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.
Showing posts with label rules structure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules structure. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Externality = violation of a property right = coercion = the opposite of freedom = anchor to underdevelopment
I mean, if somebody is smoking in the park and I'm reading there and I don't like the smoke, such as Coase shows, the externality is not merely a matter of the smoker causing a damage to me (Pigou's naïveté). Damage is not a sufficient condition to have a (negative) externality. If and only if a violation of a property right occurs, have we an externality. The other way of seeing an externality, i. e. the need to internalize, consists precisely in the need to put a stop to such a violation of the property right, to such a coercion. Externalities can be defined only in the context of a register of property rights, since they are precisely violations to such a register. On the other hand, even in a completely internalized society where there would be no externalities at all, we could have damages and benefits perceived by some agents by the actions of other agents. The feature of those damages and benefits, however, would be so, in such a system, that our damaged or benefited agents would no have any right whatsoever over putting a stop to the damages or continue enjoying the benefits happening by the actions of other agents, which we re are assuming to be the proprietors of the things causing damages and profits to other agents in our example.
And linking the concept of coercion to the work of Friedrich Hayek in his "The Constitution of Liberty", in which he defines freedom as "that condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society" (page 11). This is, freedom is the absence of coercion. Coercion is the opposite of freedom. Whereas there is freedom there's no coercion, whereas there's coercion there's not freedom.
This is important, for instance, to understand the key feature by which we can tell a society in which the development advances at a reasonable pace from one in which that reasonable pace is not present. Anyone who has lived in an underdeveloped (*) country bears witness that externalities are a key feature of those countries either because a property register existing it is violated (corruption, blackmail, theft, and a regrettable etcetera) or because there is not such a register in the first place (on which the work by Hernando de Soto is particularly illustrative).
(*) In order to emphasize backwardness, but euphemistically called sometimes "developing" as if full stagnation would be possible and as trying to convey basically the opposite idea of what really happens in countries composed of mostly poor people under world standards, i. e. almost absence of a developing pace.
And linking the concept of coercion to the work of Friedrich Hayek in his "The Constitution of Liberty", in which he defines freedom as "that condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society" (page 11). This is, freedom is the absence of coercion. Coercion is the opposite of freedom. Whereas there is freedom there's no coercion, whereas there's coercion there's not freedom.
This is important, for instance, to understand the key feature by which we can tell a society in which the development advances at a reasonable pace from one in which that reasonable pace is not present. Anyone who has lived in an underdeveloped (*) country bears witness that externalities are a key feature of those countries either because a property register existing it is violated (corruption, blackmail, theft, and a regrettable etcetera) or because there is not such a register in the first place (on which the work by Hernando de Soto is particularly illustrative).
(*) In order to emphasize backwardness, but euphemistically called sometimes "developing" as if full stagnation would be possible and as trying to convey basically the opposite idea of what really happens in countries composed of mostly poor people under world standards, i. e. almost absence of a developing pace.
Friday, March 16, 2012
On the Church
I guess that it can be told with respect to the Church what Mises told about the utilitarian philosophy, that it
"does not look upon the rules of morality as upon arbitrary laws imposed upon man by a tyrannical Deity with which man has to comply without asking any further questions. To behave in compliance with the rules that are required for the preservation of social cooperation is for man the only means to attain safely all those ends that he wants to attain." The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, page 95.
"does not look upon the rules of morality as upon arbitrary laws imposed upon man by a tyrannical Deity with which man has to comply without asking any further questions. To behave in compliance with the rules that are required for the preservation of social cooperation is for man the only means to attain safely all those ends that he wants to attain." The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, page 95.
Friday, June 12, 2009
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.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Rules structure
A rules structure is a set of divisions of rights which formally has internal coherence.
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.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
What is conservatism to me
This post is about definition. Therefore, in the core it can't be judged as right or wrong from a scientific view point although it can be assessed from a logic perspective, especially in order to analyze its utility. Agreeing with its assertions only could ultimately achieve a convention but not, per se, to find the truth.
In his essay Why I am not a Conservative, Friedrich Hayek supplies reasons for not to regard himself as a conservative. This way, he was attempting to refute the perception which many had about him. Nevertheless, even after the publication of the essay in 1960, conservatives as conspicuous as Robert Nisbet continued considering him a conservative. There are reasons for this: Hayek was a declared foe of coercion; this is: of changing the distribution of rights. (As a matter of anecdote, I became a conservative thanks to Hayek.)
Conservatism of rights can collide with the fundamental classical liberal dogma of freedom only in a society allowing for legal slavery. In that unique scenario, the liberal would fight for changing the distribution of rights while a coherent conservative would defend the current distribution of rights.
What does a conservative conserve
There are several kinds of conservatism because there are several issues which may be desired to conserve. Two main kinds of conservatism are norms conservatism and moral conservatism.
A norms conservative pursues to conserve rights (or being redundant: property rights). Obviously, the existence of such rights has to have a refference to a concrete rules structure.
A moral conservative wants to conserve moral values: specific uses of freedom (i.e. property on oneself) and after all advices on how not to use freedom which transgression does not imply coercion (this is: violation of another's property). It is important to take into account, nevertheless, that to a norms conservative this conservation only can be done through moral means and not through coercion.
Conservatism as political ideology
Conservatism is an political ideology (an ideology which can be used by, say, a political party in order to guide its program) consisting in defending rights legitimately established in a concrete rules structure.
In the parliament, the conservative congressman radically defends the current rules structure and fiercely attacks bills looking for changing the rights frontiers but only fixing new frontiers where there were not. The conservative congressman typically proposes few laws and makes a lot of political control. In particular, this person never will propose a bill to re-distribute rights and will always analyze carefully bills which he presents to discard such re-distributions. Bills developed by him will pursue sanctioning and clarifying frontiers already draft.
In the executive branch, the conservative administration follows a tame obedience to the parliament. If it offers a bill will be exclusively to fine tune the State management.
The judiciary is called to be the most conservative of all political powers.
In his essay Why I am not a Conservative, Friedrich Hayek supplies reasons for not to regard himself as a conservative. This way, he was attempting to refute the perception which many had about him. Nevertheless, even after the publication of the essay in 1960, conservatives as conspicuous as Robert Nisbet continued considering him a conservative. There are reasons for this: Hayek was a declared foe of coercion; this is: of changing the distribution of rights. (As a matter of anecdote, I became a conservative thanks to Hayek.)
Conservatism of rights can collide with the fundamental classical liberal dogma of freedom only in a society allowing for legal slavery. In that unique scenario, the liberal would fight for changing the distribution of rights while a coherent conservative would defend the current distribution of rights.
What does a conservative conserve
There are several kinds of conservatism because there are several issues which may be desired to conserve. Two main kinds of conservatism are norms conservatism and moral conservatism.
A norms conservative pursues to conserve rights (or being redundant: property rights). Obviously, the existence of such rights has to have a refference to a concrete rules structure.
A moral conservative wants to conserve moral values: specific uses of freedom (i.e. property on oneself) and after all advices on how not to use freedom which transgression does not imply coercion (this is: violation of another's property). It is important to take into account, nevertheless, that to a norms conservative this conservation only can be done through moral means and not through coercion.
Conservatism as political ideology
Conservatism is an political ideology (an ideology which can be used by, say, a political party in order to guide its program) consisting in defending rights legitimately established in a concrete rules structure.
In the parliament, the conservative congressman radically defends the current rules structure and fiercely attacks bills looking for changing the rights frontiers but only fixing new frontiers where there were not. The conservative congressman typically proposes few laws and makes a lot of political control. In particular, this person never will propose a bill to re-distribute rights and will always analyze carefully bills which he presents to discard such re-distributions. Bills developed by him will pursue sanctioning and clarifying frontiers already draft.
In the executive branch, the conservative administration follows a tame obedience to the parliament. If it offers a bill will be exclusively to fine tune the State management.
The judiciary is called to be the most conservative of all political powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)