Nostr Web Client

The extent to which groups of individuals, small or large, agree to reject the initiation of violence is the extent to which they can live in a peaceful extended market order and benefit from the division of labor. The extent to which the initiation of violence is accepted by some members of a group is the extent to which conflict emerges and undermines the cooperation necessary for the market order. Aggression being legitimate for one individual or group but not others is not a moral standard that can be consistently applied across society.

nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Lane 🦢 1y ago

interesting quote from saife. what is it from?

to play devil's advocate, you can't always "agree to reject violence"

sometimes, the aggressor has more force

Michael Matulef 1y ago

Principles of Economics Chapter 16: Violence

You're right in the individual sense. You cannot agree to reject violence if someone is directly using coercion against you.

The context the quote is referring to is about deciding on which social systems we choose for organizing society. Do we choose the market order of voluntary exchange, mutual respect, specialization, and the division of labor or the State order of the initiation of violence, coercion, and intervention.

Lane 🦢 1y ago

got it, thanks!

ManiMe 1y ago

> “You cannot agree to reject violence if someone is directly using coercion against you.”

IMHO, one must.

The shift of society choosing “voluntary market order” as its organizing principle over “state imposed order” will require some large number of us to master this method (to avoid the infinite cycle of state control)

How to resist coercion without propagating violence?

ManiMe 1y ago

> “sometimes, the aggressor has more force.”

Aggressors will ALWAYS have more force. It is their tool of coercion. The challenge of liberal civility is not JUST to not be the aggressor, but ALSO to not propagate aggression. Much harder.