Following up on our earlier conversation here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7307458

Got a "that comment was too long" so I'm splitting it in twain.

This is the first part.

"I pointed out that taxation meets the criteria for extortion: you're giving up your property under threat of violence. It's clearly a match."

No, it's not clearly a match, because the question arises of whether it is legitimately your property, which is the entire point I was making with the laptop example.

'You asked if me demanding my laptop back would constitute extortion, which we both know it doesn't. There are two reasons why not: 1) the laptop is my property (regardless of "how"), 2) there is no threat. This is why my original reaction was: "Oh come on".'

If there is no threat, then it's not extortion for both the reasons you say. I've stated a few times now that I had meant it to include an implicit threat. Without the implicit threat, I agree the example is uninteresting - so let's actually talk about the interesting question instead of ducking it?

"But now you're saying the laptop was an example of something that meets the criteria of extortion without being extortion.. and that's just not true."

Again, I'd meant it to include a threat - I think (even rereading) this was clear from what I'd originally written and I've mentioned it a few times since. I'm growing increasingly skeptical that you're missing it by accident rather than clinging to some way to "win" on a technicality.

Trying again... If your demand for the return of your laptop includes a threat, is it extortion? I say no, because it is not legitimately mine to keep, but that admits the possibility that there may be other reasons something might not be one's to keep. That was my point.

"What you said is comparable to me declaring that I'll just shoot you in the kneecaps and take your money if I ever come across you, just because I want the money, so fuck you and fuck your well-being."

If you mean that's a logical consequence or extension of what I said, that's not the case at all.

If you mean you're disrespecting the stuff I value because I disrespected the stuff you value, then I think you can still find some degrees of difference if you try really hard - I can dig in here more if we need to.

If neither of those is what you mean, then I'm not sure what you mean.

'So that's perfectly alright if it results in a "good outcome", as defined by.. who? Me? -Obviously, you don't have a say because you're the one being robbed to achieve whatever good outcome I might have set my sights on.'

Well, I want the system that leads to the best outcome as defined by me. Obviously! It's me that's doing the wanting. However, 1) other people living well is something I value, and 2) a big practical concern (whatever I happen to value) is negotiating with others and eliciting
their cooperation (or at least noninterference). I assure you that whatever your preferences, shooting me in the kneecaps is not likely to lead to your best fulfilling them in the short, medium, and long term - partly because, as a society, we've agreed to step in and deal harshly with people who act that way.

"Do you see why I talked about the end not justifying the means? Your way of thinking is like Stalin's or Mao's. They had lots of good outcomes in mind when slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people. In other words, your way of thinking is, in fact, fucked up."

Do you see that this here is an appeal to outcomes that I object to as well? As I've said, there are absolutely rights that I believe should be protected in large part because I think that it serves as some defense against things like that. But if I did not believe that, this wouldn't be any sort of an argument. You think I should change what I value because of the consequences of my preferences? That's not how perfect rational agents or human beings work.

And without looking at how various rights protect us, there's not really anything about those cases that motivate any particular set of rights being respected - if we simply all respected everyone's right to life there wouldn't be mass killings - your particular framing of property rights and voluntarism isn't required.

'Don't talk about good or better "outcomes", that's a misguided, mass-coercion-rationalizing attitude.'

Outcomes are the only thing that matters. Though that is not to say final outcomes are the only thing that matters - what happens in the medium term and short term are also outcomes of whatever decisions are made and are also important. The means don't justify the ends, either.

'You don't know "the correct outcome" for a society - there is no such thing, and above all, you can't arrange for it to happen through coercion.'

That's not coherent, but trying my best to respond...

I don't claim to know "the correct outcome" for society, or even that there is such a thing. I claim that for the various paths the future can take, I would prefer some of them to others. If that is a controversial claim, I'm pretty baffled.

Given this, I favor policy that I think most steers us toward the paths that I favor and away from the paths that I don't, accounting for uncertainty in my models and my knowledge. A big part of that is protection of certain rights. A part of that is, in my present best judgement, having a government - and working to improve it.

'What people could do, is follow the golden rule - do unto others as you'd have done to yourself.'

For issues that impact everyone, contribution toward creating and sustaining important public goods falls rather naturally out of that. Just as those who would do unto others quite dramatically other than those others want must eventually be coerced to abide by the principle, it's not ludicrous that similar could apply on the other side.

'That way we'd actually reach the best possible "outcome" for everyone, which is something you'll understand if you accept Austrian economics.'

It's also something I'd understand if I accept that God will always make everything always work out for the best. The fact that I could believe false things and come to particular conclusions does not support those conclusions. (It also doesn't undermine them, first order, though it
might explain why other people have reached them).

'Oh this again. Boo-hoo, it's not a "real science". Well so fucking what?'

My objection is not that it doesn't have the label "real science". My objection is that it is not actually seeking truth by any mechanism likely to arrive at it. So fucking that.

'Does people's behaviour work like mathematics, or.. is it perhaps, unpredictable?'

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

'Austrian economics is based on observations on how people actually behave, in reality.'

This is just flat out false. Austrian economics is based on Mise's Praxeology and makes certain assumptions about how humans behave whilst ignoring the huge amounts of psychological research we have into "how humans actually behave".

"Since economies consist of millions of people making exchanges, that's the best possible basis for a school of economic thought."

Arguably, but there are thousands of places where error can creep in when you are composing things at that scale, so you still have to vet your model by comparing to reality (ideally at multiple levels).

Austrian economics is Newtonian physicists saying "We know how particles behave, and organisms are made up of particles, so we can extrapolate how biology works. These other biologists that actually look at animals aren't doing real biology." Newtonian biologists completely miss that complex interaction can produce interesting patterns that can be usefully modelled. That these patterns are in principle reducible to behavior and interaction of the individual components is no guarantee that such reduction will be computationally feasible; describing it at the higher level may be more predictive and more useful. Further, not all interaction between particles can be described by Newtonian physics in the first place and the difference may compound. Both of these provide significant room for their axiomatic conclusions to be profoundly wrong.

"It doesn't take much to understand this once you stop insisting on clinging on to your preconceived notions of what economics should be like."

The notion to blame - which I'll absolutely not stop clinging to - is that Economics (like any science) must involve actually comparing models to reality. Otherwise, it's just abstract mathematics (a great thing, but you should know that's what you're doing) or science-flavored theology (not so great a thing). Austrian economics has some of both.

"Really now? How's that working out so far? Does it work in the burgeoning police state of the US?"

Honestly, it's been working out okay. There are quite clearly things that need work - there are always things that need work, government or no.

"What about North-Korea? Did it work in Mao's China?"

I'm not aware that there was a culture of respect for rights in North Korea or Mao's China.