Thanks for the response!

1. To the best of my knowledge, Molyneux does not seek to enforce his moral rules at all. It is a moral code for you, if you choose to use it. If not, only you will suffer -- again, like the overweight individual, stubbornly refusing his nutritionist's advice. Molyneux is Aristotelian when he says truth breeds virtue, which breeds happiness (something like that). If UPB is the truth, you can use it to be virtuous and thus gain happiness. At least that's the aim.

He does favor what he calls DROs (dispute resolution organizations), but their enforcement mechanisms are up to their consumers and the market. They are not Molyneux's goal, per se, when he proposes UPB.

He also speaks extensively about social ostracism as a form of punishment. I would not categorize this kind of punishment as "enforcement."

The best source for this answer, however, is his website forums and his Sunday call-in show. Or just wait for his response; I understand it's in the offing.

2. You're right on this. I would then edit Molyneux's original quote thus: "...as well as a LIKELY preference for correcting those who speak falsely." Or I would strike it completely. Fortunately for Molyneux, this imprecision does not undo this section's argument, as Gordon puts it, "that the very fact of engaging in inquiry over the existence of universally preferable behavior suffices to" prove the existence of a UPB.

3. Both you and David Gordon are correct to say that taxation for the purpose of schooling does not imply the attending of public schools. But that is not the only form of forced association involved. There is also the very funding of the enterprise. You don't have to personally arrest a drug dealer or a gun owner if drugs and guns are outlawed. You simply have to fund the police force to do it on your behalf. In such a way, you are forcibly associated with the police force, just as you are when you pay for public schooling.

What I said about regulations, etc., is more of an argument from consequences and icing on the cake. It is true that you don't have to send your kids to any school. However, if you want a school, and you would have otherwise sent your child to a private institution had it not been for the taxes and the attendant monopoly power of public schools, you are experiencing forced association.

4. I disagree that "Gordon's ability to spot logical mistakes is almost unparalleled." It IS unparalleled. He is incredible.

As usual, Gordon's review was a pleasure to read! Still, I feel much of it misses the fundamental tenor of Molyneux's ethics, which is that Molyneux is not interested in enforcing his ethics. He is instead looking for a disinterested science of morality: just as you don't have to follow what a nutritionist tells you, you likewise don't have to follow what an ethicist tells you. But it's the ethicist's and the nutritionist's job to ground his science in reason and evidence, which is where UPB comes in, or so Molyneux proposes.

Thus, in searching for expansiveness, Gordon finds myopia.

Still, with the above recentering in mind, here are the logical fault lines along which Gordon's review seems to stumble (and sometimes succeed), claim by claim:

GORDON: These preferences, furthermore, have to do with morality, behavior that can be forcibly imposed on people.
==Molyneux doesn't look to enforce rules on others; he is an anarchist.

GORDON, quoting Molyneux: "If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood — as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely" ... but how does this generate a preference to correct others with mistaken views?
==One who is in the midst of an argument is ipso facto attempting to correct others with mistaken views.
GORDON: Molyneux wrongly supposes that if someone wants to discover the truth, he must be in engaged in an actual debate with someone else. Why must he?
==Molyneux is not here considering an objective thinker, but a person already engaged in debate.
GORDON: Further, what has any of this to do with enforceable obligations?
==Nothing. He is simply trying to say here that arguing against the existence of UPB is itself further evidence FOR the existence of UPB, which in turn does not sanction enforcement of its conclusions.

GORDON: Molyneux fails utterly to show that acting in accord with such [biological] laws to keep oneself alive has anything to do with moral obligation.
==I agree. Was Molyneux attempting to analogize?

GORDON: Molyneux offers no argument that the rules of morality must respond only to the characteristics that define the human species.
==Molyneux takes as his axiom that ethics must be universal for ethics to have any sense. Ethics are only a means to an end and cannot be arbitrary. Thus, IF ethics are universal, it cannot be that only some people are morally exempt.

GORDON: It never occurs to him to take the rule as mandating, "at some time or other, you ought to attempt rape"
==Rape is coercion on an involuntary victim. Thus, if half the world were to rape the other half at a time, resistance to rape would be at 50% -- hardly a universally preferable behavior, ever. The presence of the involuntary victim implies that rape, however it is morally sanctioned, cannot be ethical, and the rules of UPB are meant to logically prove it thus.
==More fundamentally, Molyneux's general view is that rape is a violation of non-aggression, property rights, and self-ownership, which he believes is an easily-proved morality after applying UPB methods. This entire logical flow was not addressed here.

==Gordon's short rebuttal on theft does not address the claim that a "rule mandating theft" is logically impossible in a world with property rights already given. It is impossible to "assert your [moral] property rights over [a] stolen object" if someone else has a simultaneous moral right to that property under the "rule mandating theft."

GORDON: [Molyneux] presents no theory of property acquisition
==Perhaps not in this book, but he has expressed his views on property acquisition at length in recent YouTube lectures. His theory, I am to understand, draws heavily on Hoppe, and it indeed sees homesteading as a logical implication of self-ownership.

GORDON: the original hypothesis has without justification been replaced with something else
==This seems to be Molyneux's point, when says it is "clearly impossible."

GORDON: [coercive] funding does not suffice to make [public] schools a form of "forced association."
=It is in two ways: (1) the act of coercive funding forces an association with a specific institution, and (2) if taxes, regulations, etc., related to public schooling prevent association with alternative institutions, then public school attendance is forced association.

*I am an avid FDR listener, and am familiar with much of UPB theory, but I've yet to read his book. I cannot speak for how clear the text is on any of the points above, but I would be surprised if Molyneux disagreed with any of it. Thanks to this review, UPB has just shot way up on my reading list ... and that's really the point of a good review isn't it?

I absolutely adore (universally prefer?) both Molyneux and Gordon. They are both philosophical and logical monsters and role models. This discussion is wonderfully exciting and I look forward to seeing Molyneux respond, as I am sure he will. I hope he invites Gordon on his show and perhaps has it moderated by Jeffrey Tucker. (Or would that would be too much awesome?)

I would caution commenters on Mises and FDR to please cool the invective. You are both natural allies. Molyneux plugs Mises regularly and, well, Mises's resident genius just kindly took the time to review Molyneux's most prized work with no less professionalism and verve than we have come to expect. This is not a "hit piece" or a reactionary "attack" and "slander" from a religious zealot. And fans of FDR are not "drones."

If you keep to logical arguments, everybody wins. This is too important a topic to scare off newcomers with personal judgments. This is not to say there are not some notable exceptions here and on FDR.

In this spirit, I've posted short responses to each of Gordon's substantive claims beneath, FWIW.

Just in time for Rothbard's refresher on Say's Law:

"There can never be any problem of "overproduction" or "underconsumption" on the free market because prices can always fall until the markets are cleared. ... Those who complain about overproduction or underconsumption rarely talk in terms of price, yet these concepts are virtually meaningless if the price system is not always held in mind. The question should always be: production or sales at what price! Demand or consumption at what price! There is never any genuine unsold surplus, or "glut," whether specific or general over the whole economy, if prices are free to fall to clear the market and eliminate the surplus." http://mises.org/daily/5985/Says-Law-of-Markets

Good work, Mises Daily!

Got it, thank you!

My fundamental confusion stemmed from not realizing that Menger was exclusively discussing the resale of a good already bought. Even though it is the same good, a used product will always be worth less than when it was brand new.

Hah! Oops. I asked the site admin to delete the top comment because it wouldn't hit my email. Thanks for the reply. Is it possible for you to repost?

[Please don't reply to this one. Reply to the one below; my bad. Thanks!]

Question please! [please reply to this one; I had some trouble accessing this ID when I posted above]

Menger speaks of a drop in price at the marketplace. Why?

"The truth is, that even in the best organized markets, while we may be able to purchase when and what we like at a definite price, viz.: the purchasing price, we can only dispose of it again when and as we like at a loss, viz.: at the selling price."

And:

"If corn or cotton is to be disposed of at an organized market, the seller will be in a position to do so in practically any quantity, at any time he pleases, at the current price, or at most with a loss of only a few pence on the total sum."

Why must the seller suffer a loss? If I hold on to a bottle of wine for some time, I could go back to the market and sell it for a markup. What am I missing?

Thanks!

I think Mises's essay addresses each of your points.

a) The piece deals with "cretinism" in all enterprises, and how and why the public sector is unable to weed it out. As for the private sector, just because it _is_ able to weed out inefficiencies does not mean it always does, and Mises does not make the case that it always does. In fact, in his concluding paragraphs, Mises explains one way in which the state pushes inefficiencies onto the business world.

b) Service industries are also informed by profits and losses. There is no counter example, including the loan and investment industries.

c) The sub-prime mortgage market was the stomping ground of several government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), and (on a lesser and secondary level) by nominally private companies -- nominally, because they were influenced by what Mises discusses here as, "other considerations," set by government policy, which is not informed by profits or losses.

To your overarching critique, the most important caveat is here, explicitly stated: "No private enterprise, whatever its size, can ever become bureaucratic as long as it is entirely and solely operated on a profit basis."

"The literatures of Greece and Rome comprise the longest and fullest continuous record available to us, of what the human mind has been busy about in practically every department of spiritual and social activity; every department, I think, except one — music."

For the record, my music history textbook began with Greece and Rome. (Burkholder, Grout, Palisca)