Hacker News Reader

Comment by andersonvom | Hacker News Reader

> Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not.

In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary".

This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice."

The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.

View on HN

Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you.

To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.

If the two horrible options were free from context, sure. But that's hardly (if ever) the case. It is very convenient to start from a place where A has power over B, then say "B is free to choose whatever crappy options A offers, because... freedom".

We have to start from some place don't we? Even if we perfectly redistributed wealth tomorrow, we'd see billionaires in a generation or two.

This only goes to show that the current system is inherently broken, but this is a completely different conversation.

What is wrong with paternalism?

The authoritarian and condescending nature of it.

Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?

It absolutely is! In the context of raising a child, it may be appropriate. When interacting with an equal it is not.

What determines equality?

It is a moral axiom:

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

And how are children, as men, not also created equal, yet still subject to paternalism?

I think children are excluded from the definition of "men".

Surely not by the above moral axiom.

Surely by it. I would struggle to find a precedent where children are considered equal to adults, and not subject to their authority. In fact my whole point is we shouldn't treat adults the same way we do children.

Why is it authoritarian and condescending for a government to provide service and address societal problems, but no less authoritarian or condescending for a government to be in the business of protecting the rights that any self-respecting freeholder should be ready and willing to do so?

Because that self same freeholder should be ready and willing to negotiate with others to provide whatever goods and services he needs. He shouldn't need a third party to intervene on his behalf, and, knowing that depriving anyone of freedom deprives him as well, should be loathe to apply force to compel the other free party he is negotiating with to meet his terms.

Sounds like then the truly moral position would be to cut out the government entirely. If the freeholder is ready to take on the grave responsibility of ensuring every single interaction, both large and small, are secure, then they should also be responsible for guaranteeing their own rights from all threats large and small, and not abdicate that in favor of a shadowy government.

Believe it or not, in the moment, you can use any sort of force required to defend yourself from violence. This is especially true in places that have castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws. The government is there mostly to sort it out afterwards, and to discourage aggression by providing an alternative (due process) and punishing transgressors. The punishment of crime is what the government monopolizes, not self defence, since the alternative is generations-long blood feuds.

Why should the government be able to monopolize the punishment of crime, and not those who uphold their own rights?

Because if they don't maintain law and order they fail to meet the basic definition of government.

Why does there need to be a government at all?

To defend the liberty of its citizens =)

Isn't that what the right of bear arms is for?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com