Skip to main content

Matt Bruenig versus definitions...

Private property was a necessary precondition for the long-term adoption of farming. Matt Bruenig had a bee in his bonnet about libertarian entitlement theories, and I would sympathize if the attack was purely against the 'non-aggression axiom' crowd, but in practice it's an attack on private property rights per se, hence my previous post on the subject back in December 2015.

Matt's definition of the libertarian position on property rights makes a big omission and needs to be changed from;
Theft occurs when (1) you threaten or use force against someone (2) to exclude them from scarce material resources (3) without their consent.
... to;
Theft occurs when (1) you threaten or use force against someone (2) to exclude them from previously legitimately claimed scarce material resources (3) without their consent.

Those three words in bold are very important. Could 'legitimately' above be a synonym for peacefully? For consensually? At least for now I'll defer to others on the matter.

I have assumed 'use force' to simply mean 'take action' since theft can be undertaken without the owner's knowledge.

Matt chose a leaky definition, maybe because he wasn't aware of how the statement can be shored up a bit, as I have above, or maybe because he just wanted to strengthen his argument; I don't know which is the case, if either.

Popular posts from this blog

Iain McKay, Bryan Caplan & the Case of the "Anarchist" Anarchist

In the past I have written blog posts disputing claims contained in the online document called An Anarchist FAQ principally written by Iain McKay. I spent those posts trying to contend with Iain's claims re the ancap question and the mode of production called capitalism.

McKay has a bee in his bonnet re anarcho-capitalists' insistence on referring to themselves as anarchists, that much is obvious. Every reference to ancapism runs something along the lines of "an"cap or "anarcho"-capitalism.

I find this very amusing because 'anarchist' or 'anarchism' are words (articulate mouth-sounds) first and specific concepts second.  Ditto 'socialist' and 'socialism' friends. Speaking of socialism...

In the comment section of one of his videos the Youtuber called StatelessLiberty responded to a criticism by linking to Caplan's work on the Anarchist adventure in Spain in the 1930's. The critic shot back with a criticism of Caplan&…


A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved.

If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [2]

Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source!


AstralLuminary1 year ago
Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expend a self-sustaining sy…

My Six Grievances Re Anarchist Labour Economics

A summary of grievances addressed to my 19th Century anarchist chums re their concepts of exploitation and wage slavery.

a/ non-sequiturs
Inferring something moral (exploitation) from an accounting fact (<100% of revenue in wages) is a non sequitur and runs afoul of the is/ought problem.

The non sequitur arises because in this case the accounting fact doesn't actually imply the moral one. Further steps would be needed to connect these two different facts, whether an LTV or the will of some deity.

For another link describing the is/ought problem, first formulated by David Hume, maybe anarchist econ needs a guillotining.

b/ metaphysics
Avoiding the non-sequitur problem requires a metaphysical theory of value that is invalidated by observable reality and serious contemporary logical inquiry - namely falsification (Karl Popper) & the maths and quantum mechanics behind incompleteness (Kurt Godel) and uncertainty (Werner Heisenberg) respectively.

Completeness/objectivity as a fram…