tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post114469446851610020..comments2024-02-25T14:27:56.075-05:00Comments on Freedomain Radio: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom with Stefan Molyneux: A Free Society and the Ethics Of EmergenciesStefan Molyneuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11898315223778903374noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-31223168662572873102007-02-28T15:31:00.000-05:002007-02-28T15:31:00.000-05:00Good points - also, there will always remain a ben...Good points - also, there will always remain a benevolent, altruistic, volunteer ethic in any society so financial interests & DRO's do not necessarily apply to all situations. Smart DRO's would sponsor such services anyway, such as Community Volunteer Fire Depts by providing equipment etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-1151354790498995812006-06-26T16:46:00.000-04:002006-06-26T16:46:00.000-04:00My problem with simply dismissing the SSS scenario...My problem with simply dismissing the SSS scenario in utilitarian terms (i.e. it will hardly ever happen so we don't need to worry about it) is that it is a popular and simple example for discussing central tenets of libertarian principle. What should one do 'in principle'. Is it a 'crime' to not help when you could (i.e. do you have some kind of positive obligation)? If so, why? If not 'criminal', is it simply immoral? Or even immoral at all (if you have no obligation then what's the problem right?), etc.<BR/><BR/>In my personal experience this example (and it's countless variations such as a trader not giving food to a starving penniless man he happens across and leaves him to starve) is also one of the things that people who don't accept the concept of a stateless society home in on as an example of why a society built on such principles is bad/wrong/unstable. It is a simple step for them to say (wrongly) that if you have a society built up on the principle of not helping each other (or not being required to do so) then you will have people starving in the streets (and that would happen because we're all self evidently selfish otherwise we wouldn't have that principle in the first place) and so we need the state to prevent this disaster, and so on.<BR/><BR/>To me, this example performs a similar task to crusoe economics. There is likely no single man on an island somewhere interacting on the simplest possible terms with nature to create a market economy but it functions as an effective thought experiment with which to remove all the fluff that confuses the ideas, and attempts to reduce it to it's basic components so we can understand the underlying principle. Same with the SSS example - as unlikely a scenario as it may appear it still presents an effective illustration of the principle of negative rights and libertarians of all hues ought to be able to robustly defend it on that principle rather than make the statists talk to the hand because we are feeling a bit utilitarian today and have more important things to think about. If we cannot defend that principle then we are wasting our time with the 'important stuff'. <BR/><BR/>Being able to say why no person should have the unilateral right to place an obligation on another should be a fundamental and second nature response to any statist accusation to the contrary.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09940695783592505712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-1145307260514245122006-04-17T16:54:00.000-04:002006-04-17T16:54:00.000-04:00Another argument against teh "necessity" of the st...Another argument against teh "necessity" of the state that I think this article didn't stress enough is that, in an SSS scenario, the ONLY reason the state has for saving the person in distress is ALSO profit. <BR/><BR/>Profit for the policeman/fireman (in terms of money and prestige and awards, etc...) and profit for the state (in terms of future tax earnings and more loyalty from the rescued person). <BR/><BR/>So having a monopolistic state in place to save people in SSS scenarios does nothing to remove the brutal FACTS of the INCENTIVES for saving a person. <BR/><BR/>Those incentives are the same whether or not the rescuing entity is a private protection company or a monopolistic taxing state. <BR/><BR/>Great article nonetheless Stefan. I am enjoying your written essays and podcasts immensely!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.com