I rest my case.

For the life of me, I can't see how I mis-represented what you said.

You write, "If I create something with my own hand, it is actually Martin's because he seized some of it already to 'protect it;. therefore, all of it is his." You thus attribute an assertion to me. I never anywhere assert it; therefore, it's a straw man argument. Accused of constructing a straw man, you respond with a quote saying something else entirely with no obvious relationship to your straw man assertion.

Right. Title to property is an entitlement. That's why it's called a "title". If you own a house, you hold the "title" to the property, because it's an entitlement. These words have been used this way for centuries.

Only you can explain how you conclude from this fact that I deem myself entitled to anything you create with your hands.

But you won't.

quote: Everything that is legally your property and practically everything that you imagine "your property" is the representation of a pluralistic government. Proper-ty itself is an inherently collectivist concept. It's what a collective deems proper. Property is the original and the quintessential entitlement.

For the life of me, I can't see how I mis-represented what you said .

I did once, attribute something someone elsee said to you, unfairly; but not this time.

Now, you are getting somewhere!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

I am happy that you are seeing the light. Extremely delighted to see that you would compare a government that loots the fruits of people's labor as equivalent to the one that sends its subjects to concentration camp.

"If working for the mafia is acceptable to you, that's fine, but you can't consistently say that taxation is theft and that you aren't party to the theft when you grab the loot without blinking an eye."

Taxation is theft but it is not illegal. I am again happy that you are getting enlightened. Your comparison of the power of government to that of a mafia is very appropriate. THey both exist to provide security and they fund it through extortion.

Based on that, if an all powerful government is willing to plunder and share the loot with me, I will take it without blinking an eye.

At some point, the state might employ people to round people and march them off to a concentration camp or some Gulag. Statesmen might pay well relative to your other options. You'll then sign up without blinking an eye? That's your position?

If taking the state's loot, for whatever purpose, is your most attractive option, monetarily, on the margin, you don't blink an eye about it? You're the ideal subject, precisely the Neo-Liberal Man that so many statesmen imagine.

The fact remains that knowingly receiving stolen goods is paramount to theft itself in practically every system of propriety. If working for the mafia is acceptable to you, that's fine, but you can't consistently say that taxation is theft and that you aren't party to the theft when you grab the loot without blinking an eye. No judge anywhere accepts this defense. You can rationalize your theft as you do, but it's still theft.

The state is not all pervasive in reality. Your employment is your choice, and it's a much more meaningful choice than some name you mark in a biannual plebiscite or the politician you cheer (or boo) in some web forum. State employment can be an attractive choice, but it's certainly not your only choice. Voting with your feet might not change the world, but it certainly can change your world, while voting with your pen or your keyboard changes neither.

If I create something with my own hand, it is actually Martin's because he seized some of it already to "protect it;" therefore, all of it is his.

There you manage a straw man. Practice makes perfect.

"I'm referring to the "orphan diseases" or "rare diseases". By definition, not enough people suffer from these diseases to make them profitable for private industry to research cures for them."

By definition, then, those diseases are the least worthy of funds and the efforts of scientists and others to cure them. Take the example of one of the first rare diseases on the list you linked:

"Aarskog syndrome is an extremely rare genetic disorder marked by stunted growth that may not become obvious until the child is about three years of age, broad facial abnormalities, musculoskeletal and genital anomalies, and mild mental retardation."

Sounds awful. It must devastate the parents of those children, as well as seriously diminish the quality of life of those who are so afflicted. But frankly speaking, it is a highly rare affliction which affects a tiny fraction of those who are affected by, say, autism, and has far less damaging affects on the quality of life of those afflicted. One method of accounting would suggest that spending any effort to cure Aarskog Syndrome before autism is a grave misuse of resources (of course, someone could make the argument that any resources used to cure autism before cancer is a misuse of resources as well – part of why we don't make these decisions on those grounds).

Further, the entry page at the rare diseases page shows no less than three foundations which do research and offer support for families with an afflicted child. Clearly, the rarity of this disease (which I picked at random from the top of the list) does not mean that no resources are being allocated towards its cure. The issue with any known disease is not going to be that no effort is being made towards its mitigation. The issue is one of insufficient effort, which is a clearly subjective judgment. Indeed, we don't have a better method of determining what the appropriate level of effort for each disease is than the market mechanism. People who care about Aarskog Syndrome can fund research into it, and people who care about autism can fund research into autism.

Good try Martin, Rust belt! You get to keep more of the loot?

I am sure that every time you receive cash or a check from someone, you pause and ask if they can testify that the money isn't stolen or from a tainted source, right? Don't you do that? Then when they can't show that it came from non-government sources you reject it, right? Don't you do that?

You obviously don't. Me thinks you protest too much.

In fact, receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, is a crime in the U.S. and practically everywhere else. The recipient is an accessory to theft after the fact. It's tough to imagine a system of lawful property in which receiving stolen property, knowingly, is not a crime.

Of course, savetherustbelt is being sarcastic, but Don pretends to believe that taxation is theft in this context. If he weren't a professor at a public university, he'd probably write letters decrying their taxpayer funding as well. Maybe he does anyway. But if Don himself believes that he's receiving stolen goods, then he must believe himself little better than a thief.

Don personally objects to the tenure system. He said so once on EconTalk. He presumably objects to taxpayer sponsored education in general, as I do, and he probably objects to his taxpayer backed pension as well, in principle though clearly not in action.

So here's my amateur psychoanalysis. At some level, Don believes that he should leave his government job and find his way in the market sector. He'd be hard pressed to find a private university that wouldn't expect him to compete for government research grants and contracts, but the world is full of other opportunities. Maybe he should just stop preaching about it and do it. He could do and still preach about it for that matter.

It's not like this IPC advocacy group will see the light and cease seeking state sponsorship after reading Don's letter. He knows that won't happen. He could exercise the authority he actually has over his own life to realize his idealistic vision, but he doesn't. He only tells other people to do it. He can't escape this internal contradiction, so it eats at him under the skin. I know. I've been there.

I was a state employee (a Federal civil servant) once, and I did leave the position. I sometimes covet the job security, civil service protections and state pension I left behind, but I don't miss state employment otherwise. The internal contradictions bothered me too, particularly when I was most offended by some state action and most convinced of the relative advantages of a libertarian alternative. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and taxation is not theft or fundamentally evil in my way of thinking, though I do think we can do with much less of it than we have, and I favor a much smaller state sector and more resources organized by market forces.

I'm not suggesting that Don is an extraordinarily bad guy or anything. He's clearly not. I'm only suggesting that he might feel better if he lived more consistent with his own values. I understand why he wants to hang on for the pension, but he does pay a price for it in terms of credibility. It's not a very high price, in monetary terms; otherwise, he might not pay it, but it's a price he can escape in his imagination only through denial.

I'm not sure it eats at you in the same way though, vidyohs. You're a very practiced rationalizer.

Can you identify one and say with out equivication that no cure by anyone would ever be profitable as it applies to the place you selected.

I am in awe of someone who possess such omnipotent power.

I am not taunting you with this question, David; but, do you know how marketing works? I don't mean at the textbook level but the many ways it is done effectively at the street level?

Long one buddy, sorry.

We are drifting a little astray here and I thank I am a Lead Pencil for refocusing us.

I am no economic student and I have no degree. I am strictly a street guy who got his education by going out and doing while reading, talking, listening, and thinking; so, if I am off base then I request you and others who have superior knowledge to correct me.

My specialty, my training, is communications. Not just the technical equipment(s) or wave propagation but the actual words and their meaning and how to read beyond what was said. I am confident in my skills. I have put out information about Kritarchy before on this and other blogs and I can always tell from the responses how the person responding actually looked at the information and if he actually thought about it. Those responses tell me a lot about the mind set of the respondent.

As for my economics I have pretty basic view and self-constructed ideas on markets, capitalism, profits, property rights, and what “doing business” means.

So here goes.

“And I did because I think there are problems with just refusing to transact with that individual again. Certainly that strategy may be viable in a developed economy, but for those who in less secure environments it is a problematic strategy.”

Alex, I’d suggest that the exact opposite is true. If by “developed economy” you mean one structured by, and subject to the laws of state, then I suggest you consider the information here: http://mises.org/story/2701. It seems that with Xeer or Kritarchy people can, and do, effectively shut down cheats and crooks simply by letting their reputation precede them, and using the natural law/rights system that works for them.

“Party A has transitioned to a multinational platform. Having matured in a developed economy, it has reaped the benefits of competition and emerged as an efficient business with enormous economies of scale. Shifting operations to a less developed economy, it could conceivably use these advantages to push existing sellers of (lets say) fertilizer outside workable margins. Facing starvation, individuals cannot simply walk away from inequitable transactions and while crying foul might give neighbors the knowledge to avoid exchange with that agent, circumstances may forbid them from utilizing that information.”

Alex, the interesting thing about your argument here is that when this happens (say Walmart comes to town) one discovers some revealing truths about the businesses one has been dealing with prior to the arrival of Walmart. Things such as, who has been gouging the hell out of you with prices that could only be justified by having a captive customer base. And, which of the local businesses have fossilized into the attitude of “they owe me the patronage.” Why bemoan or even care about those who no longer can deliver your goods efficiently as the new competition? There is no evidence that when those “Mom & Pops” close that Walmart then raises prices. But, should the local people choose to ignore the new and more efficient source, they could stick with their usual suppliers and soon the new more efficient business would have to close its doors because it has overhead that could not longer be justified by trivial income. Generally people are smart enough to recognize that the new more efficient source is a wiser choice to them because they have a bottom line as well. What we see is a perfect market emerging from your scenario. Only those who can not or will not compete will see it as an imperfect market. But, that brings us back to my point that perfect markets Vs imperfect markets depends strictly upon how the individual(s) involved view it or accept it.

“Shooting our fertilizer purveyor simply leaves you wanting for a necessary good. With domestic business crippled, you can certainly imagined a prolonged lag in their renewed production, creating a devastating whole in the domestic markets.”

Alex, no need to even address this as I just did in the previous paragraph.

“As for courts, such institutions are often too weak to provide any true resource in impoverished countries. After all, establishing institutions that mitigate small transactions still has a huge cost, introducing collective action problems.”

Alex, again the experience of the ancient Jews and of the more recent Somalis with Kritarchy and Xeer says otherwise. Courts do not have to be expensive nor complicated. I suggest you read deeply on Xeer and Kritarchy before you answer and try to understand what happened with the ancient Jews and the present day Somalis with their use of natural law and no central government or “ruler”.

“Even if courts were established, we agree that disparities in wealth might make objective deliberation implausible.”

Alex, the beauty of Xeer or Kritarchy is that both parties must agree on the judge or arbitrator, and that has the effect of totally negating the influence of wealth or local position If I, as the weaker more poor complainant, see my opponent as having heavy influence in my local community then I can only agree to a more distant judge who is known by reputation, if I desire true justice without influence.

“I think we agree on much, and I suspect our differences stem largely from the type of economics that interest us. As I focus largely on developmental issues, I confront the absence of institutions frequently. Lack of formal channels for settling disputes, in some circumstances, creates dire consequences.”

Alex, yes I think we share the same basic instincts, but, I suggest again that you look at Xeer and Kritarchy as possible solutions to your quest.

“A last question, might you agree that on some issues a government might be the only agent capable of disseminating the information necessary for you to make your decision about whether a given exchange is reasonable?”

Alex, no I can not agree on that as I am confident that without a central government interfering in every nit picking detail of our lives that with Xeer or Kritarchy I would get all relevant my information from my extended family, friends, and neighbors (clan); or, find myself in the position of being able to impart new information to them regarding someone.

“And bringing this discussion back to Don's original post, might you agree that where impoverished individuals don't have the resources to contribute to research for a disease that only affects their demographics, nor spare the time to advocate for others to fund it, it might require a government entity to address the situation (for all the contextual reasons we have been discussing).”

Alex, I would have to ask if we could find and identify what disease fits your description. A native in Africa needs no government to tell him that he needs to get a can of DDT and that he needs to spray his hut to kill mosquitoes, and then use mosquito netting when sleeping. He only needs access to DDT. Would Malaria statistics plummet with such simple solutions? Yes. Do people need Government to interfere in their life’s to prevent the spread of aids? No. They only need to keep it in their pants and abstain from promiscuity, stay monogamous. Virtually all of the disease prevention needed by the common individual or community is simple cleanliness, and we need no government to tell us that or to force us to do it much less finance it.

In my humble estimation having our nation of communities organized along the lines of Xeer would very quickly encourage and force the majority of people to act responsibly in all matters.

"A challenging and evocative conversation!"
Posted by: Alex | Aug 8, 2008 6:01:22 PM"

Yes, I agree.

"…might you agree that where impoverished individuals don't have the resources to contribute to research for a disease that only affects their demographics, nor spare the time to advocate for others to fund it, it might require a government entity to address the situation (for all the contextual reasons we have been discussing)."

For my part – No – I don't agree. Three reasons

1. You assume that others who are unaffected by the disease would not fund its research. Such an assumption is routinely proven wrong – as many charities (and donors) can attest.

2. There exists no ethical basis – regardless of the need – to 'take' from others to fund it. My need to find a cure for an under funded disease does not "require" that I use the brutal arm of government to wrestle funds out of the rest of the populace.

3. If "a government entity" were to step in and "address the situation" they would still have to deal with the opportunity costs which Don alludes to. As Don suggests: "Perhaps resources devoted to IPF research would otherwise have been used to cure leukemia or to develop an automobile engine powered by water."

Don't give up on me. I will return this evening to take this up. You're pushing my brain and that is good.

Again, a well-constructed and sensible argument.

In response to your question, I did assume you were referring to restitution or some type of "in kind" payment. And I did because I think there are problems with just refusing to transact with that individual again. Certainly that strategy may be viable in a developed economy, but for those who in less secure environments it is a problematic strategy. Again I'd use a hypothetical:

Party A has transitioned to a multinational platform. Having matured in a developed economy, it has reaped the benefits of competition and emerged as an efficient business with enormous economies of scale. Shifting operations to a less developed economy, it could conceivably use these advantages to push existing sellers of (lets say) fertilizer outside workable margins. Facing starvation, individuals cannot simply walk away from inequitable transactions and while crying foul might give neighbors the knowledge to avoid exchange with that agent, circumstances may forbid them from utilizing that information.

Shooting our fertilizer purveyor simply leaves you wanting for a necessary good. With domestic business crippled, you can certainly imagined a prolonged lag in their renewed production, creating a devastating whole in the domestic markets.

As for courts, such institutions are often too weak to provide any true resource in impoverished countries. After all, establishing institutions that mitigate small transactions still has a huge cost, introducing collective action problems.

Even if courts were established, we agree that disparities in wealth might make objective deliberation implausible.

I think we agree on much, and I suspect our differences stem largely from the type of economics that interest us. As I focus largely on developmental issues, I confront the absence of institutions frequently. Lack of formal channels for settling disputes, in some circumstances, creates dire consequences.

A last question, might you agree that on some issues a government might be the only agent capable of disseminating the information necessary for you to make your decision about whether a given exchange is reasonable?

And bringing this discussion back to Don's original post, might you agree that where impoverished individuals don't have the resources to contribute to research for a disease that only affects their demographics, nor spare the time to advocate for others to fund it, it might require a government entity to address the situation (for all the contextual reasons we have been discussing).

A challenging and evocative conversation!

BTW, just to take another kick at you.

You do realize that if it weren't socialists, collectivists, communists like yourself, muirduck, Martin, Gilduck, et. al, it is almost certain we would not even be talking about government being involved in anyone's employment or life options.

Don wouldn't even be writing to deny the desire of pathetic people to plunder the makers and shakers of the world.

In other words, you sir, are the source of the perverse policy of government interference that you now turn around and decry! Typical socialist hypocrisy.

If you and I discuss our separate needs and make a deal, with me being unaware that you haven't provided all information that was available, at that point we both consider the market perfect.

Now if Agent X comes to me and says look that deal you made with Alex, he didn't tell you xyz and that left you at a disadvantage. Am I, one of the parties in the market, still not in the position to decide if the market was perfect or not? You can provide me information but can you decide for me?

If having received your information, I shrug and say, "what the hell it is done and over." and then walk away. Is that not a signal that I still consider the market perfect. Since I am a unique individual do I not have that power?

Last, I am not alone in a sense of fairness, so if Agent X gives me the information that makes the market imperfect in his estimation, and I listen then consider it while thinking, "Is this something I could have determined..drawn out..by more simple questioning of Alex, but failed to do so because of my own negligence or misplaced trust?" My sense of honesty would likely compel me to walk away and just simply resolve to not do business with you in the future. So, unless I or you signal that we consider our market imperfect no one else can do so.

Now I have to ask you a question, did you assume that when I said there were ways to resolve imperfect markets did you assume I meant restitution or a "making whole" of the inequality?

I can resolve the issue of an imperfect market by simply avoiding it in the future, and possibly by warning others of the dishonesty. I could shoot you, which would be another resolution; your wealth wouldn't do you a hell of a lot of good if I decided that was my choice of resolve. I could take you to court, another resolution; where your wealth may do as you say and create a huge disadvantage to me.

Not semantics my friend, but an attitude and a way of life for me.

But, I appreciate and understand your questions/thoughts and why you would put them out here. Sorry if I was condescending I have no excuse if I offended you.