Nathanael D Snow

Student said... Nathan, Why buy it from you when I can steal it? The choice will be based on the realtive costs and benefits. And you are right there are a lot of things that "could" happen that might change the choice calculus (like you trying to steal the car back), but you are missing the point. The point is that surely we can both imagine coditions where stealing the car will maximize wealth. Pointing out that there are oher times when it will not is beside the point and already conceded. If you want a more "complete" example, imagine Old McDonald has a car on the back of his farm where he never goes. It is in perfect condition, but he never uses it. Eventually he forgets it's there. The car isn't worth all that much to him. A thief comes along and sees the car. We know, because we are Gods, that the car is worth more to the theif than to the farmer. The thief, knowing that McDonald forgot about the car and knowing the chances of being ca...

"But WHY is force only justified in responce to unjustified force? And why is force justified then? Why isn't ALL coercion bad, period?" Let's get a little deeper here, shall we? We dislike force because it is destructive. There is nothing creative about it. We all like the concept of creation of wealth - the gains from trade. Force is intrinsically destructive and NEVER results in gains from trade. There is always a deadweight loss somewhere where force has been utilized. Now, we might say that creativity is intrisically moral, while destruction is intrinsically immoral. Equilibrium would perhaps be amoral. To which I would reply that the opportunity cost of static environments is the creativity that could have been there, and thus amorality is immorality. Coming full circle: Force is justifiable in response to unjustified force because it causes the destruction to stop. Destruction of a destructive activity is good. It's not two wrongs make a right, though. The ...