Removing the possibility of error.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

The rock exists. You see the rock. You think the rock exists.

 

There should at the very least be a word to describe a state of mind where the mind believes something is true. First of all there are issues with hijacking opinion since most people do not think opinion are ineherently untruthful as statements of reality and it is not defined so in any dictionary I've ever seen.

 

Therefore belief and the action of believing, should have absolutly no meaning as to wether the belief or believed object is true outside the subject's mind.

 

By hyjacking belief you have practically removed such a word and further spread doubt on the verb 'believing'. This is a gross error. Spreading it is wrong. Believing it is wrong.

 

Opinion, apparently, is ''wrong by definition. Because if it's a fact, it's not an opinion. In other words, if it's true its not an opinion.''

 

Well atleast I have the word belief left. Who knows, maybe even thinking something that is true to be true is wrong! Atleast, its wrong to say it. According to some people including Stefan Molyneux.

 

https://youtu.be/Fq6Z_B8RdrU?t=3m32s

 

Great, so nothing but lies can be in the man's mind. Reminds me of agnosticism.

 

In terms of practicality of language there are two ways.

 

1. Most efficient:  You speak in the affirmative. the listener with half a brain recognizes that it's a statement of belief. The fact that someone says it doesn't make it true or wrong. It's just that. *belief in the actual useful definition.

 

2.You talk more to avoid unsettling other's feelings.

 

Either some people are practicing linguistic ethnocentrism by imposing definitions which are not established or online definitions are all lying. Simply, google opinion or belief.

 

Do I have to do an objectivist syllogism that the following is perfectly consistent: ``The rock exists. You see the rock. You think the rock exists.``

Stop destroying language!

[WasatchMan]

Opinion, apparently, is wrong by definition. Because if it's a fact, it's not an opinion. In other words, if it's true its not an opinion.

 

Opinion is not wrong by definition.  An opinion is something that has not yet been, or there is insufficient knowledge for. the making the claim of a fact. Something can be an opinion and be true. Before there were mathematical and observational models that demonstrably proved that the earth rotates around the sun, and the sun is the center of a solar system, anyone who thought that this would have to say that a heliocentric model is there opinion. Even though there opinion happened to be true, they did not have the evidence to properly claim it to be a fact.

[dsayers]

Well atleast I have the word belief left.

When people ask me if I believe in God, my response to them is that I accept that reality exists objectively and one's belief is not useful in determining what's real and what isn't. I point this out because a lot of people (just as this quote implies) believe that believing is somehow relevant.

 

The way I see it, (notice I didn't say believe; a product of what I'm about to explain) a "belief" is only useful temporarily. To somebody who accepts reality and their own capacity for error, a belief should serve only as motivation to test the theory. Upon testing, that which is being tested can either be discarded as not accurately describing the real world, or upgraded to truth.

 

Opinion is not wrong by definition.  An opinion is something that has not yet been, or there is insufficient knowledge for. the making the claim of a fact. Something can be an opinion and be true.

I disagree. To me, opinion is something that literally cannot be true or false. "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." This is an expression of preferences that there neither is nor can be any objective proof for.

  

Either some people are practicing linguistic ethnocentrism by imposing definitions which are not established or online definitions are all lying. Simply, google opinion or belief.

In keeping with my last point, words themselves are in fact opinions. Look at the word "sanction." Depending on usage, it can appear to contradict itself! This is why defining terms is so important. Suppose you and I were having a discussion on fraud. Maybe you were talking about people who did not honor their half of an exchange. Maybe I was talking about using deceit to precipitate an exchange. We wouldn't even be talking about the same thing! Now suppose I brought up the topic and defined what I meant by fraud. Even if you didn't agree with the definition, you would still understand what I was talking about. Which is all that really matters since the entire purpose of communication is to transmit an idea from one consciousness to another.

 

Yes, I realize there are generally accepted definitions, which increases the efficiency of communications most of the time, forgoing the need to define every term we use. But we also have the capacity to substitute ideas. For example, if I began a story talking about person X, you wouldn't think that I was referring to a person called X, but rather somebody who doesn't need to be distinctive in any way other than NOT being person Y. You wouldn't object that that's not the actual definition of "person X" because it's meant to be a generic placeholder.

 

This is good stuff though! Precision is important and I hope this helps.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Opinion is not wrong by definition.  An opinion is something that has not yet been, or there is insufficient knowledge for. the making the claim of a fact. Something can be an opinion and be true. Before there were mathematical and observational models that demonstrably proved that the earth rotates around the sun, and the sun is the center of a solar system, anyone who thought that this would have to say that a heliocentric model is there opinion. Even though there opinion happened to be true, they did not have the evidence to properly claim it to be a fact.

I would maintain the google definition: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So if it is based on fact or knowledge, it can still be an opinion.

 

The remaining issue, besides scruing up with communication, is it gives entrenched beliefs another weapon. For example the state can call everything it disagrees with an opinion from the start.

anyone who comes up with corrections deals with a hierarchy where the entrenched belief is simply stated and his is labbeled ''opinion''. You want to bring something new? great. opinion. Now all the masses under propaganda can use it as a defense mechanism and chant ''lalalalala'' anytime you talk.

 

What if you came to a debate and talked about how you think global warning theories need some corrections [...] and the audience immediatly dismises you thanks to 'opinion' vs 'fact'. Without the new definition of opinion (not mine), it can still happen but it is reinforced with it.

 

If you want to hijack the word opinion, I would like my humanities teacher, stef and others to get the definitions changed in dictionaries to include their added logical components.

You (whoever is doing this) are creating a divide in the usage of a word. Now when someone says ''thats an opinion'' I have no idea if he means to state I am wrong.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

 

When people ask me if I believe in God, my response to them is that I accept that reality exists objectively and one's belief is not useful in determining what's real and what isn't. I point this out because a lot of people (just as this quote implies) believe that believing is somehow relevant.

Relevant to what? Do you mean relevant to its truth value? Do people really do that? Thats like 2 year olds closing their eyes in attempt to hide from you. The brain is supposed to figure that out at around 3 years old (if I remember correctly).

 

The way I see it, (notice I didn't say believe; a product of what I'm about to explain) a "belief" is only useful temporarily. To somebody who accepts reality and their own capacity for error, a belief should serve only as motivation to test the theory. Upon testing, that which is being tested can either be discarded as not accurately describing the real world, or upgraded to truth.

I see this. This really shows that this erea of language and of philosophy is unsettled in our society. I understand your model has a different process than mine. I will illustrate the different stages in order and my model.

 

My objection to your usage of the language is: There is no easy way to describe the ensemble of mental connections which bob holds as truthful after he has garnered satisfactory evidence.

When you say truth, it is not known to be describing a state in someone's mind. Altough, knowledge works. So nevermind, I will leave part of the reasoning here ( I discovered I had no objection directly towards your thinking). I discovered a problem with belief, knowledge and the rest of those words. There is no clear frontier between a statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind and a statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind (unless you claim something true you don't believe in). This makes clarity difficult.

ex: Bob thinks he saw an orange with the corner of his eye = statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind

There is no orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement.

There is an orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind

 

A theory of reality forms in bob's head -> Bob verifies his theory -> with new evidence, bob considers his theory true. His theory is also accurate in reality; It is also knowledge. It also happens to be an eternal truth.

My position: the reality of what bob's theory describes was always true and would be so regardless of what bob considered true or false. Bob can consider his theory to be true to a certain degree. The degree can change throughout the process (0 being100% false).

 

In my model there are 2 values. The belief in the mind, and the truthfulness of the belief's description.

 

 

I disagree. To me, opinion is something that literally cannot be true or false. "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." This is an expression of preferences that there neither is nor can be any objective proof for.

Do you hold that only statements of preference should be considered opinions?

 

What if it is a statement of reality where I say honestly '' In my opinion, my ice-cream is chocolate ice-cream''

1. Since it is honest, it expresses true state of mind. If it was a lie it would be a false expression of my state of mind.

2. The ice-cream might or might not be chocolate ice-cream. There could also be no ice-cream at all.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

There is no clear frontier between a statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind and a statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind (unless you claim something true you don't believe in). This makes clarity difficult.

ex: Bob thinks he saw an orange with the corner of his eye = statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind

There is no orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement.

There is an orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind

 

I will use my definition of the word belief: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case,

 

Examples where there are no clear frontieres.

 Knowledge.

The primary definition is: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

in my words: A state of mind describing a reality accuratly and held as truthful by the mind.

 

1. If I am unsure about something and if that something is true, is it knowledge even wihtout me holding it as true?

2. Is a book, who's contents are unknown to everyone living presently, knowledge?

 

I would hold that knowledge is the intersection of belief and truth as displayed on wikipedia (image in first google search result of belief)

Knowledge cannot exist without being believed by a mind or without being true.

 

Is the process of a fire, science before humans have done science? Secondary definition of science. Science=body of scientific knowledge.

Therefore knowledge is present regardless of humans. hop hop hop we just extended knowledge to completely fill the word truth and be able to exist without being in someone's mind.

 

I wish this was settled in schools. Those basic vocabularies.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Belief_Venn_diagram.svg/2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png

This would include words to describe states of mind that intersect with falsehood. (if opinion is always wrong by some people's definition, then it could be that).

 

I would keep belief as is: neutral to truth and falsehood.

Maybe put myth as intersection of belief and falsehood.

Proceed to move opinion to something else.

[square4]

anyone who comes up with corrections deals with a hierarchy where the entrenched belief is simply stated and his is labbeled ''opinion''. You want to bring something new? great. opinion. Now all the masses under propaganda can use it as a defense mechanism and chant ''lalalalala'' anytime you talk.

 

What if you came to a debate and talked about how you think global warning theories need some corrections [...] and the audience immediatly dismises you thanks to 'opinion' vs 'fact'. Without the new definition of opinion (not mine), it can still happen but it is reinforced with it.

 

If you want to hijack the word opinion, I would like my humanities teacher, stef and others to get the definitions changed in dictionaries to include their added logical components.

You (whoever is doing this) are creating a divide in the usage of a word. Now when someone says ''thats an opinion'' I have no idea if he means to state I am wrong.

 

When someone says to me "that's your opinion", I would conclude that they think I am wrong, and moreover, that they think I have spoken with too much certainty, because I said it as if it were an established fact, and they dislike that, and want to correct me on that point. It tells me they are not convinced at all of the truth of it, and that I have not provided enough evidence or arguments to convince them, or that maybe they know about counter-arguments or evidence that I don't know or haven't fully thought through.

[dsayers]

Relevant to what? Do you mean relevant to its truth value? Do people really do that?

"Well atleast I have the word belief left." was what I originally quoted when I made that point. To me, this is an example of "doing that." Religion is another example, as I referenced.

 

My position: the reality of what bob's theory describes was always true and would be so regardless of what bob considered true or false. Bob can consider his theory to be true to a certain degree.

Truth isn't a continuum. For something to be true, it must accurately describe the real world. Once upon a time, it was believed (yes, I acknowledge the luxury of hindsight) that the Earth was the center of the solar system (I acknowledge it likely wasn't called solar system at the time). From our perspective, this was the natural conclusion. As technology advanced, we were able to determine that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Since this more accurately described the real world, this superseded the previous belief (which at this point would be regarded only as a previous belief). We wouldn't say the now disproven theory was less true.

 

This is part of the reason why I'm adamant about the word belief and its fleeting nature. The example I provided here is the exception to the rule where our increased resolution of measurement seemingly alters what is true and what isn't. Most of the process is organic and occurs during childhood (and as we're presented with ideas for the first time later in life). We jump, Earth always brings us back, we call gravity universal and no longer concern ourselves with it. Accepting truth frees the mind up whereas belief bogs it down. This is perhaps WHY we seek to reconcile the discrepancy between subjective observation and objective reality.

 

Do you hold that only statements of preference should be considered opinions?

Yes. This is why I pointed out how irrelevant belief is in the process of determining the truth. Just look at optical illusions. My perception is that this still image is in motion. While that's useful in explaining how parts of the brain work, it's not useful in determining whether the image is in fact in motion or not. I point all of this out because I think it's an easy way to identify if somebody accepts their own capacity for error.

 

An anecdote if you have the time. I was once having dinner with a friend who is hard to talk with because he's usually having his own inner-conversations rather than talking about what's on the table. One example is if you claim that people own themselves, he hears that people aren't inter-dependent. Anyways, this particular day was an election day. I pointed out that political voting is the initiation of the use of force. He had nothing to say.

 

Later on at this same dinner, he actually spent the better part of an hour that stacking wood a particular way helps it dry out quicker. When he first presented this idea, I had never heard of it before. So I took a moment to think about it. My understanding of physics didn't explain how his claim could be true. So I brought up one way I didn't see that being the case. After well over a half of an hour of increasingly impatient debate, it turns out that the reason he felt his claim was true was because he was certain that that's what he observed one time. Had I taken into account up front his rejection of his own capacity for error, I could've saved time and a little bit of sanity that evening.

[bugzysegal]

"Well atleast I have the word belief left." was what I originally quoted when I made that point. To me, this is an example of "doing that." Religion is another example, as I referenced.

 

Truth isn't a continuum. For something to be true, it must accurately describe the real world. Once upon a time, it was believed (yes, I acknowledge the luxury of hindsight) that the Earth was the center of the solar system (I acknowledge it likely wasn't called solar system at the time). From our perspective, this was the natural conclusion. As technology advanced, we were able to determine that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Since this more accurately described the real world, this superseded the previous belief (which at this point would be regarded only as a previous belief). We wouldn't say the now disproven theory was less true.

 

This is part of the reason why I'm adamant about the word belief and its fleeting nature. The example I provided here is the exception to the rule where our increased resolution of measurement seemingly alters what is true and what isn't. Most of the process is organic and occurs during childhood (and as we're presented with ideas for the first time later in life). We jump, Earth always brings us back, we call gravity universal and no longer concern ourselves with it. Accepting truth frees the mind up whereas belief bogs it down. This is perhaps WHY we seek to reconcile the discrepancy between subjective observation and objective reality.

 

Yes. This is why I pointed out how irrelevant belief is in the process of determining the truth. Just look at optical illusions. My perception is that this still image is in motion. While that's useful in explaining how parts of the brain work, it's not useful in determining whether the image is in fact in motion or not. I point all of this out because I think it's an easy way to identify if somebody accepts their own capacity for error.

 

An anecdote if you have the time. I was once having dinner with a friend who is hard to talk with because he's usually having his own inner-conversations rather than talking about what's on the table. One example is if you claim that people own themselves, he hears that people aren't inter-dependent. Anyways, this particular day was an election day. I pointed out that political voting is the initiation of the use of force. He had nothing to say.

 

Later on at this same dinner, he actually spent the better part of an hour that stacking wood a particular way helps it dry out quicker. When he first presented this idea, I had never heard of it before. So I took a moment to think about it. My understanding of physics didn't explain how his claim could be true. So I brought up one way I didn't see that being the case. After well over a half of an hour of increasingly impatient debate, it turns out that the reason he felt his claim was true was because he was certain that that's what he observed one time. Had I taken into account up front his rejection of his own capacity for error, I could've saved time and a little bit of sanity that evening.

I have a similar problem when I address a very smart friend of mine. I articulate that political power is the means by which businesses can act coercivly and that in a stateless society, there would be no such avenue since these business wouldn't have a monopoly of force backing them. She intimates a version of the "power vacuum" argument in which she says business will use their capital to coerce people directly. Moreover, business will accumulate their own power and influence others. I guess from here I could ask whether she means influence people to do things against their will? If yes, coercion and private law can alleviate or DRO (since she is a law-student I'll take the private law approach). If no, the ability to generate a greater number of voluntary interactions isn't coercive.  This makes sense right?

[dsayers]

I articulate that political power is the means by which businesses can act coercivly

Thank you for doing this. It's mind numbing how much people will be up in arms about this or that, but never about the State power that allows this and that to be problematic. Look at things like racism, gay marriage, marijuana, and all the hot topics. None of this would be talked about with such fervor if we didn't collectively believe that a group of people who exist in a different, opposing moral category had the ability to "alter reality" by threatening violators of their arbitrary decrees. It's sickening.

 

She intimates a version of the "power vacuum" argument in which she says business will use their capital to coerce people directly.

So she thinks that in order to avoid the possibility of localized aggression, we need guaranteed, widespread, institutionalized aggression, right? This is why principled conclusions and precision are so important. She's telling you that she's not interested or talking about aggression, but a bias that businesses are corrupt. Since this isn't a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence, I'm afraid these things likely won't convince her otherwise.

 

Moreover, business will accumulate their own power and influence others. I guess from here I could ask whether she means influence people to do things against their will?

There are two things that make a free market self-correcting: competition and consequences. Imagine two businesses that provide product/service X. One of them focuses on this while the other tries to control people. People don't want to be controlled and the business that just focuses on trading with people will be able to do so more efficiently. She appears to reject that the reason businesses might use State power today is because the risk involved with doing so doesn't accrue to them. I'm not going to spend 10, 20, or 30 years of my life growing a business from the ground up just to wake up one day and say "I've amassed all this by way of voluntary trade, but I'm going to squander it all overnight in an attempt to control the very people who have helped me build all of this."

 

It just goes to show how effective the State has been in indoctrinating people into thinking NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED... except for us.

[bugzysegal]

Thank you for doing this. It's mind numbing how much people will be up in arms about this or that, but never about the State power that allows this and that to be problematic. Look at things like racism, gay marriage, marijuana, and all the hot topics. None of this would be talked about with such fervor if we didn't collectively believe that a group of people who exist in a different, opposing moral category had the ability to "alter reality" by threatening violators of their arbitrary decrees. It's sickening.

 

So she thinks that in order to avoid the possibility of localized aggression, we need guaranteed, widespread, institutionalized aggression, right? This is why principled conclusions and precision are so important. She's telling you that she's not interested or talking about aggression, but a bias that businesses are corrupt. Since this isn't a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence, I'm afraid these things likely won't convince her otherwise.

 

There are two things that make a free market self-correcting: competition and consequences. Imagine two businesses that provide product/service X. One of them focuses on this while the other tries to control people. People don't want to be controlled and the business that just focuses on trading with people will be able to do so more efficiently. She appears to reject that the reason businesses might use State power today is because the risk involved with doing so doesn't accrue to them. I'm not going to spend 10, 20, or 30 years of my life growing a business from the ground up just to wake up one day and say "I've amassed all this by way of voluntary trade, but I'm going to squander it all overnight in an attempt to control the very people who have helped me build all of this."

 

It just goes to show how effective the State has been in indoctrinating people into thinking NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED... except for us.

True, but cartels can for independently of states I think. Collusion and nefarious business practices would(might) be initiated where a business sees an opportunity to get away with it or cover their tracks. Even worse would be the prospect of a cartel hiring private security firms to bully competitors or dissenters within the cartel, and so long as the risk of court costs, private security, and possible loss of customer base  was less than behaving ethically....problems might ensue. That's not to say a government would help, but problems arise government or not. I think collusion and cartel-like behavior are two that ought to be considered.

[dsayers]

When you speak of business and cartel, you're obfuscating the analysis. Behaviors are engaged in by people, not concepts. A person might not steal from their neighbors to pay for their kids education, but they might vote for a levy to pass. It's the exact same thing except it is theft by proxy. It is irrational to expect that in the absence of the State, the person would suddenly start going door to door and steal from their neighbors directly. They won't do this because now they are taking on the risk personally as their theft would be identified as theft.

[bugzysegal]

When you speak of business and cartel, you're obfuscating the analysis. Behaviors are engaged in by people, not concepts. A person might not steal from their neighbors to pay for their kids education, but they might vote for a levy to pass. It's the exact same thing except it is theft by proxy. It is irrational to expect that in the absence of the State, the person would suddenly start going door to door and steal from their neighbors directly. They won't do this because now they are taking on the risk personally as their theft would be identified as theft.

A cartel is business managers colluding to fix prices and limit competition. It's a shorthand. You can hold those business operators or dons accountable, but that doesn't change the fact that the cartel exists. In fact, cartels have quite a foothold in black markets, that is markets outside the bounds of state regulations.  A cartel member might not steal from his neighbor, but he might higher thugs to destroy his neighbor's business if it is undercutting the cartels fixed prices right? Just so we are clear the googled definition is: an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.  Theoretically if these markets were not black, one might be able to hold such entities responsible in a court of law, but I don't see anyone taking down OPEC.

[dsayers]

A cartel is business managers colluding to fix prices and limit competition.

"There are two things that make a free market self-correcting: competition and consequences." I pointed this out already. If you disagree with it, please say so rather than continuing on as if you haven't been presented with it.

 

Let us suppose that all restaurants agreed to sell a burger for X where X is greater than market value. People can eat not burgers. People can make their own burgers. People can find other ways to get burgers. But most importantly, you artificially tilt supply and demand. Enter competition and consequence!

 

If people want burgers and don't want to pay X, then the first person to provide a burger for less than X is going to enjoy 100% market share and the "cartel" will be no better off in the moment. In fact, they will be damaged well beyond the moment once their attempt to artificially alter the market is revealed.

 

The beauty of a truly free market is it is self-correcting. As I pointed out in another thread (forget which one), it's about network strength. There are WAY more people that wish to trade fairly than there are that want to make all of their profit on a single burger sale. As such, this simply could never happen. It's a common and heavily debunked scare tactic used by those who oppose a free market, usually by people who don't realize that the very claim actually discredited the State, not those engaged in voluntary trade.

[bugzysegal]

"There are two things that make a free market self-correcting: competition and consequences." I pointed this out already. If you disagree with it, please say so rather than continuing on as if you haven't been presented with it.

 

Let us suppose that all restaurants agreed to sell a burger for X where X is greater than market value. People can eat not burgers. People can make their own burgers. People can find other ways to get burgers. But most importantly, you artificially tilt supply and demand. Enter competition and consequence!

 

If people want burgers and don't want to pay X, then the first person to provide a burger for less than X is going to enjoy 100% market share and the "cartel" will be no better off in the moment. In fact, they will be damaged well beyond the moment once their attempt to artificially alter the market is revealed.

 

The beauty of a truly free market is it is self-correcting. As I pointed out in another thread (forget which one), it's about network strength. There are WAY more people that wish to trade fairly than there are that want to make all of their profit on a single burger sale. As such, this simply could never happen. It's a common and heavily debunked scare tactic used by those who oppose a free market, usually by people who don't realize that the very claim actually discredited the State, not those engaged in voluntary trade.

I'm not disputing that cartels incentivize competition to under bid them.  However, when the top players of a particular market decide to price fix, and they punish competitors through violence, competition tends to die off, no? Undoubtedly there are consequences for this bad behavior, but will they be enough to stop price fixing? Please don't confuse me for arguing for a state solution. I think it's demonstrative that states cannot manage markets effectively. The idea that the invisible hand will guide everyone towards fair business practices, might be overly optimistic. In the long run, I agree that competition will win out, but in the short run I can see there being the potential for bursts of widespread violence. When you say it's "self-correcting" that's not comforting to the farmer who's land was scorched because he didn't work with cartel distributors. There will be losses. I also think it's unreasonable for statists to demand that there be gaurenteed permanent solutions to any possible problem, seeing as the cumbersome nature of central planning guarentees the opposite.  We should not deny that problems exist though.

[dsayers]

When you say it's "self-correcting" that's not comforting to the farmer who's land was scorched because he didn't work with cartel distributors.

First of all, it wasn't meant to console a fictitious character. It was meant to reveal the fictitious nature of the matter up for consideration. Secondly, do you not see that you're trying to "win" by pulling at heart strings rather than offering rational thought?

 

Please don't confuse me for arguing for a state solution.

I didn't. What I did do is emphasize that this is a fictitious scenario. It would be as useful to explore how Leprechauns deal with falling off of Pegasi in flight.

 

You are again proceeding as if a rational counter-argument hasn't been raised:

 

"I'm not going to spend 10, 20, or 30 years of my life growing a business from the ground up just to wake up one day and say 'I've amassed all this by way of voluntary trade, but I'm going to squander it all overnight in an attempt to control the very people who have helped me build all of this.'" and

 

"A person might not steal from their neighbors to pay for their kids education, but they might vote for a levy to pass. It's the exact same thing except it is theft by proxy. It is irrational to expect that in the absence of the State, the person would suddenly start going door to door and steal from their neighbors directly. They won't do this because now they are taking on the risk personally as their theft would be identified as theft."

 

You're neglecting the fact that "business owner" isn't something that is naturally occurring. It comes about as the result of successful hard work and investment. To suspect they're going to risk that over something that would ruin them and almost literally cannot work is like suspecting that a safe driver of several decades is going to try his hand at getting to his destination safely by accelerating into stationary objects and traffic moving in a perpendicular direction. It is antithetical to the point of being ridiculous.

 

I've belabored the risk associated with just attempting price fixing. To escalate to violence is a whole new level of risk. Say business owner X offers to pay you to violently tamper with business owner Y. You could take the money and run. You could solicit Y for more money to NOT do it or more money to do it to X instead. You could go public with the information, which would make people not support business X, possibly seek justice, and maybe even take it too far given the nature of the proposition. Would YOU take on that risk and expense when you can instead just continue to grow your business by engaging in voluntary trade?

[bugzysegal]

It depends on how successful my business, the market share I currently have, my predictions about short term and long term market fluctuations, my ability to absorb losses, my ability to survive lawsuits, and whether of not I'm a dick. Ok, let's talk facts. The Mexican drug cartels do use violence. Canadian candy companies have pled guilty to price fixing. Apple has been caught price fixing. How do violent cartels in black markets persist, considering they definitively are outside the scope of government? Why don't market forces correct them? Despite it being hard to start and maintain a successful business, if your business is very profitable, does it not give you greater room to take risks? Why can't those risks include fraudulent behavior? What about companies who run the calculations of doing recalls, calculate the cost of likely lawsuits, and if the latter is smaller than the former they don't recall?