Rothbard implies in The Ethics Of Liberty that Mises' approach makes one into a "methodological slave to every goal that the majority of the public might happen to cherish" since he is a utilitarian. (Chapter 26, Section C)
Is this a sound critque? Also is there a utilitarian counter to Rothbard's natural rights? Sorry, I am new to all of this and trying to wrap my head around terminology.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22196.aspx
Geez, free enterprise coddles to the demands of the unwashed and tasteless masses. We 'ought to show them the real man's way of doing things. Natural/Divine right proponents seek to appeal to some 'higher' authority for justification, utilitarians make no such proposition. In the scheme of things, it is what the majority wants that will take hold. For Mises, liberalism was more like "if you want to have this, convince others to see it your way" as opposed to Rothbard's "This is the way it is absent the state".
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Thanks for the one star rating when I was simply asking a question...
William,
Thank you for the link. It seems to me Mises felt capitalism is best supported on utilitarian grounds while Rothbard felt it needed something extra to cover all the bases, if that makes sense. So natural rights theory and utilitarianism are not really a verus scenario but two different means reaching the same end?
Telpeurion,
If I reading your sarcasm right, Rothbard is just making 'what ought to be' statements. What do you mean real man's way of doing things?
mahall:Thanks for the one star rating when I was simply asking a question...
Don't take it personally. There are some emotionally stunted losers who regularly express themselves through anonymous star voting systems, rather than articulate an intelligent discussion.
Your question was a good one (as many sincere questions are), and welcome to the community.
From Danny's 1st paragraph in the article I linked:
For those of you who still think that, ask yourself this. If you were convinced that (A) complete adherence to the natural right of property happened to necessarily engender untold poverty, suffering, and death, but (B) the tiniest imaginable abrogation of the non-aggression principle, undertaken on a very infrequent basis necessarily engendered prosperity, happiness, and long life for virtually everybody, which would you choose, (A) or (B)?
I think there is a very real danger when thinking about things from a "rights" perspective, as it may take ones eye off the prize and lead to a bit of cognitive dissonance, an lead ones actions blindly into things they don't understand. When going about it in the manner Mises was promoting, you are doing everything soley for yourself. You don't work for markets, markets work for you. My 2 cents on that.
I would reccomend reading that thread I linked a few times over and ask any questions you may have on that thread. There are some very bright people who are willig to talk on that thread (boh Rothbardians and Miseans I think). It is a great thread to learn and participate in for the questions you have.
Liberty Student,
Thank you, I appreciate the reply.
I just finished reading every last word in that thread, Heh. I must say you guys loose me here or there but I can get the gist of it.
If you seperate society from something with a natural rights perspective, wouldn't this leave wiggle room in private courts to gain 'social democratic' (for lack of a better word) characteristics? Could both be just as necessary? Twice as big of a hammer to debate with.
mahall: Thanks for the one star rating when I was simply asking a question... William, Thank you for the link. It seems to me Mises felt capitalism is best supported on utilitarian grounds while Rothbard felt it needed something extra to cover all the bases, if that makes sense. So natural rights theory and utilitarianism are not really a verus scenario but two different means reaching the same end? Telpeurion, If I reading your sarcasm right, Rothbard is just making 'what ought to be' statements. What do you mean real man's way of doing things?
Hi mahall, I respond to this in the Why Capitalism? thread.
Mr. Sanchez or to whom it may concern,
I'm guessing you would refer to yourself as a Misesian? Is there a obvious critique of Rothbardian natural rights that I do not see? Did he take it too far so it became nearly Randian?
I'm having a hard time putting it to words. I'm just wondering if there is any consensus I'm not aware of.
In a rush, but the real quick and overly simplistic answer is discussions about rights or morality get very ugly very quickly with both parties feeling dissatisfied. Imagine how people would be if they felt so passionate about vanilla v chocolate (the correct answer is vanilla by the way), nothing good would ever get accomplished
William:vanilla v chocolate (the correct answer is vanilla by the way)
NO, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS CHOCOLATE YOU DIRTY LITTLE @*&#$^@*#$&^@#&@@***!
Perhaps I'm reading into your post, but are you implying that there should be a market for morality, as there is for chocolate and vanilla? That sounds quite relativistic...
Political Atheists Blog
The layman's terms are much obliged, Heh.
I suppose I should keep digging on this and find what I feel is best for me. I guess this just further justifies the need for non-monopolization in justice.
krazy kaju: there should be a market for morality
there should be a market for morality
Don't you mean is a market for morality?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
No, we're thinking about it from two different perspectives (I think). I'm thinking that, using the chocolate vs. vanilla comparison, perhaps there should be a market for morality, i.e. that each person gets to choose their own morality, presumably by purchasing a satisfactory plan from a PDA or somesuchthing which enforces their beliefs. You're thinking that there is a market for morality, in the sense that people ascribe to theories and beliefs voluntarily?
In any case, I've come to the conclusion that the one true morality is ethical egoism... But that's for another time and place. Haha.
mahall: Mr. Sanchez or to whom it may concern, I'm guessing you would refer to yourself as a Misesian? Is there a obvious critique of Rothbardian natural rights that I do not see? Did he take it too far so it became nearly Randian? I'm having a hard time putting it to words. I'm just wondering if there is any consensus I'm not aware of. Thanks for another important question, however formative it may yet be in your mind. I've responded again in the other thread, so as to keep all these important considerations gathered in one easy-to-reference place. "the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume | Post Points: 5
"In any case, I've come to the conclusion that the one true morality is ethical egoism... But that's for another time and place. Haha."
Kaju,
From what little I know concerning egoism, it alone seems to violate the non-aggression principle (e.g. Stealing is justified when starving). Is ethical egoism a different variety of this concept? And how does it relate to the non-aggression principle?
I'd be careful when accepting the NAP as an ethical principle. An ethical egoist can easily accept NAP as a good guiding principle for organizing a free and prosperous society. But as an ethical principle, NAP stands on weak ground. JMHO
In hindsight my post seems to read in support of the NAP but I'm trying to put myself before different options. I've been poking around in The Ethics Of Liberty so I have more of that material on the mind at the moment.
What is the source of the weak ground that the NAP stands on?
This may sound Objectivist, but how does one act not in their self-interest? I feel altruism has a physcological self-interest. Also, is ethical egoism saying that everyone should pursue satisfaction and chose means considering their specific potential consequences?
I have some Nomenclature to learn here, Heh.
Mahall,
This may sound Objectivist, but how does one act not in their self-interest? I feel altruism has a physcological self-interest.
Objectivist it may be, but in the praxeological framework, you are correct: there is no place for actions that are disconnected from the individual in such a way that they are purely altruistic. Any conscious action by man is an attempt to remove a felt "uneasiness"; being, by necessity, a means to an end. It is true that an action may be entirely directed at helping another individual, but this does not mean it is an unselfish action. The two categories ("selfish actions" and actions intended to help others) are not mutually exclusive.
I wish I could quote you Mises speaking on the subject in Human Action, but my pdf viewer is being lame.
NonAntiAnarchist,
I appreciate you confirming my presumption through Mises.
I was recently given a copy of Human Action from a companion of mine. I plan on aquainting myself with Mises more.
Take your time with the book. Human Action is not something you want to skim. Write down your thoughts after each chapter. Reading is paramount, but your understanding will suffer if you do not reflect. Of course, this forum is an excellent place to bounce around thoughts and to ask any questions you may have.
Also, Theory and History is a great complement to HA.
Good luck!
Exactly:-- Vanilla vs. Chocolate, Kobzon vs. Kid Rock, Chedder vs. Blue Cheese, etc.
Everyone has different preferences, but they are egoistic. Even the monk who rejects all wordly things minus his bathrobe does this only because he expects greater rewards in the afterlife. Every parent who takes care of their children does it out of pride, want of people to maintain his property, etc.
No moral rule which proscribes one goal for everone instead of another can be know to make someone better off without making anyone worse off. Now, even if some people benefit but others lose, what goes around comes around and society won't exist for too long. (Golden Rule is the only stable legal rule said Bruno Leoni.)
Division of labour, however, increases production irrespective of any particular good--it increases overall productivity. Doing anything that increases division of labour is moral, and everything else isn't, if we use those words at all. (Mises' perspective.)
There is no market for morals; but there can be and should be, like for anything else, a market for laws, so long as laws conform to the golden rule. (Bruno Leoni had a great collection of essays recently translated--last one is on market for laws.)
Hope this summary helps.
Other Perspectives:
1. Henry Hazlitt backs Ludwig Mises, as does Leoni back Mises.
2. Friedrich Hayek goes a bit overboard on Leoni's concept by saying in Fatal Conceit that morals were just like long accepted laws determined by evolution and markets, and contrary Mises, are for that reason not something that can be judged by reason. Mises is argued that tradition can be evaluated by reason in light of economic reasoning.
lol, mabe we can settle on strawberry , but I wouldn't say there is a morality "market", just if something "is" (and I don't claim such a thing) it "is" in the sense as X-mas is a world wide tradition, or that there is "music theory" that is recognizable, to call it "relatviistic" may ber missing the point. It may be a bit off to take the non-cognitive route. It is not in the "language game" (to use a Wittgenstein term) of logic or science, and can not be inserted into such a thing with much sense, just as scientism may not be interjected into inter-subjective theory. That said, there are 1001 ways to combat moral arguments and 0 ways to state them in argumentation.
EIither way, morality inserted in science, logic, politics, or "objective realty" is useless at best. If "ethics" are to exist I consider egoism a "meta-ethic", ethical egoism not so sure what it means (if it means Misean consequentialism, fine).
I would say, if you wish to read about egoism read Max Stirner's "The Ego And His Own" before anything else, it is really all you need to read. If you wish for "Cliff notes", or a discussion on the book I will be more than glad to participate or recommend any ancilliary material via Amazon recommendations.
If you wish to find out about "overall" social, economic, and philosophic theory though, start with Mises, particularly "Human Action". There is much material on this site that can help you digest him better (including a comic book!) if you have any troubles.
I just took a look at the content description in Theory & History. I agree that it looks like a great compliment to Human Action. I seem to find that bouncing back between two books and maybe a third one in the mix keeps your thinking from getting saturated on one topic. I may read my Human Action hard copy and skip over too the online Theory & History every now and then.
I'm sure I'll have more questions since that hamster wheel in my head sometimes needs some help spinning, Heh.
thelion,
The summary is much obliged. My reading comprehension could use a little polishing but your wording was very clear.
You feel that the private court system would have the Golden Rule as an industry standard? Also, with the judges recognizing the near-universality of egoism, how do you feel they would decide in a case of a impoverished theif stealing to survive?
I did a google search and I came across the book (Ego And His Own) here:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
Also, I got a result from LRC:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer28.html
I have not read the article or anything from the book yet but when I get a chance I plan to go through it. Is there a reflection on Stirner's work online that you would recommend?
mahall: I just took a look at the content description in Theory & History. I agree that it looks like a great compliment to Human Action. I seem to find that bouncing back between two books and maybe a third one in the mix keeps your thinking from getting saturated on one topic. I may read my Human Action hard copy and skip over too the online Theory & History every now and then.
I would recommend going with Human Action, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation.
It's as if Mises wrote his magnum opus (Human Action), but then found that he still had a lot of work to do with methodology and epistemology. And (as far as I know) it's Theory and History along with The Ultimate Foundation which represent that work.
I. Ryan,
The Ultimate Foundation doesn't appear to be a long book. I appreciate the recommendation. I will certainly use it while working my way through this material.
Not anymore, the handful of useful commentary I knew of online is now offline, the rest you have to buy. I would only go through the work if you are really really interested in egoism, there is really no reason I can think of otherwise to start by reading that book.