I was reading in the Nov. issue of Reason last night and a question popped into my mind. Is there a correlation between undefined ethics, and the rejection of free markets? Do you think some statists help justify the existence of the state, because subconsciously they believe that since they have no clear system of ethics, then no one else has one either, and then a state is required to impose some form of ethics? If you guys could point me to some reading material that can help me flesh out this thought, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, andy
I think it's more like their undefined ethics lead them to consider (some) aggressive acts to be justified.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That's an interesting set of questions; and yes, I believe that has something to do with it. People that I speak with who believe that the state is necessary (including family members) seem to have this belief that no one will do "the right thing", and given the opportunity to "screw people over to get ahead, they will".
What I usually counter those arguents with is, but people look out for their own self-interest with government, and that has a more direct impact on you than the decisions a group of like-minded indviduals could have on you without government.
I've been trying to get immediate family members to read some of the basic books like Henry Hazlitt's 'Economics In One Lesson'. Easy to understand, basic examples that can show that government intervention in the lives' of individuals creates a skewed view of the actual nature of human activity.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
ricarpe:That's an interesting set of questions; and yes, I believe that has something to do with it. People that I speak with who believe that the state is necessary (including family members) seem to have this belief that no one will do "the right thing", and given the opportunity to "screw people over to get ahead, they will".
It amazes me that people can believe this without seeing the obvious contradiction. If no one will "do the right thing" without the state, how in the world will they suddenly "do the right thing" with it? They seem to believe that there's something more to the state, aside from the individuals that compose it, that can cause such a magical change in behavior. But can they actually point it out? Or is it just a matter of faith?
ricarpe:
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.
On a side note, after thinking about it some more (instead of working ;), it would also explain why I seem to meet more libertarians with strong religious convictions, rather than secular or atheist. They already have a strong system of ethics defined. Many of the positions the state takes on moral dilemmas, seem to be inhumane and in direct contradiction to what they would consider as virtuous. Hence, the rejection of the state. 'Makes a lot of sense.
Cheers,
andy
autolykos:
Damn good point! I believe its called leader worship. Just proves how far the human psyche has not come, even in self described "intellectual" elite.
Autolykos:It amazes me that people can believe this without seeing the obvious contradiction. If no one will "do the right thing" without the state, how in the world will they suddenly "do the right thing" with it?
I think it's because people are honestly afraid of true, unadulterated freedom. The idea of being personally and completely responsible for one's own actions, without any failsafe or safety net is truly terrifying. Something akin to the mind's inability to actually grasp the physical value of extremely large numbers--there was a study somewhere about how people can not understand the quantity of money involved in the figure $1 trillion or something like that. Likewise, I do not think that people, in general, can understand the values of true freedom; of the risks and rewards that would be involved; and that they government is every bit of a security blanket to their lives, and therefore a necessity.
Autolykos:They seem to believe that there's something more to the state, aside from the individuals that compose it, that can cause such a magical change in behavior. But can they actually point it out? Or is it just a matter of faith?
Yes, because the state involves rule of law; and everyone knows that we all must follow the rules all of the time. [/sarcasm] I believe it is some sort of blind faith.
My brother and father said this at out last family holiday gathering, almost simultaneously: "Without the government, it would be chaos!" I responded with: "Really? Would people go around attacking each other with machetes an driving down the delapidated streets in "technicals"; or, would people organize themselves in such a manner so as each member gains maximum personal benefit through the interactions with others? Agreeing upon common ethical rules and resolving conflicts through negotiation and arbitration?"
I usually get told that I don't see the evil in people.
I see the evil in people all the time, that's why I own firearms. But I have just enough confidence in the basic humanity to believe that without government we would all be much better off; and that life is not as "poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as most people would like to think.
notP: ricarpe: Thanks for the info. I'll check it out. On a side note, after thinking about it some more (instead of working ;), it would also explain why I seem to meet more libertarians with strong religious convictions, rather than secular or atheist. They already have a strong system of ethics defined. Many of the positions the state takes on moral dilemmas, seem to be inhumane and in direct contradiction to what they would consider as virtuous. Hence, the rejection of the state. 'Makes a lot of sense. Cheers, andy
Glad I could help. I'm far from being the most knowledgeable person on the forums though. There are a few people here that can give you whole lists of books, articles, etc. I will say that the literature section of the site has access to a lot of resources. Searching through it can be a most enlightening task.
Locke, Mises, Aquinas had a clear system of ethics.
I imagine most/all of you were statists at one time. Ask yourself why you thought the state was neccessary, or did you just not think?
We're all basically the same. Ask yourself, and you can find out about them.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: Ask yourself why you thought the state was neccessary, or did you just not think?
Ask yourself why you thought the state was neccessary, or did you just not think?
Why did I think that the state was necessary? Well, I didn't. I never thought that the state was necessary. I might have assented to the words "the state is necessary" at some point in my life. But I never actually believed it. This is the case for everybody. They don't actually THINK these things. Do you actually think that these people have a clear idea of what a "state" is? Of course not. They just parrot memes - mind viruses. That's it.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
notP:autolykos: Damn good point! I believe its called leader worship. Just proves how far the human psyche has not come, even in self described "intellectual" elite. Cheers, andy I think it has more to do with people not realizing the inherent contradiction in that position. The reason they don't realize it is because they've been taught to think uncritically by public schooling. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
I think it has more to do with people not realizing the inherent contradiction in that position. The reason they don't realize it is because they've been taught to think uncritically by public schooling.
autolykos: I think it has more to do with people not realizing the inherent contradiction in that position. The reason they don't realize it is because they've been taught to think uncritically by public schooling.
I have to believe that they realize the logical gymnastics needed to justify state action, at least on a subconscious level. I'm an optimist. I also think they consciously choose to ignore it. I was talking to a friend the other day, and I distinctly got the impression that he sympathized with my point of view , but refuted it on the grounds that he didn't care what the state was doing to the majority, as long as he knew that someone, somewhere was seeing a benefit. He was overlooking the contradiction, just so he could feel good about himself. I think this may just be more common, than not.
" I seem to meet more libertarians with strong religious convictions, rather than secular or atheist."
I am a very secular anarcho-capitalist. I have the same anti-authoritative outlook with some religious doctrines as I do other forms of coercive authority. Keep your religion a personal thing and I'm fine with it though. For me, it's really simple, I just follow the non-aggression principle/respect other people's private property and I haven't had much of an issue in any situation.
I'd have to agree. I'm also very secular, I tend to be uninterested with the whole religion thing.
Your comment brings up an interesting point. Most of the hardcore statist I've met, never heard of the NAP. As if an ethical code doesn't exist with out the state. I think they believe that any form of stateless society is incompatible with any idea that rejects force. How often have you heard the phrase "There'd be anarchy in the streets." as an argument against abolishing the state. To which you ineffectively reply "Yea, that's the point!". Knowing fully that you have a completely different definition of "Anarchy".
I think there is a significant portion of libertarians who are secular, but there are many religious libertarians as well. It's a large tent. I've noticed plenty of those on the boards here are atheist/agnostic, but most people who run Mises are Catholic of some variety.
Support of the state doesn't have to do with undefined ethics, it has to do with not thinking through what the State actually represents. It's lazy thinking for the most part. They say, "oh, well we want education" and their distorted view of what the market does leads them to believe they need coercion to enforce their (highly subjective) view of ideal behavior on people who are less receptive to being put through it. Things like that. They believe that education is good (which it generally is) and go straight to state enforcement because they fail to see what the market can do and why it is probably optimal.
I guess you could call it, "State of the gaps"
notP you are right. I don't understand the pessimism behind these people who believe that unless we pillage and plunder the wealth of people who have it the poor will never be fed and unless we have many laws in place people will never do what's good for society. I spoke to a guy the other day who said we need to have 3% of our income taken out to be given to the poor. I asked him if I could opt-out under this rule and he said "no" because if it's being done to him I have to do it as well and it's for the "Greater Good"... That just made my blood boil ...
Eric080 I think in large part they go do the State because they couldn't get enough voluntary support for their beliefs in the first place. For ex. why do you need a law against gay marriage? If you believe it's wrong under your religion fine but why do you need a law imposed reflecting this belief onto others outside of your religion? Again, that makes my blood boil
Stop this bs please. There are no state laws against gay marriage.
Eric080: I guess you could call it, "State of the gaps"
brilliant :D actually, very good quote and the purpose is the same as "god of the gaps" theory. If you don't know how in free society defense will work - state will solve it easily. If you don't know how people will have incentive to donate to the poor....again, state will force you to do this. Ignorance is the key to the state, or I should say.. it is the big reason people support state at all. Those, who are ignorant tend to support it more than those, who know how a free society could flourish.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"Stop this bs please. There are no state laws against gay marriage."
I'm sorry, what bs are you referring to? I never made any claims about state laws. I asked why you would need a law for it, I was making a point that some groups of people that cant voluntarily get what they want from the people will pursue government coercion to impose it.
You asked why do we need such laws. We don't, and they don't exist. If you want to marry a guy go ahead!
I think you are missing my point. I wasn't asking if we needed the laws from MY perspective. I already know that we don't. I was asking those people who want to make it or keep it law why they want it a law. My own answer to that was because they can't get people to voluntarily participate with their beliefs so they need it imposed coercively.
For ex. why do you need a law against gay marriage? If you believe it's wrong under your religion fine but why do you need a law imposed reflecting this belief onto others outside of your religion? Again, that makes my blood boil
You pressupose moral subjectivity; that's why you don't 'get it'.
Or instead, a lot of religious libertarians would say that gay marriage is objectively wrong, but as the state is a greater evil than individual vices, they would opt for individual freedom.
But no one is imposing anything on you. You just cannot impose your marriage on others now.
Living in NH, I hang out with a couple dozen market anarchists twice a week and periodically meet others that are visiting from other towns or just in state for a few days checking things out, and I would guess that between 80- 90% of them are atheists.
MrSchnapps.... All I'm saying is that imposing laws for beliefs you may have that others do not have is wrong, this was just a single example of many. Please, don't dwell on this one example and try to understand the main point I'm trying to make.
scineram, the whole idea of imposing anything is what I am against. I guess I chose a poor example and you also are dwelling on it.
Forget the whole gay marriage example. Let me be very clear about the main point I'm trying to make. Using laws to try and impose your beliefs or will on others because you couldn't garner people's support voluntarily is wrong. Of all places, I didn't think Mises.org would be a place where I would get so much resistance trying to make this point,
But that is bullshit. You want private defence agencies to impose libertarian law on an anarchocapitalist society. Do you think leftist will just voluntarily get in the line? If so that is utopian.
Freeradicals,
your beliefs or will
That is what I was trying to get you to understand, since you mentioned earlier that you coudln't seem to grasp the concept. Your quote presupposes moral subjectivity, while people who usually support the state can either be moral subjectivists, or moral objectivists. The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth, and the moral objectivists want what is good (outside themselves) in general.
So if what is objectively good is (insert stance on X issue here) then they feel like they have a duty to force people to comply to an objective moral standard which everyone is accountable to, including the legislators as well.
Religious libertarians/anarchists usually take the stance that the state is a far greater evil than any vice imaginable that could be chosen on an individual level. This is why they opt for individual freedom, not because they believe that humans are perfect, but because they choose the far lesser evil of the two.
MrShnapps, I apologize, I think there might have been a miscommunication. What I stated before were rhetorical questions. I wasn't trying to start an argument about the differences between moral subjectiveness and moral objectiveness. I do see the state as the worst possible vice which is the case I was trying to make. I need to remember to be more clear on forums (I am used to having more in-person discussions so I forgot that some meaning is lost in plain text)
"But that is bullshit. You want private defence agencies to impose libertarian law on an anarchocapitalist society. Do you think leftist will just voluntarily get in the line? If so that is utopian."
I wouldn't want a private defense agency to impose it because I wouldn't need it to. A society that would call itself anarcho-capitalist would all voluntarily follow this code, at least a Rothbardian one. If a group of people go form a community somewhere and develop a different law system they are fine to do so and nothing will be imposed on them unless they come and violate the rights of the ancap community. I.e. they go and pillage a grocery market there stealing all its food, in that case the shop owners would be legitimately allowed to go after and treat those people as if they were following the libertarian law system they have in place locally.
MrSchnapps: The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth
The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth
Did you mean to say "e.g."?
Argh! I normally don't get those mixed up.
Thanks.
Joe: Living in NH, I hang out with a couple dozen market anarchists twice a week and periodically meet others...
Living in NH, I hang out with a couple dozen market anarchists twice a week and periodically meet others...
Hmm, interesting. NH, you say? Meetings a few times a week, you say? Thats it, I'm moving! CT is very different.
Interesting observations though. It raises more questions. I will ponder them a while and see what I come up with.
So my next questions is;
Do you think Libertarians and Ancaps would see more success if we focused on introducing people to ethics and NAP, rather than trying to explain the ethical virtues of an anarchist/minarchist society, to someone lacking the philosophical foundation to accept this reasoning?
(this question kind of answeres itself, huh?)
MrSchnaps
Your quote presupposes moral subjectivity, while people who usually support the state can either be moral subjectivists, or moral objectivists. The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth, and the moral objectivists want what is good (outside themselves) in general. So if what is objectively good is (insert stance on X issue here) then they feel like they have a duty to force people to comply to an objective moral standard which everyone is accountable to, including the legislators as well.
Your quote presupposes moral subjectivity, while people who usually support the state can either be moral subjectivists, or moral objectivists. The moral subjectivists want what is good for them, i.e. power and wealth, and the moral objectivists want what is good (outside themselves) in general.
There is much wisdom in that . It makes my head hurt and I will spend the rest of the day pondering it.
Thanks for the brain food!