7 ms·

I'm mostly trying to pick apart the epistemology of thinking about economic systems this way because, hey, maybe there's something that my professional backgrou

by nrr 7d ago

I'm mostly trying to pick apart the epistemology of thinking about economic systems this way because, hey, maybe there's something that my professional background in the subject is blind to. It isn't especially interesting to me to try devise frameworks for coercing Caesar to do one thing over another; Caesar's just going to do what Caesar's going to do. The most that I can do is hedge against needing to migrate again because this Caesar has decided, e.g., that staunch pacifism is treasonous.

krupan 7d ago
Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system and it's too bad it went down that narrow piece of it. I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them, not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another.
- nrr 7d ago
  > Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system Acknowledged. That nevertheless tends to be where my interest in it lies. Near as I can tell, I don't actually have much of an ideology; I wasn't raised to be political in the typical Anglo-American sense. > I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar This gets a little in the weeds about my conceptualization of the state, but here's the view from 10km high: Caesar is a model of an institution that arises when coordination problems exceed the capacity of voluntary associations. He's an emergent response to complexity, and I tend to ask questions of him that are flavored more like, "What coordination problem requires coercion, if any, and how much coercion is actually necessary?" (As it turns out, the answer looks something like "enough to prevent folks from killing each other." My Mennonite upbringing makes me inclined to add in "and perhaps enough to keep the trust of the congregation," but I'll admit that's probably less relevant for secular folks.) > but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. Why is property yours in the first place? Property is a socially enforced exclusion, and a construction of a society out of that major tenet of noncoercion and enforcement of property rights is by some measure impossible. > If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. This is definitionally impossible with Caesar. > If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them I feel like this ignores collective action. Persuading enough individuals to contribute voluntarily is itself a coordination mechanism, and it isn't obvious to me how it could produce the same equilibrium as collective provision. If the benefit is broadly non-excludable, there's a familiar free rider problem, and at some point, "please persuade everyone gently and individually" isn't really a solution to the coordination problem. It instead kinda handwaves it away. > not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another. Caesar isn't necessarily someone who happens to have more guns (though, typically, he tends to be). It's more important to consider that he's the head of an institution that is embedded in laws, norms, mores, folkways, consensus, trial of facts, bureaucracies, and behavioral expectations of individuals. Moreover, coercion isn't even the defining feature of Caesar. It's just the backstop in his toolbox for solving coordination problems.

by nrr 7d ago

krupan 7d ago

Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system and it's too bad it went down that narrow piece of it. I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them, not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another.

nrr 7d ago
> Libertarianism is far more than just an economic system Acknowledged. That nevertheless tends to be where my interest in it lies. Near as I can tell, I don't actually have much of an ideology; I wasn't raised to be political in the typical Anglo-American sense. > I don't understand your reference about coercing Ceasar This gets a little in the weeds about my conceptualization of the state, but here's the view from 10km high: Caesar is a model of an institution that arises when coordination problems exceed the capacity of voluntary associations. He's an emergent response to complexity, and I tend to ask questions of him that are flavored more like, "What coordination problem requires coercion, if any, and how much coercion is actually necessary?" (As it turns out, the answer looks something like "enough to prevent folks from killing each other." My Mennonite upbringing makes me inclined to add in "and perhaps enough to keep the trust of the congregation," but I'll admit that's probably less relevant for secular folks.) > but a major tenent of Libertarianism is not coercering anyone to do anything. Individual liberty and personal property are the dogmas. Why is property yours in the first place? Property is a socially enforced exclusion, and a construction of a society out of that major tenet of noncoercion and enforcement of property rights is by some measure impossible. > If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it, or ignore them. Give them your time/attention/money or don't. This is definitionally impossible with Caesar. > If you want others to help you with these problems you have to gently persuade them I feel like this ignores collective action. Persuading enough individuals to contribute voluntarily is itself a coordination mechanism, and it isn't obvious to me how it could produce the same equilibrium as collective provision. If the benefit is broadly non-excludable, there's a familiar free rider problem, and at some point, "please persuade everyone gently and individually" isn't really a solution to the coordination problem. It instead kinda handwaves it away. > not give up all our liberties so men with guns can force people to do one thing or another. Caesar isn't necessarily someone who happens to have more guns (though, typically, he tends to be). It's more important to consider that he's the head of an institution that is embedded in laws, norms, mores, folkways, consensus, trial of facts, bureaucracies, and behavioral expectations of individuals. Moreover, coercion isn't even the defining feature of Caesar. It's just the backstop in his toolbox for solving coordination problems.