In a webbed essay Matt Zwolinski, a philosopher who identifies as a bleeding heart libertarian, offered several possible arguments in favor of a guaranteed basic income or something similar.
I've never understood an argument against tariffs that doesn't seem to me applicable to sales taxes. Particularly in jurisdictions where sales of certain things are exempt from the tax: Bibles but not biographies, prescription medication but not OTC palliatives, fresh produce but not canned. I'm also accustomed to jurisdictions that stack taxes on atop another, the gasoline itself taxed per gallon AND the externalities of emissions from the pumps subject to municipal Pigouvian taxes nominally applied to reducing smog, imposed on a per-pump basis. Any of these distort the market and afflict customer choices and fair competition. Why pick on tariffs? There's a famous economist who has argued " in favor of cutting taxes at any time, in any way, in any form. " Yeah, agreed. But I wonder if, offered the opportunity to reduce either tariff rates or to reduce, to the same net effect, the rate of some other widely-imposed tax or some combination of such taxes (hotel taxes on domestic travelers, a "garage" tax on private vehicles, (until recently) taxes on long distance telephone calls priced by distance and time...) would a tax on imported goods really be the first tax to be cut? Why are tariffs singled out?
If you could trade a 30% across the board tariff for a reduction in income taxes it would be an obviously good trade. In fact it was the trade the us made during the gilded age and it worked.
On a slightly more important issue, if Donald Trump did not have the foresight and courage to pardon those like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, his message of draining the swamp is as empty as most of his rhetoric. I ask, how can anyone take him seriously? Does he have some secret plan he cannot divulge for fear of being discovered? Lol
People want to insure against certain negative outcomes. Private insurance in some instances can’t provide underwriting at a reasonable cost. Government, with its ability to force everyone into a single risk pool can provide insurance at much lower underwriting expense.
A common example of this is health insurance.
Now it’s not hard to point to an example of this theoretical positive going wrong. All I can say is that the desire for social insurance is so strong that every single country has some version of it, so it’s a robust political outcome.
2) political stability
Many have proposed that transfers are a way of buying political stability, which has positive externalities compared to conflict.
There are plenty of reasons to question this thesis, I myself find it quite wanting, I only offer it as a possible explanation.
There is only one way to stop the fascism that has been going on for centuries. I believe fascism is best explained as the merger of State and corporate powers. We don't think about that first contract signed by our government in it's early history, to supply some sort of goods or service, yet today no one knows exactly how many contracts, grants, or types of corporate subsidies, that are influenced by the campaign contribution system. We found one company, who only does consulting, with over 4,500 existing government contracts and many more in the pipeline. How deep does the swamp really go? Do your really think it's coincidental that General Dynamics has the government contract to supply and operate the VAERS system or that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out over $5 billion in vaccine injury claims (before the plandemic) and there is not a peep out of the MSM and/or the politicos as they help to steal the wealth of the majority.
They have been stealing from the taxpayers for literally millennia's, under the guise of the general welfare, with fascists like John D. Rockefeller at the ripe old age of 23, selling goods to the Federal Government to supply the Union Army during the American Civil War. Slavery? Yea right? The Romans and British did the same thing, as did all the major authoritarian powers throughout history, that have been raping and pillaging the majority.
They have been committing crimes against humanity and only those that try to stop them are prosecuted; a very long list. It is time to return the favor and end this bloodletting forever.
It is the moral responsibly of every single Citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, as automatic members of the militia, noted in the 2nd Amendment, with the assistance of all other adults to use our rights to citizen's arrest and the adoption of military tribunals operated by our various State and local militias. Look up 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes, if you think I wrong. And the 14th gives us the authority to stop any ongoing insurrections, treasons and plots. If you don't think these folks are breaching such things as their oaths of office and committing other crimes against humanity, God bless your ignorant soul. They are but a few in the whole system within our States and Federal Govs., that are actually trying to protect and/or defend the "intent" of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Counter Insurgency Studies and Observations Group (COINSOG) have been in existence for over 30 years and no one believed them. How much longer are you folks going to continue to let the Fasci continuously steal the wealth of the majority? We the People have the ethical right to seize that which has been stolen from we the people under their various lies and propaganda, when those who we have given the authority to do it, will not. $Trillions have been stolen from the majority and it is time to take it back and end the tyranny and bloodletting that has occurred over the millenniuns under their fascist controls. It is time for we the people to call forth the 2nd amendment Militia and all the able-bodied men and women to help arrest and prosecute the Fasci. We know who they are and I bet most of you have a long list.
I agree with that, but I'm trying to pin down the difference between that and the flagpole scenario.
I don't think that the difference is due to different account balance in the moral calculus.
Let me illustrate this point with another example. Say I'm the owner of that flagpole on the tenth floor, and a neighbor offers me this deal: he hangs on my flagpole for a couple minutes, and in exchange he'll donate to save the lives of ten starving children.
If anything, the moral calculus is even more tilted here. But it seems like I'm justified in refusing such a transaction.
I think the difference is that in the original scenario I would be directly causing bodily harm if I forced the trespasser off the flagpole.
I'm also pretty sure even extreme Rothbardians/deontologists don't think it's justifiable to shoot a trespasser under all circumstances. In that sense, even they agree property rights are not absolute.
Starving children in the third world beget more starving children in the third world. Better they starved and ended the cycle.
Most wealth is invested, and most investments do more for the worlds long term good then increasing third world populations.
Even some degree of conspicuous consumption seems to do some good (it seems to motivate people to build wealth) though I would not defend it morally in all instances.
The gilded age tycoons that build mansions, factories, and schools are probably a good example here. I would much rather they build their mighty business empires then that Africa today had a few more people in it (and it is not clear that charity 100 years ago would actually have that result today).
The argument against absolute property seems clear and persuasive, but has a flaw.
Where does the absoluteness reside? Consent. But in this critique this is interpreted to mean explicit prior consent. Absolute property means that the owner can consent or not to all uses. But in practical terms, as opposed to abstractions, this does not mean that the libertarian god will read the owners' minds and prevent any violation. It means that the owner has a choice of what to consent to explicitly, what to tolerate (consent implicitly), and what to turn into a dispute before an arbitrator.
Most people will not bother to take the flashlight beamer to court. If some do, the arbitrator will either toss it out, or assess damages appropriate to the tort - which is to say, nothing. It is up to reasonable participants to decide what amounts to a violation that is significant enough to dispute. Unreasonable ones will be disappointed with the result.
Does this just throw in the towel, and change the terminology without answering the substance of the criticisms of absolute property? I don’t think so. Common law precedent and common sense give us a pretty good basis for guessing what property owners will consent to implicitly and what they won’t. While it is not restricted to the cost of repairing damage or reducing usefulness, that has a lot to do with it. Instead of having economists and legislators trying to count utility, it just allows the participants to work things out. There is an important difference between letting an arbitrator or jury decide what is a proportionate penalty and giving bureaucrats an unlimited easement on all property.
Perhaps one could argue there is a gray area in between the obvious de minimus violations and the obvious real violations, an area not yet proved by the common law. I doubt its relevance.
Absolute property requires that people make judgements about what de minimus violations the owner will tolerate, but this is not the game stopper depicted in the argument. If it is happening to everyone all the time, common law says we can assume the owner consents, and find out later whether we were wrong. If penalties for violations are proportionate and reasonable, what is the problem?
What is actually at stake here? The thing that comes to my mind is that absolute property implies that takings should always be compensated, or at least grounds for a dispute that could result in compensation. But again, if juries and arbitrators don’t go crazy, this is what we want. Perhaps it will fail, when the chain of cause and effect between a tortfeasor and victim is obscure. Will “public servants” be better able to discover it?
The more you prosecute the egregious self-evident violations, the less other folks will be prone or encouraged to take away the rights of others. It reminds me of those going around exposing the abolition of 2nd Amendment via arbitrary legislative mandates when clearly there are only two lawful methods to amend it. When people are free to live their lives as they see fit, this also provides then the incentives to be more productive and a benefit to their neighbors, families and friends. The fasci have been in power to long.
“ I can imagine circumstances where the consequentialist benefit of some act is sufficiently large relative to the cost in rights violation that I would approve of it “
Libertarians: born on third, think they hit a triple, mocks others for being worse hitters; the "crazy" ones think maybe others should be allowed to bat.
Here's my libertarianish defence of income redistribution: By choosing to live under a particular sovereign, one consents to paying the taxes that this entails. The sovereign is then free to use the tax income as he pleases, at it is rightly his money.
Can I constitute myself a sovereign and announce that choosing to live in the New World is consent to pay me a hundred dollars?
In the normal case where your action implies consent, such as ordering and eating dinner in a restaurant, the restaurant owner has the right not to feed you, so the right to make your choosing to be fed by him consent to pay the bill. Your argument requires that the sovereign has the right to expel you if you don't consent?
I think that if we're pragmatic, we'll have to accept that sovereigns will exist and practically cover the Earth, as it's a very profitable business. The question then becomes how the ownership of sovereignty should be distributed. I don't think there's any satisfactory theoretical answer to that question, but we kind of need a consensus in order to avoid violent conflict. So, as with land ownership, to me the most reasonable option seems to be to simply accept the status quo.
That suggests the war for liberty which has made great strides is moot and that those who continue to usurp the rights of the majority cannot be arrested, tried for the crimes they commit and striped of their wealth as they have done to the majority. Accepting the status quo guarantees the continued fascist controls using oppressive taxes, regulatory fees, fines, and penalties which is obviously not sustainable in a civil society. Understanding that war is one of their greatest rackets will either prompt one to buy shares within the military industrial complex or fight to stop them. I'm assuming you will buy shares, if you don't already own them.
Issues around what constitutes meaningful consent apply to all kinds of parties and transactions, not just sovereigns and taxation, and obviously the line is blurry. But it's clear to me which side of the line I'm on: I have a large array of sovereigns to choose from, who charge widely varying fees and offer widely varying services and amenities in return.
If they let those who never consented to the citizenship renounce it for free, I think it would be defensible in principle to charge for the privilege of being a US citizen.
Good point. It gets to the difficulty of the context of consent. Muggers also give their victims a choice - your money or your life. We would all like to have better choices than we do. When are our choices so bad that it counts as coercion instead of consent?
I think the mugger is a bit beside the point, because muggings violate generally agreed-upon rights, but one might imagine a world in which there were only two sovereigns (or only two land owners, for that matter), who collude to essentially enslave the rest of humanity. I would argue that in a world of a couple of hundred sovereigns who do not all collude against us, however, meaningful consent does exist.
If they are not colluding, are they actually competing?
My point is, there is a spectrum. We can distinguish some obvious situations where consent is valid (absolutely no pressure to go one way or the other, plenty of good options) and obvious situations where there is choice but no consent (the mugger), but I am not sure how to deal with the gray area in between. Even if every country on Earth allowed all immigrants, moving thousands of miles, leaving friends and culture behind, perhaps needing to learn a new language, these are significant costs. No specific person is holding a gun to our heads, but the gun is pointed anyhow.
I agree that meaningful consent does exist, in those obvious cases. The participants could do otherwise without significant sacrifice. But what distinguishes genuine consent from coerced consent when circumstances conspire to make escaping the status quo very costly? How low must the cost of switching fall before consent is not coerced? I genuinely don’t know. It isn’t zero. Maybe there is some other critical factor I have overlooked.
I agree somewhat, but I think that's just part the same grey zone that exists with regards to employment, marriage, renting a dwelling, the use of a social network and other sticky agreements. For pragmatic reasons, I prefer to err on the side of the perspective of "I prefer this job/sovereign/whatever because they offer me X, Y & Z" over that of "I'm stuck with this job/sovereign/whatever because otherwise I'll lose out on X, Y & Z".
Yes. In all these cases, it is possible for things to go beyond consent, for one party to do something that the other party interprets as violating the agreement. Then they are faced with the calculation we are discussing - is the possibility of addressing the violation worth the hassle and sacrifice of breaking the agreement? And thinking about it positively, emphasizing the benefits, may have some advantage. But I don’t see how this helps us draw a line between consent and coercion, between buying some bread and handing your wallet to a mugger. I’m not saying there is no difference, just that I don’t know how to articulate it.
And although we may say that, other things being equal, we prefer things to be less sticky, the “other things being equal” is doing a lot of work. That is, it isn’t obvious in which cases we would prefer less stickiness if we could get it, or how much we would be willing to sacrifice to get it.
Perhaps we should expect that when the costs of escaping abuse are high, or can be intentionally or arbitrarily increased, that other measures should be provided to help the victim of abuse to respond appropriately.
The issue gets confusing due to the closely related questions: is the agreement legitimate? Did parties really consent when the relationship began? Does one party expend effort making exit more difficult for the other? How relevant are other factors outside the participants' control that increase the cost of exit? Is there an objective standard of justice that is being violated? What interests do third parties have in the relationship? If consent is too ambiguous to provide the basis for legitimate interaction, what should we embellish it with?
As usual, I feel slightly more educated after reading one of your posts.
I also feel negatively towards Rawls, but that is because he thinks that people can find truth by trying to forget everything that they have ever learned, starting from a blank slate, which is impossible to do. And a terrible idea.
Note: I have been trying to read your economics book. I did finish the PJ O'Rourke one, but was primarily left with some interesting stories of how other countries work, as opposed to learning much about economics. I learned a little more from your book, but maybe I should stick to stuff I'm good at.
I've never understood an argument against tariffs that doesn't seem to me applicable to sales taxes. Particularly in jurisdictions where sales of certain things are exempt from the tax: Bibles but not biographies, prescription medication but not OTC palliatives, fresh produce but not canned. I'm also accustomed to jurisdictions that stack taxes on atop another, the gasoline itself taxed per gallon AND the externalities of emissions from the pumps subject to municipal Pigouvian taxes nominally applied to reducing smog, imposed on a per-pump basis. Any of these distort the market and afflict customer choices and fair competition. Why pick on tariffs? There's a famous economist who has argued " in favor of cutting taxes at any time, in any way, in any form. " Yeah, agreed. But I wonder if, offered the opportunity to reduce either tariff rates or to reduce, to the same net effect, the rate of some other widely-imposed tax or some combination of such taxes (hotel taxes on domestic travelers, a "garage" tax on private vehicles, (until recently) taxes on long distance telephone calls priced by distance and time...) would a tax on imported goods really be the first tax to be cut? Why are tariffs singled out?
If you could trade a 30% across the board tariff for a reduction in income taxes it would be an obviously good trade. In fact it was the trade the us made during the gilded age and it worked.
On a slightly more important issue, if Donald Trump did not have the foresight and courage to pardon those like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, his message of draining the swamp is as empty as most of his rhetoric. I ask, how can anyone take him seriously? Does he have some secret plan he cannot divulge for fear of being discovered? Lol
We laugh, but that's the whole conceit of Q-Anon.
There are two reasons for redistribution.
1) Social Insurance
People want to insure against certain negative outcomes. Private insurance in some instances can’t provide underwriting at a reasonable cost. Government, with its ability to force everyone into a single risk pool can provide insurance at much lower underwriting expense.
A common example of this is health insurance.
Now it’s not hard to point to an example of this theoretical positive going wrong. All I can say is that the desire for social insurance is so strong that every single country has some version of it, so it’s a robust political outcome.
2) political stability
Many have proposed that transfers are a way of buying political stability, which has positive externalities compared to conflict.
There are plenty of reasons to question this thesis, I myself find it quite wanting, I only offer it as a possible explanation.
There is only one way to stop the fascism that has been going on for centuries. I believe fascism is best explained as the merger of State and corporate powers. We don't think about that first contract signed by our government in it's early history, to supply some sort of goods or service, yet today no one knows exactly how many contracts, grants, or types of corporate subsidies, that are influenced by the campaign contribution system. We found one company, who only does consulting, with over 4,500 existing government contracts and many more in the pipeline. How deep does the swamp really go? Do your really think it's coincidental that General Dynamics has the government contract to supply and operate the VAERS system or that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out over $5 billion in vaccine injury claims (before the plandemic) and there is not a peep out of the MSM and/or the politicos as they help to steal the wealth of the majority.
They have been stealing from the taxpayers for literally millennia's, under the guise of the general welfare, with fascists like John D. Rockefeller at the ripe old age of 23, selling goods to the Federal Government to supply the Union Army during the American Civil War. Slavery? Yea right? The Romans and British did the same thing, as did all the major authoritarian powers throughout history, that have been raping and pillaging the majority.
They have been committing crimes against humanity and only those that try to stop them are prosecuted; a very long list. It is time to return the favor and end this bloodletting forever.
It is the moral responsibly of every single Citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, as automatic members of the militia, noted in the 2nd Amendment, with the assistance of all other adults to use our rights to citizen's arrest and the adoption of military tribunals operated by our various State and local militias. Look up 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes, if you think I wrong. And the 14th gives us the authority to stop any ongoing insurrections, treasons and plots. If you don't think these folks are breaching such things as their oaths of office and committing other crimes against humanity, God bless your ignorant soul. They are but a few in the whole system within our States and Federal Govs., that are actually trying to protect and/or defend the "intent" of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Counter Insurgency Studies and Observations Group (COINSOG) have been in existence for over 30 years and no one believed them. How much longer are you folks going to continue to let the Fasci continuously steal the wealth of the majority? We the People have the ethical right to seize that which has been stolen from we the people under their various lies and propaganda, when those who we have given the authority to do it, will not. $Trillions have been stolen from the majority and it is time to take it back and end the tyranny and bloodletting that has occurred over the millenniuns under their fascist controls. It is time for we the people to call forth the 2nd amendment Militia and all the able-bodied men and women to help arrest and prosecute the Fasci. We know who they are and I bet most of you have a long list.
"A small violation of rights is more than outweighed, in my moral calculus, by an enormous benefit in consequences."
Where do we stop once we're in the business of moral calculus?
If my fifth yacht is standing unused, is it not equally justifiable to expropriate it to feed thousands of starving children in the third world?
It might be appropriate for you to donate it, but there are large costs to having property rights too insecure.
I agree with that, but I'm trying to pin down the difference between that and the flagpole scenario.
I don't think that the difference is due to different account balance in the moral calculus.
Let me illustrate this point with another example. Say I'm the owner of that flagpole on the tenth floor, and a neighbor offers me this deal: he hangs on my flagpole for a couple minutes, and in exchange he'll donate to save the lives of ten starving children.
If anything, the moral calculus is even more tilted here. But it seems like I'm justified in refusing such a transaction.
I think the difference is that in the original scenario I would be directly causing bodily harm if I forced the trespasser off the flagpole.
I'm also pretty sure even extreme Rothbardians/deontologists don't think it's justifiable to shoot a trespasser under all circumstances. In that sense, even they agree property rights are not absolute.
Starving children in the third world beget more starving children in the third world. Better they starved and ended the cycle.
Most wealth is invested, and most investments do more for the worlds long term good then increasing third world populations.
Even some degree of conspicuous consumption seems to do some good (it seems to motivate people to build wealth) though I would not defend it morally in all instances.
The gilded age tycoons that build mansions, factories, and schools are probably a good example here. I would much rather they build their mighty business empires then that Africa today had a few more people in it (and it is not clear that charity 100 years ago would actually have that result today).
The argument against absolute property seems clear and persuasive, but has a flaw.
Where does the absoluteness reside? Consent. But in this critique this is interpreted to mean explicit prior consent. Absolute property means that the owner can consent or not to all uses. But in practical terms, as opposed to abstractions, this does not mean that the libertarian god will read the owners' minds and prevent any violation. It means that the owner has a choice of what to consent to explicitly, what to tolerate (consent implicitly), and what to turn into a dispute before an arbitrator.
Most people will not bother to take the flashlight beamer to court. If some do, the arbitrator will either toss it out, or assess damages appropriate to the tort - which is to say, nothing. It is up to reasonable participants to decide what amounts to a violation that is significant enough to dispute. Unreasonable ones will be disappointed with the result.
Does this just throw in the towel, and change the terminology without answering the substance of the criticisms of absolute property? I don’t think so. Common law precedent and common sense give us a pretty good basis for guessing what property owners will consent to implicitly and what they won’t. While it is not restricted to the cost of repairing damage or reducing usefulness, that has a lot to do with it. Instead of having economists and legislators trying to count utility, it just allows the participants to work things out. There is an important difference between letting an arbitrator or jury decide what is a proportionate penalty and giving bureaucrats an unlimited easement on all property.
Perhaps one could argue there is a gray area in between the obvious de minimus violations and the obvious real violations, an area not yet proved by the common law. I doubt its relevance.
Absolute property requires that people make judgements about what de minimus violations the owner will tolerate, but this is not the game stopper depicted in the argument. If it is happening to everyone all the time, common law says we can assume the owner consents, and find out later whether we were wrong. If penalties for violations are proportionate and reasonable, what is the problem?
What is actually at stake here? The thing that comes to my mind is that absolute property implies that takings should always be compensated, or at least grounds for a dispute that could result in compensation. But again, if juries and arbitrators don’t go crazy, this is what we want. Perhaps it will fail, when the chain of cause and effect between a tortfeasor and victim is obscure. Will “public servants” be better able to discover it?
The more you prosecute the egregious self-evident violations, the less other folks will be prone or encouraged to take away the rights of others. It reminds me of those going around exposing the abolition of 2nd Amendment via arbitrary legislative mandates when clearly there are only two lawful methods to amend it. When people are free to live their lives as they see fit, this also provides then the incentives to be more productive and a benefit to their neighbors, families and friends. The fasci have been in power to long.
“ I can imagine circumstances where the consequentialist benefit of some act is sufficiently large relative to the cost in rights violation that I would approve of it “
No problem providing compensation then, right?
Apparently my spellchecker thinks that the word “probed” should be spelled with a “v”.
Libertarians: born on third, think they hit a triple, mocks others for being worse hitters; the "crazy" ones think maybe others should be allowed to bat.
How the Fasci and their socialist lackeys like to generalize is always fascinating.
?
Here's a good example of how Rawls' veil doesn't fit with most people's attitudes:
https://www.aier.org/article/an-approach-to-teaching-rawls-and-income-inequality/
Here's my libertarianish defence of income redistribution: By choosing to live under a particular sovereign, one consents to paying the taxes that this entails. The sovereign is then free to use the tax income as he pleases, at it is rightly his money.
Can I constitute myself a sovereign and announce that choosing to live in the New World is consent to pay me a hundred dollars?
In the normal case where your action implies consent, such as ordering and eating dinner in a restaurant, the restaurant owner has the right not to feed you, so the right to make your choosing to be fed by him consent to pay the bill. Your argument requires that the sovereign has the right to expel you if you don't consent?
I think that if we're pragmatic, we'll have to accept that sovereigns will exist and practically cover the Earth, as it's a very profitable business. The question then becomes how the ownership of sovereignty should be distributed. I don't think there's any satisfactory theoretical answer to that question, but we kind of need a consensus in order to avoid violent conflict. So, as with land ownership, to me the most reasonable option seems to be to simply accept the status quo.
That suggests the war for liberty which has made great strides is moot and that those who continue to usurp the rights of the majority cannot be arrested, tried for the crimes they commit and striped of their wealth as they have done to the majority. Accepting the status quo guarantees the continued fascist controls using oppressive taxes, regulatory fees, fines, and penalties which is obviously not sustainable in a civil society. Understanding that war is one of their greatest rackets will either prompt one to buy shares within the military industrial complex or fight to stop them. I'm assuming you will buy shares, if you don't already own them.
It proves too much. It's a defence of every government policy, including totalitarian governments (as long as they allow one to escape).
That doesn't sound like too much to me. If people meaningfully consent to living in a totalitarian system, that seems worthy of defence.
What does it take to consent "meaningfully" ?
Is some poor peasant is Zimbabwe meaningfully consenting by not escaping?
Issues around what constitutes meaningful consent apply to all kinds of parties and transactions, not just sovereigns and taxation, and obviously the line is blurry. But it's clear to me which side of the line I'm on: I have a large array of sovereigns to choose from, who charge widely varying fees and offer widely varying services and amenities in return.
Interestingly, even by this standard US taxation cannot be justified, because it taxes you even if you escape its jurisdiction.
If they let those who never consented to the citizenship renounce it for free, I think it would be defensible in principle to charge for the privilege of being a US citizen.
Good point. It gets to the difficulty of the context of consent. Muggers also give their victims a choice - your money or your life. We would all like to have better choices than we do. When are our choices so bad that it counts as coercion instead of consent?
I think the mugger is a bit beside the point, because muggings violate generally agreed-upon rights, but one might imagine a world in which there were only two sovereigns (or only two land owners, for that matter), who collude to essentially enslave the rest of humanity. I would argue that in a world of a couple of hundred sovereigns who do not all collude against us, however, meaningful consent does exist.
If they are not colluding, are they actually competing?
My point is, there is a spectrum. We can distinguish some obvious situations where consent is valid (absolutely no pressure to go one way or the other, plenty of good options) and obvious situations where there is choice but no consent (the mugger), but I am not sure how to deal with the gray area in between. Even if every country on Earth allowed all immigrants, moving thousands of miles, leaving friends and culture behind, perhaps needing to learn a new language, these are significant costs. No specific person is holding a gun to our heads, but the gun is pointed anyhow.
I agree that meaningful consent does exist, in those obvious cases. The participants could do otherwise without significant sacrifice. But what distinguishes genuine consent from coerced consent when circumstances conspire to make escaping the status quo very costly? How low must the cost of switching fall before consent is not coerced? I genuinely don’t know. It isn’t zero. Maybe there is some other critical factor I have overlooked.
I agree somewhat, but I think that's just part the same grey zone that exists with regards to employment, marriage, renting a dwelling, the use of a social network and other sticky agreements. For pragmatic reasons, I prefer to err on the side of the perspective of "I prefer this job/sovereign/whatever because they offer me X, Y & Z" over that of "I'm stuck with this job/sovereign/whatever because otherwise I'll lose out on X, Y & Z".
Yes. In all these cases, it is possible for things to go beyond consent, for one party to do something that the other party interprets as violating the agreement. Then they are faced with the calculation we are discussing - is the possibility of addressing the violation worth the hassle and sacrifice of breaking the agreement? And thinking about it positively, emphasizing the benefits, may have some advantage. But I don’t see how this helps us draw a line between consent and coercion, between buying some bread and handing your wallet to a mugger. I’m not saying there is no difference, just that I don’t know how to articulate it.
And although we may say that, other things being equal, we prefer things to be less sticky, the “other things being equal” is doing a lot of work. That is, it isn’t obvious in which cases we would prefer less stickiness if we could get it, or how much we would be willing to sacrifice to get it.
Perhaps we should expect that when the costs of escaping abuse are high, or can be intentionally or arbitrarily increased, that other measures should be provided to help the victim of abuse to respond appropriately.
The issue gets confusing due to the closely related questions: is the agreement legitimate? Did parties really consent when the relationship began? Does one party expend effort making exit more difficult for the other? How relevant are other factors outside the participants' control that increase the cost of exit? Is there an objective standard of justice that is being violated? What interests do third parties have in the relationship? If consent is too ambiguous to provide the basis for legitimate interaction, what should we embellish it with?
As usual, I feel slightly more educated after reading one of your posts.
I also feel negatively towards Rawls, but that is because he thinks that people can find truth by trying to forget everything that they have ever learned, starting from a blank slate, which is impossible to do. And a terrible idea.
Note: I have been trying to read your economics book. I did finish the PJ O'Rourke one, but was primarily left with some interesting stories of how other countries work, as opposed to learning much about economics. I learned a little more from your book, but maybe I should stick to stuff I'm good at.
No.