DS:
Yes both justify violence. It is nonsensical to then stop the analysis there and think that means they are basically the same. The strength of the arguments advanced by both positions is what matters. You seem to think this doesn't matter?
You have attempted to elaborate on what the basic arguments for both positions are. You are incorrect that economic laws are not laws (by this I assume you mean universal laws, i.e. true at all times). For example the whole basis of economics derives from the action axiom, i.e. all human action is purposeful behaviour. Any attempt to discredit this proposition is impossible without purposeful behaviour. In Kant's language, the proposition is a synthetic a priori proposition, which means that the predicate concept is not contained within the subject concept but is related and it's justification does not rely on experience. From the action axiom a series of synthetic a priori propositions can then be elucidated such as production precedes consumption, consumption is the final goal of production, value is subjective, etc. in order to discredit these laws you must demonstrate an error in their logical deduction.
Marx's concept of dialectical materialism was demonstrated to be in error decades ago. Only individuals act and in their action generate productive forces. Hence the idea that productive forces are what drive human action has it the wrong way around.
I don't argue that free market economics and privatisation will lead to a free society, I argue that a free society will lead to free market economics and privatisation. You can't force people to live under such a society, they have to choose to do so. I believe that any attempt to stop people from interacting with one another peacefully will lead to conflict and can not be justified. I don't deny that wealth inequality is a likely outcome of free market economics, but I don't see this as a problem outside of the forces of envy. The people today that live what is considered in poverty have a higher standard of living then what was considered rich before around 1800. I also don't deny that anarcho capitalism hasn't been tried, but this doesn't invalidate the concept. The Soviet Union tried true socialism and it lead to instant starvation and misery hence they had to rely on the prices of world markets to perform a crude version of economic calculation. Basically what people mean by true socialism hasn't been tried is that they weren't the dictator.
Yes I follow praxeology they follow Marxism. Please make an argument.
If you don't own yourself David, then how can you justify stopping anyone from doing what they want to you? I think it makes sense that our physical bodies are a seperate category to our minds and are therefore not subjects. It is definitely a dicey concept as not much is known about the nature of our minds. We are delving into metaphysics here. Good argument to have though.
I agree you have to prevent actions that cause harm to others, that is why I support private property rights. Abolishing private property will not take away incentives to gain at the expense of others and all it will lead to is outright impoverishment and misery. If you value historical examples, have a look at what happened in the American colonies when they initially didn't allow for private property and then what happened when they did.
In your water flow example the key point isn't harm but ownership. Who owns the water flow? If an upstream owner of a water body has flows that move onto an adjacent property, then they clearly are the owner of what happens to the water. The downstream owner of a river has no property right to the flow of water onto their river.
You can't eliminate conflict, only minimise it. There will be conflicting claims that need resolution in a libertarian society. This will need a massive amount of writing to elaborate on so perhaps I leave it here again and suggest you find my previous posts on this issue if you want to see more. Unequal power relations are the cause of conflict? I don't see the truth in that myself, I see conflicts arising due to differing claims on property rights.
I think you should stop pretending you aren't a socialist. There was much criticism of the libertarian position you described in your previous post and virtually no criticism of the socialist position you described. Abolishment of private property is the goal of communism.
Thing is David, every thread on this board will inevitably lead to the rabbit hole of philosophy if we want to get to the bottom of the matter. On Brexit I think the EU and the UK are *smile*ed and that the UK will be slightly less *smile*ed by leaving the EU
.
