Is it just me or are peace, justice and order three descriptions of the same thing? And are they not the parent and child of the condition called liberty?
That is to say, the condition of complete rights (freedom, power) over everything that you as a person - as a moral agent - own. That logically means that you do not own anything that other persons - other moral agents - own and so have no freedom or power over what others own.
Peace and liberty? Peace seems to be about the simple quiet of the non-initiation of violence of any kind. Perhaps the courtesies and forms of politeness and avoidance of conflict are the peaceful part of our social activities.
Liberty might promote peace insofar as living in liberty makes it disadvantageous to do violent things, where today it is often advantageous to be aggressive or cruel, such as when people ri…
Aggress not, lest ye be aggressed upon in turn. I wouldn't want to be ostracised by the society I lived in. That's an anxiety that many people do experience now, though not I, since my responsibility to not be a dick has been somewhat abrogated by the structures of power around me. But then what is society, what's wrong with how it's constituted now, and if something is wrong, what should be done?
Surely society is the product you get from letting two or more humans interact, however fleetingly or rarely, but generally in a context where they can engage in exchange; of news, stories, advice, solace, intimacy, or material trade.
I wonder what might imbalance that dynamic...
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is simply a statement that to aggress against others is immoral. Most libertarians, whether they are classical liberal, minarchist, or anarchist, take the view that aggression is any wilful act that infrin…
David D. Friedman and Robert P. Murphy debate the efficacy of the Chicago vs. Austrian schools of economics.
I sympathise with the Austrian School and not the Chicago one. There is an exception, though, namely Public Choice Theory. This Chicago School theory takes in the study of rent-seeking in the public sector, as opposed to the usual point of economics, which tends to study the profit-seeking behaviour of people in the private sector, and doesn't really study government in detail.
But that's another story.
On the next Ecomony Blogtime; why can't fusion reactors consist of solar panels facing inwards toward the plasma? Is that not a way to produce electricity that can be stored or sold onto the grid?
What would make Libertarianism's internal divisions clear? Perhaps a simple exposition of degrees of Libertarianism is in order. The degree to which different Libertarians reject elite monopoly power - whether it's a system built for a small fixed caste (oligarchy) or for the rich (plutocracy) - is important to recognise correctly so as to know what it is that people actually want the world to be like.
First, a definition of terms.
State - Metaphysical entity that is governed by an elite/government who are appointed either by themselves, the population at large or by sortition. Responsible for agreeing to and abiding by international treaties.
Courts - Arbiters in deciding which parties in a disagreement are right on a case by case basis.
Supreme Court - Arbiter in cases involving the body of laws itself.
Policing - Legally-empowered enforcers of laws.
Defence - Peeps with guns of various sizes for discouraging armed incursions by other nations…