Sources of market power

Market power arises from two sources: violence which avoids competition from other market participant and the favor of the people with which the market powerful trades. There is no third source whatsoever.

Freedom

Freedom is always and necessarily, freedom to buy, which is akin to freedom to sell.

A praxeological modelling of government

Every right is exclusive: it aims to exclude all others from commanding that over what the right is invested.

A right is only meaningful when there are means, available (included being to the knowledge of) to the right owner, to successfully defend it against any other attempt to violate it.

A rules structure is any list of all not conflicting rights.

Conflict comes from the confronting of two or more different rules structures.

Conflict is a case of absence of cooperation (the only other case of absence of cooperation being autarky).

The set of actions, either by one agents or by more, aimed to defend a rules structure, i. .e. to attack any other rules structure, conforms a government.

A government is, by definition, in conflict (i. e. in war) with any other government.

Two apparent governments which are in no conflict whatsoever, i. e. which defend the same rules structure, are not two governments but two parts of one same government.

One apparent same government which changes a rules structure, i. e. which enters into conflict with a previously defended rules structure at least in some part, it is not the same government than before but other government, therefore an enemy of the former, even if it is composed by the same people, and governs in the same place than the former. A change in the rules structure is, in kind and regardless of magnitude, akin to a coup d'état.

The apparent "meta-right" of having the right to change other rights amounts to the effective non-existence of those other rights. As long as some have the effective power to change others' rights, the others don't have rights but only the some.

The market for protectionism

Protection from competition provided through coercion to competitors is like any other good. The producer will buy protection so long as he values better the income he receives than the expenditure he incurs in.

Just to be clear

One thing is the moral obligation to help the needed. This is on what Christian love for others is based on.

Other thing is the right to demand the help of others. This is on what the State usually is based on.

On the one hand, the Christian teaching compels to help others, but doesn't promote any right to demand the help of others. Quite on the contrary, from its very origin, Christianity instructs to stoically put up with in facing need, without even trying to resort to others help, not to speak of doing it by force.

On the other hand, according to Bastiat, the State is a fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Government is usually the means through which majorities organize themselves in order to abuse from minorities.

Family is not a legal category

Everything which is really meaninful in the family, the mother's affection for his son, the son's respect for his father, the love among brethren, or the spouse's devotion are all values which are not ultimately defensible by compulsory law.

A man can be physically compelled to feed his son but not to love him, to avoid visiting a mistress but not to violate the eight commandment.

The family is based on values, thus can not be defended trough coercion but only through education on values, an education which itself can not be coercively imposed but only voluntarily accepted.

The article 51 of the Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica accurately (though needlessly) states that the family is a natural element of the society as well as its foundation, however aspires to an utopia when it declares the State as its protector.

To be sure, the one thing the government can do for advancing the wealfare of the institution of the family is to laisser-faire-et-laisser-passer. Everything else is counterproductive.

Family is not a legal category. Therefore it can not be defended through coercion, this is: by government.

Coercion

Coercion is not a human action against someone else's will but against some specific rules structure.

Confront this against the assertion: "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpuse" (1). If we follow this definition, I could say that anytime you undertake a service for another you are suffering coercion. If a service is being sold, it would surely be argued, then you are not suffering coercion since you are serving no another man's will but yours. But I would counter-argue: so, since due to the human action axiom you undertake any action but to serve your own will, there cannot exist coercion whatsoever.

That's why I like much more the definition of coercion "as the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else's person or (just) property" (2).

(1) Hayek, Friedrich. The Constitution of Liberty. 1960 -paperback edition, 1978-. Page 133.

(2) Rothbard, Murray. The Ethics of Liberty. 1982 -New York University Press, 1998-. Page 219.

What the heck is constructivism?

One of the terms which most has troubled me to really catch in is constructivism.

I have been trying to collect all the necessary conditions which define a particular phenomenon as an instance of constructivism.

By now, this is my collection:

1. Coercion. Constructivism in order to be relevant as a social phenomenon has to imply the violation of formerly defined rights of property. Merely defining in my mind an utopia is not constructivism. It is not even if I establish a campaing to persuade other people to voluntarily adopt my utopia. It is not constructivism when I plan a Victorian styled village inside my land and convince other people to buy a house there. I am simply entrepreneurly guessing a demand for Victorian styled villages.

And that's all. If the presence of intention or planning would be the characteristic feature of constructivism, every single human action would have to be deemed constructivist. So, it should be clear that intentionality per se doesn't necessarily implies constructivism.

Neither give I a damn for the praxeologic pertinence of identifying either animism (purposes of the things themselves) or artificialism (purposes of the makers of the things) as influences of specific human actions. These categories are maybe interesting for the thymologist but certainly not for the praxeologist.

So, I don't see any relevance whatsoever in the use of the term constructivism as something essetially distinct from coercion. To me, constructivism is a quite useless concept.