From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 16:48:51 MST
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 15:27, Greg Jordan wrote:
>
> On 21 Mar 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > ### It is a very dangerous path to stray from the rules of reciprocity
> > and allow the redefinition of an economic activity as the use of
> > "force". Richard Epstein writes about it at length. The only situation
> > where the line between violence and economic "force" is blurry is in the
> > monopoly situation. In the multilateral market, "economic force" is a
> > contradictio in adiectio.
> >
> > But still, I'd be interested in reading some specific examples of
> > non-monopoly market behaviors which you would describe as the use
> > "economic force".
> >
> > Rafal
>
> How would you define the "rules of reciprocity"?
### "Action may invite a non-consensual reaction of the same kind and
magnitude". Physical force, damaging a human body, may be responded to
with physical force, damaging a human body. Conflating physical, violent
force, with "economic force" might imply allowing the use of
non-consensual force in response to an action that does not consist of
the use of force, e.g. a refusal to interact. Historically, acceptance
of this modus operandi on a large scale tends to result in shortened
survival and poor economic outcomes.
BTW, reciprocity is a heuristic, not a moral goal in itself, and if
sufficient reasons exist, it may be waived, in the interest of survival
and economic growth (but very, very rarely).
----------------------
>
> It seems to me a straightforward way to analyze huge numbers of economic
> activities as deployments of force ("the capacity to do work").
> Moving money is work and can instigate work - whether the result is
> "violent" or "nonviolent" is an aesthetic judgment.
### I think that many of us would agree on a more rigorous division -
roughly, "violence" non-consensually ends life, or causes severe and
non-consensual physical suffering. There is a bit of a gray area
regarding extreme mental suffering but for the most part it is not a
major source of misunderstanding. Therefore, money motivating a hitman
is violence, money moving a baker is not.
-----------------------
Paying someone to
> manufacture a product is parallel to paying someone to murder a person -
> just different results of the exercise of force.
### I do not understand.
-------------------
Is it violent
> to kill someone?
### If non-consensual, yes.
----------------------
Is it violent to make them buy your product?
### The construction "to make somebody do something" usually implies the
use a threat of violence. A thug threating you with a beating if you do
not buy a worthless trinket from him, may be threatened with violence,
by reciprocity. Sometimes, however, this expression is used differently
- e.g. if a shopkeeper will sell item A only in association with item B,
many people will say he "made" them buy it. In this second, sloppy
meaning, there is of course no violence or a threat of violence, and
accordingly, the buyer's reaction may not include such measures
(including the use of state-organized violence).
---------------------------
Is it
> violent to keep them in a single area?
### Do you mean a country, a prison, the contiguous, single region of
space surrounding private property, achieved by direct physical
interaction, threat of violence, promises of favors? The answers are
widely divergent.
------------------------
Is it violent to control and
> direct their behaviors?
### Again, more specificity is needed - what kinds of methods of control
do you mean?
--------------------------
Is it violent to control how much property they
> own?
### Same as above. Also, do you mean property in a market situation or
property in a monopoly situation?
----------------------------
Is it violent to make people sick?
### If non-consensual, almost always yes.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 16:59:03 MST