Since the days of Aristotle, voluntary has been a prerequisite for the morality of actions. Someone's action cannot be judged morally unless it was voluntarily chosen. But the meaning of voluntary has shifted. Here follow a couple of thoughts on what voluntary means.
The formal definition of voluntary means the action or choice is made of free will. It must be without coercion, i.e. the use or threat of physical violence. Choosing with a gun to one's head is not a voluntary choice.
In everyday language we say there's "no choice" if one option appears much better than the other ones. This is, strictly speaking, incorrect, since there *is* a choice. It only appears obvious due to one's valuation of the alternatives. This applies whether it's voluntary or not.
This misuse of the term misleads people to consider as the same situations without options (lacking choices), situations where options differ in value (one stands out as much more highly valuable), and where one values the options the same but force makes all but one too costly.
The situation where there are few/no alternatives is either the natural state or is created. Where created, the alternatives we should have had do not materialize because they're artificially costly or prohibited. This is what I call the #unrealized. rowman.com/ISBN/978073919…
The unrealized is a matter of poverty imposed on you indirectly: restrictions placed on the actions of others cause a situation where you are deprived of alternatives that you otherwise would have had. (This explains much of the problems people face today.)
Is choice in such a situation (unrealized) voluntary? Yes, formally speaking for the chooser. But the situation is itself not the result of voluntary choices; it is the result of restricted choices. It's thus not a purely voluntary-choice situation.
A situation where one alternative stands out as much more valued than the others (but not due to unrealized options) is sometimes called "voluntary but not euvoluntary" (to borrow from @mungowitz). It can be conducive to usury, exploitation, but is still formally uncoerced.
Non-euvoluntary situations can arise entirely through voluntary means where neither the choice nor the choice situation is formally coercive. We can see this during economic development. A "solution" would require use of force to produce/make available equally valued options.
The third situation is the direct use of physical force or threat thereof to make all other options too costly for the chooser. This is obviously not voluntary.
I thus pose that there are 4 situations to consider: unforced choice between similarly valued options (euvoluntary), between differently valued options where the situation suffers from force (unrealized) or naturally arises (lacking optionality), and where the chooser is coerced.
There is no question about the first (euvoluntary) and the last (direct coercion). But the distinction between the middle two is rarely made.
Some (primarily on the left) claim choices are coercive because of the different value of options available. But this ultimately prohibits progress and innovation, because those new options are produced to be more valuable than what already exists. This morality stops the world.
Some (mostly on the right) claim choices are voluntary regardless of the value of options available. While formally true, this disregards the nature of the process that produced those options--if it is distorted by coercive restrictions, the choice situation itself is artificial.
We must recognize that being in a situation with few options or options of very differing value (to us) can be either the result of natural progress (voluntary) or of a restricted, distorted process (coercive). The latter (indirectly) causes damage on the chooser. It's immoral.
Consequently, to understand our world and properly assess the situation people are in, we need to recognize the true counterfactual. What aspects of our world remain unrealized? What is the true cost of the restrictions imposed on us and all others? store.mises.org/The-Seen-the-U…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#Intellectualproperty--patents, copyrights, and other government-granted and -enforced monopoly privileges--gets a lot of knee-jerk support. While people invent plenty of arguments in favor, they are, unfortunately, often based in economic misunderstanding. Let's talk about #IP.
First, arguments in favor tend to rely on a cost-based theory of value. But something is not of value because it was expensive to make, but is expensive to make because it is expected to be of great value: it is the expected value that justifies taking on the (production) cost.
It's a flawed argument to ask "who would take on the great cost" to come up with new inventions if they can't get paid. Nobody has a right to get paid based on their cost or effort. You don't earn a high grade because of your effort, but put in the effort to earn a high grade.
An endless source of miscommunication and misunderstanding is the use of ambiguous terms and, worse, reliance on definitions that aren't clarifying but rather the opposite. One such term is the #State. We all "know" what it is but very few have attempted to define it clearly.
For everyday purposes, we don't need to clarify the term because our intersubjective understanding of it, and how we use it (the context), makes it clear enough. But not so when we debate or try to uncover why we have different opinions about it and, especially, its nature.
The State is an organization but not like any other. It has a distinct nature, characteristics that make it different from firms, HOAs, and sports clubs. It's also not, simply but vaguely, an abstraction of some conception of "us," as many prefer to see it. So, what is the State?
If we truly want to change things for the better and contribute to a better community and society, then we should judge charitable acts based on their outcomes (the good expected or brought about), not the personal sacrifice of carrying out the act (what the doer gives up).
Many would consider a highly paid, and therefore also productive, individual spending a full day laboring in a soup kitchen a greater charity than if they had donated the money they would have earned. This conclusion requires focusing on the sacrifice, not the good brought about.
Say this individual would have earned $1,500 in their day job ($390k/year) had s/he not worked in the soup kitchen. This income is the sacrifice (cost). But the sacrifice says nothing about the good brought about by laboring in the soup kitchen.
Just putting this out there. My book from 2016 on how to properly understand the economy as a market process and the real impact of #regulations. Here's the publisher's page. (1/4) rowman.com/ISBN/978073919…
The lowest price is available from the @mises Institute bookstore. Paperback for $39.95. Additional discount for members. (2/4) store.mises.org/The-Seen-the-U…
Amazon has it available as hardcover, paperback, and Kindle, for both purchase (new and used) and rent. (3/4) amazon.com/Seen-Unseen-Un…
If we realize the value problem, we also realize the real problem that #entrepreneurs face and must find a solution to. It's not to come up with The Idea, as is often assumed, nor the invention or the technology, but how to make something valuable to other people.
Value is the experience of satisfying a want, which means to find oneself in a better situation than before and compared to what one otherwise expected. This does not need specific inputs, but if it doesn't then there is nothing stopping us from simply satisfying it at whim.
The world's limited resources means we must try to get as valuable experiences as possible, to be as well off as we can, from what means are available to us. There is no end to how content we can imagine becoming, but the means are not enough to get us there. So we must choose.
A short thread on critical thinking. To be critical is not to be contrarian, opposed, or anti--it's to be open for the possibility that you might have gotten it wrong. So, the more time/effort you've spend thinking critically about something, the more errors you'd have discarded.
That's where an 'expert' should be: they have, ideally, spent a lot of time studying some phenomenon and know a lot about it. So they would have already discarded plenty of false explanations. Unfortunately, getting an advanced degree doesn't automatically provide such expertise.
In other words: you should not accept someone's authority on a subject because of their titles/degrees. So, when I say something about the economy (my expertise), you should, if you disagree, push back, ask penetrating questions. It's likely that one of us got something wrong.