisor to Senator Ronald E. Russell, President of the 29th Legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands. He is the founder and current manager of the III Funds, which peaked at over $5 billion AUM in 2007 and currently manages about $1.5 billion, as well as the Founder and President of Mosler Automotive, which manufactures the MT900 sports car in Riviera Beach, Florida. Mr. Mosler has written a number of academic papers on issues relating to macroeconomics and monetary policy, and is the author of Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy (2010). He maintains a personal blog, The Center of the Universe (http://moslereconomics.com), and can be followed on Twitter at http://moslereconomics.com. ROBERT MURPHY, Ph.D, is a Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research and an Associated Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. From 2003 until 2006, Murphy was Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in Michigan, U.S. From 2006 until early 2007, he was employed as a research and portfolio analyst with Laffer Associates, an economic and investment consultancy in New York. He runs the blog Free Advice (http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog) and writes a column for Townhall.com and has also written for LewRockwell.com. He is the author of a number of books including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and Lessons for the Young Economist.