Voluntaryism is absurd

[Stephen Colbert]

Voluntaryists and free market anarchists believe that any action that is a detriment to the perceived community or society is most likely a violation of a property right of the person doing the negative thing.

ie. I own a factory and a pollute. My air pollution affects you, in your home, and as a result, I am violating your individual property rights when I pollute your land.

Um..So when there is free market anarchy in the United States and take water out of a river in some sub-saharran african country so I can sell it on the market.. am I not violating that countries property rights? When everyone is responsible for their individual property and anything outside of what you own is NOT under your jurisdiction, how are things even brought to market?:lol::lol:

Also, the idea that coercion does not exist in autocratic private enterprises is equally absurd

[MarxSchmarx]

Um..So when there is free market anarchy in the United States and take water out of a river in some sub-saharran african country so I can sell it on the market.. am I not violating that countries property rights? When everyone is responsible for their individual property and anything outside of what you own is NOT under your jurisdiction, how are things even brought to market?:lol::lol:


Say what? If you steal the water from this african country you are violating the property rights of the people who presumably "own" that river somehow. As far as anything outside what you are owned being brought into the market, I don't quite follow. Most cappies think you buy and own the good only temporarily, but you intend to sell it for a profit. Even if you bought it on credit until you sell it off, you still legally own it. And if you borrow it from someone to sell, then you presumably have their blessing and the benefits of ownership are transferred to you. So a market is perfectly possible and the premise that people don't own what they bring to the market seems false.



Also, the idea that coercion does not exist in autocratic private enterprises is equally absurd

I guess they would say it's not coercion because you can always leave your job or not buy from that company.

[Dean]

Voluntaryists and free market anarchists believe that any action that is a detriment to the perceived community or society is most likely a violation of a property right of the person doing the negative thing.

ie. I own a factory and a pollute. My air pollution affects you, in your home, and as a result, I am violating your individual property rights when I pollute your land.

Um..So when there is free market anarchy in the United States and take water out of a river in some sub-saharran african country so I can sell it on the market.. am I not violating that countries property rights? When everyone is responsible for their individual property and anything outside of what you own is NOT under your jurisdiction, how are things even brought to market?:lol::lol:

Also, the idea that coercion does not exist in autocratic private enterprises is equally absurd

No, no, you're not getting to the crux of the issue. You're right that its absurd, but your example (and by extension the apparent conclusions) just don't make sense or hold up.

Our local propertarians are so vague that I suspect they don't really have an ethical-economic framework governing these points. Propertarian textbooks explain the issue far better.

They point out that the presence of honey farms, for instance, propagate favorable conditions for local agriculture. Well the conclusion is that a marginal asset has been introduced into the local economic environment. This is the exact same thing as a polluting industry, except with alternate consequences. They claim that the government will or should compensate for these hindrances or enrichment by taxing or subsidizing the given industries, and passing those costs or benefits along to those who are harmed / benefited by these industries.

The propertarian philosophical argument represented here would say that these economic disparities are best hammered out via free market activity; that is to say that the market will govern what should follow from harmful or beneficial industries. The ultimate point of this is that people, via voluntary market activity, will represent their interests in the market, which will in turn represent the public's interests for precisely this reason.

But its bullshit for a number of reasons:
-these "votes" are specifically drawn from purchases and sales in a market, which we know empower and represent those with more cash, capital, land or any other economic leverage.
-people routinely ignore these "alternate benefits and costs" in their purchases - for instance, if Dominion Electric offered 1C/mW power and Atlantic offered .95C/mW but used slave labor, violence, coercion or more polluting tech, the latter would still experience more sales. Activist market activity is of marginal relevance.


For that matter, the above textbook example is absurd because it presupposes egalitarian, informed and proactive governance. We know this is simply not the case.

[Stephen Colbert]

Thanks I'm intellectually fried lately so I'm having trouble on some things