Danno:For those of you who think it's absurd of me to consider circumcision 'physical harm' - is there any other piece of the body that it's okay to cut off without an illness making the removal important to health? Why this one exception? If this exception is okay, why not others?)
Male circumcision is a preventitive medical procedure. The purpose is to avoid potential infections. I would equate this to trimming one's nails. Do you keep your finger- and toenails neat? If you do, it is to prevent the growth of hangnails which are painful and can lead to an infection. You are trimming unused material in order to prevent possible future ills. This is what male circumcision is for.
So I would consider male neonatal circumcision as causing as much "physical harm" as trimming one's nails.
And if I had a son, and when he was in his 30s he tried to sue me over my violation of the NAP...well let's just say I hope that the arbitrator sees it my way. And regardless of the outcome, my son wouldn't be invited to family dinner anymore. ;)
Len Budney:It ain't a subject for debate. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy,
Actually, it is. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. That, of course, includes a concern with legal theory.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:It ain't a subject for debate. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy, Actually, it is. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. That, of course, includes a concern with legal theory.
Well, I'd be curious how you distinguish politics from law? I guess you mean that libertarian theory specifies that, apart from the NAP, there's no such thing as politics?
--Len
Len Budney: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:It ain't a subject for debate. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy, Actually, it is. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. That, of course, includes a concern with legal theory. Well, I'd be curious how you distinguish politics from law? I guess you mean that libertarian theory specifies that, apart from the NAP, there's no such thing as politics? --Len
No, I've reconceived politics in a non-statist fashion, actually, as discourse and deliberation between equals (in authority, a la Locke's state of nature) in joint pursuit of eudaimonia. (I presented a dissertation chapter on this at ASC in March. It'll be uploaded on my website soon.)
But this isn't the main reason why libertarianism is a political philosophy. Political philosophy in the West dates back to Plato and Aristotle. It's a broad subject that covers communities pursuing shared ends, what kind of society should we live in (including what kind of government should we have, if any?), etc.
Also, rights are not purely legal concepts; they are moral ones as well.
And I resist the post-Rawlsian tendency in contemporary libertarianism to restrict it only to the NAP and its immediate implications. The NAP is just a principle distilled from more robust values generally held by classical liberals and libertarians. I see libertarianism as just a more consistent and radical version of classical liberalism but I see no need to narrow its scope so much like many contemporary libertarians do.
Somewhat off-(this)-topic, I find it rather amusing that belief in parenting and the distinction between adults and children is being labelled conservatism. Both Roderick Long and Mary Ruwart are left-libertarian anarchists. And I consider myself neither left nor right on the socio-cultural continuum.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:Well, I'd be curious how you distinguish politics from law? I guess you mean that libertarian theory specifies that, apart from the NAP, there's no such thing as politics? No, I've reconceived politics in a non-statist fashion, actually, as discourse and deliberation between equals (in authority, a la Locke's state of nature) in joint pursuit of eudaimonia...
Len Budney:Well, I'd be curious how you distinguish politics from law? I guess you mean that libertarian theory specifies that, apart from the NAP, there's no such thing as politics?
No, I've reconceived politics in a non-statist fashion, actually, as discourse and deliberation between equals (in authority, a la Locke's state of nature) in joint pursuit of eudaimonia...
We're probably just facing a nomenclature mismatch. Since your conception is (guaranteed to be) voluntarist, I would say that it should not be called politics. You would probably reply that "politics" simply refers to the organization of society; I would recommend calling it something else, given that usage has made politics synonymous with the organization of society using coercive power.
Right. As I said, they're a strict subset of morality. A just law must, by definition, be moral--but most morals cannot be enforced by law.
A good solid reason is that the NAP is necessary and sufficient to be compatible with a free society. All the other "more robust" values you might hold, including the pursuit of eudaimonia, are dandy but not mandatory. Your "broader scope" narrows the set of libertarians, and excludes valuable allies.
Frankly, I have no idea where that poster is coming from. He isn't a libertarian at all, or at least has a muddled conception of what libertarian thinking is. My best guess is that he's just baiting people. Perhaps he stumbled onto libertarians via 9/11-truthers and Paulistas, and is now projecting his identity crisis onto us.
Len Budney:We're probably just facing a nomenclature mismatch. Since your conception is (guaranteed to be) voluntarist, I would say that it should not be called politics. You would probably reply that "politics" simply refers to the organization of society; I would recommend calling it something else, given that usage has made politics synonymous with the organization of society using coercive power.
Being an Aristotelian gives me a reason to keep it. Also, a redefinition, if successful, can help undermine the state. That's a major line of attack that our enemies have been very successful with over the decades and centuries. They co-opt our labels and concepts, giving them a new meaning, stealing them from us. Or they re-define the labels and concepts we use, demonizing them and giving themselves the moral high ground as a result.
Len Budney:Right. As I said, they're a strict subset of morality. A just law must, by definition, be moral--but most morals cannot be enforced by law.
But law and morality are two distinct disciplines. Law is not a subdiscipline of morality. The two disciplines are linked though, and legal positivism is wrong for completely separating the two. Rights are best conceived, in my view, as a bridge between ethics and law, with one foot firmly planted in each.
Len Budney:A good solid reason is that the NAP is necessary and sufficient to be compatible with a free society. All the other "more robust" values you might hold, including the pursuit of eudaimonia, are dandy but not mandatory. Your "broader scope" narrows the set of libertarians, and excludes valuable allies.
I'm not talking about eudaimonia, but other concepts from which the NAP is derived too which are part of libertarianism: liberty, equality, property, trade, to name just a few. I think it's a mistake to derive the NAP and then essentially kick away the ladder that was used to get to it and call that libertarianism. My "broader scope," which I just see as the normal scope, and the NAP-only version as a thinner but legitimate scope (albeit in my view inadequate), does not necessarily exclude valuable allies. I see there being many versions of libertarianism which all hold certain shared core principles absolute. Moreover, eudaimonia is not some singular end that is the same for everyone. We Aristotelian libertarians have a pluralistic and highly individualized conception of it.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I'm not talking about eudaimonia, but other concepts from which the NAP is derived too which are part of libertarianism: liberty, equality, property, trade, to name just a few.
Those are all included in the NAP. Stealing, vandalism and other property crimes are aggression, and hence violate the NAP. Liberty is the condition that nobody is aggressing against anybody. Equality is a dicey notion, but everyone is equal in precisely the sense that we are all covered by the same NAP. And trade takes care of itself: if nobody is aggressing, trade will happen automatically between consenting parties.
Can you conceive of a zero-aggression libertarian who opposes trade, or liberty, or property? I can't.
Moreover, eudaimonia is not some singular end that is the same for everyone.
Sure, but if my goal is to be the worst possible example of whatever it is I am, but hold firmly to the nonaggression principle, I'm just as libertarian as you. You might think I'm a bum, a slob, a loser or whatever you like, but I'm as entitled as you are to (mis)use my liberty by my own lights.
Len Budney: Those are all included in the NAP. Stealing, vandalism and other property crimes are aggression, and hence violate the NAP. Liberty is the condition that nobody is aggressing against anybody. Equality is a dicey notion, but everyone is equal in precisely the sense that we are all covered by the same NAP. And trade takes care of itself: if nobody is aggressing, trade will happen automatically between consenting parties. Can you conceive of a zero-aggression libertarian who opposes trade, or liberty, or property? I can't.
Those were just a few examples, but there is more packed into them than is apparent at first glance. Excessive focus on the NAP as if it were axiomatic obscures these things. It's a hyper-rationalistic tendency that I've found leads to problems in how the NAP is conceived, grounded and applied.
Len Budney:Sure, but if my goal is to be the worst possible example of whatever it is I am, but hold firmly to the nonaggression principle, I'm just as libertarian as you. You might think I'm a bum, a slob, a loser or whatever you like, but I'm as entitled as you are to (mis)use my liberty by my own lights.
As long as you had a principled reason for respecting the rights of others and you were generally libertarian in your interpretation and application, yes you'd still be a libertarian. But I'd feel perfectly comfortable in arguing that your version of libertarianism is not conducive toward bringing about and maintaining a free, not to mention flourishing, society. It's an inferior version that, if adopted en masse, would undermine the foundations of a libertarian society.
Sorry 'bout the side-track, folks - but this does seem to be the day of sidetracks on this thread. (And I'd hoped to get more work done, too... good thing my boss is a pushover.)
maxpot46: Danno:Very few people have been harmed by eating too many vegetables. A strict vegetarian diet, however, I'd object to, and monitor closely A strict vegetarian diet is fatal (essential vitamin B12 is found only in meat, vegetarians must supplement or die). It's a completely unnatural diet
Danno:Very few people have been harmed by eating too many vegetables. A strict vegetarian diet, however, I'd object to, and monitor closely
A strict vegetarian diet is fatal (essential vitamin B12 is found only in meat, vegetarians must supplement or die). It's a completely unnatural diet
Like I said (in the quote above) - I'd object, too, and monitor it closely - I'm not at all a fan of vegetarianism, but it's remarkably rampant in my daughter's school. My kids, fortunately, seem quite happy about eating meats and fats - and both are quite healthy and slender.
maxpot46: for human beings, who are pretty obviously carnivores with the ability to eat other stuff if necessary. Danno:usable protein is remarkably important in the developing years. It's remarkably important for adults too, who are generally quite protein deficient (particularly since the nutritional modern wisdom is to eat a lot of carbs, which never come with protein, unlike fats which often do). Every person on this board would see a marked improvement in their health simply by drinking a protein shake every morning (they make them remarkably delicious now, 20 years ago they tasted like mud, if you could find them at all).
Danno:usable protein is remarkably important in the developing years.
It's remarkably important for adults too, who are generally quite protein deficient (particularly since the nutritional modern wisdom is to eat a lot of carbs, which never come with protein, unlike fats which often do). Every person on this board would see a marked improvement in their health simply by drinking a protein shake every morning (they make them remarkably delicious now, 20 years ago they tasted like mud, if you could find them at all).
No, we are not carnivores - we're omnivores. An all-meat diet would be even unhealthier than a vegetarian diet.
20 years ago, I learned how to make my own protein shakes. Now, eggs are a health hazard, but pasteurized eggs are available, and if you make your own, not only are they fresh, but they taste just the way you want them to. I'll second the recommendation on the dietary advice here. High-carb diets are only for people who use lots of physical energy daily, like athletes - who also need their protein.
Danno, planning on dead red quadroped for dinner again. It's grilling season here!
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Jonas: Danno:For those of you who think it's absurd of me to consider circumcision 'physical harm' - is there any other piece of the body that it's okay to cut off without an illness making the removal important to health? Why this one exception? If this exception is okay, why not others?) Male circumcision is a preventitive medical procedure. The purpose is to avoid potential infections. I would equate this to trimming one's nails. Do you keep your finger- and toenails neat? If you do, it is to prevent the growth of hangnails which are painful and can lead to an infection. You are trimming unused material in order to prevent possible future ills. This is what male circumcision is for.
You apparently haven't researched this carefully. Male circumcision is a religious ritual that started in the Mideast a few millennia ago. The incidences of serious infections in uncircumcised males (in the USA, at least) is remarkably low. Some decades ago, when I was actively researching this (early 1970s), it was analogous to the incidence of damage caused by sloppy circumcisions.
This analogy would be more relevant if the foreskin grew and needed to be trimmed regularly - or would grow back if left alone.
Then hope he doesn't get me for an arbitrator. Better yet, take a closer look at it if you're planning an addition to the family.
Danno
Danno:An all-meat diet would be even unhealthier than a vegetarian diet.
Facts:
Eskimoes and other aboriginal tribes live today on all-meat diets, and are among the healthiest people on the planet.
Mankind has lived through ice ages in which no plants can grow.
In 1928 a famous study was done at Bellvue hospital where two men ate nothing but meat for a year, to prove assertions that an all-meat diet was healthy made by a Harvard anthropologist who got stuck living with Eskimoes for a year and discovered he thrived eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
Danno:20 years ago, I learned how to make my own protein shakes.
I have discovered a secret ingredient -- Xanthan gum! You can get it at places like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. It's a thickener that makes shakes really thick and filling.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
For some, it's a wider philosophy than that, covering morality, social relationships, and other things that aren't appropriate subjects for political action.
FWIW, if Len says "it ain't a subject for debate", believe him - if you prove him to be wrong, he'll ignore your proof and pout. Then again, if he doesn't argue with you, mayhaps that's not a bad thing.
I'm willing to bet if you pick an example at random, I'll be able to argue cogently why it follows directly from the NAP--homesteading included.
As long as you had a principle reason for respecting the rights of others and you were generally libertarian in your interpretation and application, yes you'd still be a libertarian.
No. My reasons are irrelevant. If I believed that Zeus really wanted me to uphold the NAP, that would suffice. If you didn't like my reasons, you might worry that my commitment to the NAP was insufficiently strong, but until I transgressed it you'd have no basis to complain.
Geoffrey and I are having a rational discussion of terms and definitions. Your trolling forces me to scroll down the page, and creates the risk that I'll inadvertantly read your drivel and be irritated. Pray discontinue, and go stuff yourself with grilled something-or-other.
Danno:For some, it's a wider philosophy than that, covering morality, social relationships, and other things that aren't appropriate subjects for political action.
Yes, it depends on how broad or narrow your conception of politics is. For the ancient Greeks and those who take their cue from them, it is broad. Many in modern political science have a narrower conception of what politics is, as do many libertarians (because they've come to identify it solely with the state).
Len Budney:Those are all included in the NAP. Stealing, vandalism and other property crimes are aggression, and hence violate the NAP. Liberty is the condition that nobody is aggressing against anybody. Equality is a dicey notion, but everyone is equal in precisely the sense that we are all covered by the same NAP. And trade takes care of itself: if nobody is aggressing, trade will happen automatically between consenting parties.
Actually, I think it's a mistake to say they are all included in the NAP. This treats the NAP as an axiom in a hyper-rationalistic manner. It is rather the case that the NAP is an abstract principle derived from them. It's application will depend on how you conceive them.
maxpot46: Danno:An all-meat diet would be even unhealthier than a vegetarian diet. Facts: Eskimoes and other aboriginal tribes live today on all-meat diets, and are among the healthiest people on the planet. Mankind has lived through ice ages in which no plants can grow. In 1928 a famous study was done at Bellvue hospital where two men ate nothing but meat for a year, to prove assertions that an all-meat diet was healthy made by a Harvard anthropologist who got stuck living with Eskimoes for a year and discovered he thrived eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
I'd thought myself pretty well-read on nutrition, but hadn't seen this before - I'll have to look at it. Thanks for the pointer! I'd been under the strong impression that several of the essential vitamins (yeah, I know that's redundant *) were unavailable outside of vegetables or supplements.
Danno:20 years ago, I learned how to make my own protein shakes. I have discovered a secret ingredient -- Xanthan gum! You can get it at places like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. It's a thickener that makes shakes really thick and filling.
That'd work, but an all-natural ice cream, like Breyers, or yogurt (if you like that flavor) work also - and Breyers is remarkably tasty. Thanks for the tip, though.
Danno, thinkin' it's just about lunchtime....
* - For those who are not nutrition geeks, that word started out as a phrase: 'vital amino acids', then 'vital amines', thus: vitamins.
Len Budney: Your trolling forces me to scroll down the page, and
Your trolling forces me to scroll down the page, and
Your definition of "trolling" seems as specious as your definition of "mathematical logic". Thanks, but no thanks.
Len Budney: Those were just a few examples, but there is more packed into them than is apparent at first glance. Excessive focus on the NAP as if it were axiomatic obscures these things. It's a hyper-rationalistic tendency that I've found leads to problems in how the NAP is conceived, grounded and applied. I'm willing to bet if you pick an example at random, I'll be able to argue cogently why it follows directly from the NAP--homesteading included.
Perhaps. But I think the hyper-rationalistic, deontological approach to the NAP that many libertarians have tends to lead them to bizarre, extreme, and mistaken conclusions at times, particularly with regard to hard cases.
I also think that most, if not all, "thin" libertarians are "thicker" than they think, meaning that they don't usually realize when they are drawing on implicit values, principles and beliefs in their conception and application of the NAP.
Len Budney:No. My reasons are irrelevant. If I believed that Zeus really wanted me to uphold the NAP, that would suffice. If you didn't like my reasons, you might worry that my commitment to the NAP was insufficiently strong, but until I transgressed it you'd have no basis to complain.
How is your belief in Zeus not a principled reason? The point was that simply refraining from violating the rights of others does not make one a libertarian. Morality is a matter of voluntary choice, and for an action to count as moral/virtuous it also has to be chosen because it is desired and for principled reasons. Refraining from violating the rights of others out of fear of punishment is not really respecting their rights and does not make one a libertarian.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Danno:For some, it's a wider philosophy than that, covering morality, social relationships, and other things that aren't appropriate subjects for political action. Yes, it depends on how broad or narrow your conception of politics is. For the ancient Greeks and those who take their cue from them, it is broad. Many in modern political science have a narrower conception of what politics is, as do many libertarians (because they've come to identify it solely with the state).
You do have a point, and I'm probably more prone to that fallacy than I should be - politics is not solely about the state, and the word shouldn't give me the heebie-jeebies. However, I do hold personal morality to be distinct from politics of any sort, and most of mine is based upon a libertarian philosophy.
'Sokay - we'll be able to meet in the middle without much fuss.
Danno, who needs to get over this smiley thang.
gplauche: Somewhat off-(this)-topic, I find it rather amusing that belief in parenting and the distinction between adults and children is being labelled conservatism.
But I think the hyper-rationalistic, deontological approach to the NAP that many libertarians have tends to lead them to bizarre, extreme, and mistaken conclusions at times, particularly with regard to hard cases.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Actually, I think it's a mistake to say they are all included in the NAP. This treats the NAP as an axiom in a hyper-rationalistic manner. It is rather the case that the NAP is an abstract principle derived from them. It's application will depend on how you conceive them.
Heh--sometimes you sound like an objectivist, and sometimes a humanities major.
For the record, there's no such thing as hyper-rationalism. Being "too rational" is like being "too alive." Property crimes are explicitly included, because they're part of the definition of "aggression." The other ideas are expressible in terms of non-aggression, not in a pretzel-logic fashion, but quite naturally. For example, "liberty" is what I call it when nobody is attempting to aggress against me. Do you really have a different definition?
There are some good reasons for defining the NAP broadly, and then defining libertarianism narrowly around it. It's handy for pedagogic purposes: most of the work is done once we've taught someone what "aggression" is, and how it differs from uses of force for defense, say, or property recovery. The resulting, broad definition of aggression is very close to folks' intuitive sense of the concept, which makes it handy for teaching. And it's easily summarized, hence easily remembered.
It also serves a useful rhetorical purpose. The golden rule is virtually universal, and even children can grasp the outlines of it. The NAP is a weak form of the golden rule, but it's impossible to refute without obviously confessing to an intention to do unto others what one would NOT want them doing to onself. The moral argument is as airtight as the logical argument.
It also avoids some pitfalls: more muddy-thinking libertarians can embroil themselves in contradictions, which almost always follow directly from a bad definition of "aggression."
All this, and it fits on a bumper sticker!
This thread is the proof that I haven't fallen into that trap.
I and others I've known, such as Block, Hoppe and several on this forum, are not the sort to accidentally import extra assumptions. Also note that we all may count as "thin" libertarians, but we don't all restrict ourselves to one axiom. Hoppe includes self-ownership as an axiom, while I'd call that a simple consequence of non-aggression. I.e., I can use my body without aggressing; nobody else can use my body without aggressing against me; therefore, I'm the de facto owner of it.
How is your belief in Zeus not a principled reason?
That depends what you call "principled." I assumed that flat-out superstition wouldn't count as "principled reason" for you. Would it still count as "principled" if I made it even crazier? Like, "Non-aggression is where it's at, cuz, like, my teeth won't like me otherwise!"? It appeared that you were suggesting judgment of one's reasons for embracing the NAP.
The point was that simply refraining from violating the rights of others does not make one a libertarian.
I think that was obvious from the start: NAP stands for non-aggression principle. It's clear that there's a vast difference between, "I've never killed anyone," and, "killing is wrong." The former is a happenstance; the latter is a principle.
Morality is a matter of voluntary choice, and for an action to count as moral/virtuous it also has to be chosen because it is desired and for principled reasons.
There's that implied judgment again. Look, I believe that aggression is wrong because vanilla pudding is yummy. And I cling to that faithfully, in the name of vanilla pudding, amen. (makes the sign of the non-sequitur with thumb and pinky) So, can I be in your libertarian club, or not?
Refraining from violating the rights of others out of fear of punishment is not really respecting their rights and does not make one a libertarian.
Goes without saying. A libertarian is someone who holds the NAP, not someone who happens not to violate it.
Len Budney:For the record, there's no such thing as hyper-rationalism. Being "too rational" is like being "too alive."
Yes, there is. I'm talking about the false rationalist/empiricist dichotomy here, not about being rational.
Len Budney: Perhaps. But I think the hyper-rationalistic, deontological approach to the NAP that many libertarians have tends to lead them to bizarre, extreme, and mistaken conclusions at times, particularly with regard to hard cases. This thread is the proof that I haven't fallen into that trap.
But others have. :o)
Len Budney: How is your belief in Zeus not a principled reason? That depends what you call "principled." I assumed that flat-out superstition wouldn't count as "principled reason" for you. Would it still count as "principled" if I made it even crazier? Like, "Non-aggression is where it's at, cuz, like, my teeth won't like me otherwise!"? It appeared that you were suggesting judgment of one's reasons for embracing the NAP.
I'm not religious, but I don't think a principled reason has to be true to count as being principled. I don't think believing in the NAP because your teeth won't like you otherwise would count though. So what? Not just any reason counts. Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, for example, does not make one virtuous.
Len Budney: Morality is a matter of voluntary choice, and for an action to count as moral/virtuous it also has to be chosen because it is desired and for principled reasons. There's that implied judgment again. Look, I believe that aggression is wrong because vanilla pudding is yummy. And I cling to that faithfully, in the name of vanilla pudding, amen. (makes the sign of the non-sequitur with thumb and pinky) So, can I be in your libertarian club, or not?
No, because that's illogical. Look, are you suggesting total relativism here? There are no standards? For if you are, you can throw libertarianism right out the window too.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:For the record, there's no such thing as hyper-rationalism. Being "too rational" is like being "too alive." Yes, there is. I'm talking about the false rationalist/empiricist dichotomy here, not about being rational.
Ah. Then I think you're being hyperphilosophical here. There is no such dichotomy, although Rand and Mises seemed to think there was. The axiom that "man acts" is only a good axiom because we live in a universe where it's true--and one learns that one lives in such a universe by observation. Mathematical and empirical research are practiced differently, but they are not dichotomous at all.
BTW, a nice illustration of that is in the axiom of choice. While the axiom as stated is "non-empirical," it's extremely probable that eventually we will run into a consequence of the axiom, and a consequence of its negation, where one or the other fits the real world (they can't both). At that time, we will finally decide whether to keep or reject the axiom, and that decision will be empirical in nature.
--Len.
Juan: gplauche: Somewhat off-(this)-topic, I find it rather amusing that belief in parenting and the distinction between adults and children is being labelled conservatism. You are free to find it amusing. I find it dissapointing (and amusing too) that conservatives think conservatism is OK if it can be repackaged as voluntarist - but of course, conservatism is not voluntarist. But I think the hyper-rationalistic, deontological approach to the NAP that many libertarians have tends to lead them to bizarre, extreme, and mistaken conclusions at times, particularly with regard to hard cases. Oh well. Principle can always be given up if the consequences of sticking to it are not PC.
I'm not giving up any principles. You just don't understand how to apply them correctly.
Len Budney:Ah. Then I think you're being hyperphilosophical here. There is no such dichotomy, although Rand and Mises seemed to think there was.
?
Rand rejected it. But many people adhere to it self-consciously and many fall into the trap of thinking in the mode of one false side of the coin or the other.
Not just any reason counts. Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, for example, does not make one virtuous.
Libertarianism happens to be virtuous (for some reasonable definition of virtuous), but you're falling into the "true Christian" trap. Is one a "true Christian" if one fears damnation? Are a given man's beliefs "really real," or is he simply trying to bribe God for goodies or escape punishment? What if one adopts Christianity motivated by fear of punishment, and then grows to love and truly believe this new religion of his?
The entire discussion is moot. We're not in the business of judging minds and hearts. If one "really believes in" the NAP, he's a libertarian. It doesn't matter whether he does so because he believes it will maximize prosperity, or because it's "just right," or because he thinks it will protect him from others' aggression, or keep him out of hell, or lead him to Nirvana, or give him washboard abs. It suffices that the NAP is embraced.
No, because that's illogical.
So is embracing the NAP because the FSM told you to. So what?
Look, are you suggesting total relativism here?
That's a funny question, since I maintain at least as staunchly as anyone that the NAP is an absolute. I merely state that as long as you accept this, your motivations for accepting it are of no interest to me. (Except, as I mentioned before, that some motivations might suggest instability, and prompt me to keep an eye on you.)
Len Budney:I and others I've known, such as Block, Hoppe and several on this forum, are not the sort to accidentally import extra assumptions. Also note that we all may count as "thin" libertarians, but we don't all restrict ourselves to one axiom. Hoppe includes self-ownership as an axiom, while I'd call that a simple consequence of non-aggression. I.e., I can use my body without aggressing; nobody else can use my body without aggressing against me; therefore, I'm the de facto owner of it.
Block has a few kooky ideas of his own when it comes to applying the NAP in some situations.
As for Hoppe, he tries to develop a realist rationalism but I think he is ultimately unsuccessful. I have a working paper, in need of revision, on my website critiquing his neo-Kantian conception of praxeology and arguing in favor of completing Rothbard's attempt to ground praxeology in Aristotelian philosophy.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:Ah. Then I think you're being hyperphilosophical here. There is no such dichotomy, although Rand and Mises seemed to think there was. ? Rand rejected it. But many people adhere to it self-consciously and many fall into the trap of thinking in the mode of one false side of the coin or the other.
Did you not read the rest of my post? Anyone who thinks there's a genuine dichotomy between rationality and empricism is epistemologically confused. There is no dichotomy. A rationalist who eschews empiricism doesn't understand rationalism. An empiricist who eschews rationalism doesn't understand empiricism.
Rand considered herself an empiricist and eschewed rationalism (i.e., "a priorism"). To that extent, she didn't really understand empricism. Mises was a rationalist (i.e., an "a priorist") who eschewed empiricism. To that extent, he didn't really understand rationalism. (His diatribes against mathematics illustrate that further, BTW. His praxeology is not rigorous, but it is distinctly mathematical--despite the dearth of equations.)
gplauche: I'm not giving up any principles. You just don't understand how to apply them correctly.
Danno: Libertarian ideals hit a very solid grey area in this - indoctrination of the children is not ideal, but anyone preventing the parents from doing so is even worse.
many Libertarians fairly froth at the mouth (as do I) at the abuses of Church Rule in history and today, but even worse is the idea of any authority making a particular faith mandatory or prohibited.
maxpot46: Danno: An all-meat diet would be even unhealthier than a vegetarian diet. Facts: Eskimoes and other aboriginal tribes live today on all-meat diets, and are among the healthiest people on the planet.
Danno: An all-meat diet would be even unhealthier than a vegetarian diet.
Rand rejected a belief in Platonic rationalism and the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Rationalism to her was a form of intuitionism. She did not reject the notion of necessary truths though, which many empiricists do. As for Mises' praxeological system being non-rigorous and mathematical, what do you mean?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
As for Hoppe, he tries to develop a realist rationalism but I think he is ultimately unsuccessful.
That's because he tries to evade the iron law of rationalism: one cannot start without axioms and definitions. He tries, like the misguided greeks, to prove axioms. It can't be done.
Philosophers have never learned that lesson, so I hope that my emphatic statement doesn't rub you the wrong way--odds are good that you too are trying to derive morality from nothing. References to eudaimonia virtually prove it: I'm willing to bet that at the bottom of your ethics is the notion that "morality" consists in fish being fully fish, humans being fully human, and so on. The iron law will nail you every time: down deep in your discourse, your definition of being "true to one's humanity" will include the NAP. That's the spot where you're assuming what you're trying to prove.
I don't try to prove the NAP, because I know it can't be done. Any argument I use will lead back to the most basic assumptions, one of which is guaranteed to be the NAP (or a disguised equivalent). Instead I try to convince people, by appealing to their desire not to be aggressed against.
Len Budney: Not just any reason counts. Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, for example, does not make one virtuous. Libertarianism happens to be virtuous (for some reasonable definition of virtuous), but you're falling into the "true Christian" trap. Is one a "true Christian" if one fears damnation? Are a given man's beliefs "really real," or is he simply trying to bribe God for goodies or escape punishment? What if one adopts Christianity motivated by fear of punishment, and then grows to love and truly believe this new religion of his?
It's not a trap. It's sound ethical theory. We're not concerned here with epistemic problems like whether we can tell someone is really virtuous. But from the standpoint of ethical theory, he doesn't count as virtuous if he only does it out of fear of punishment.
Len Budney:The entire discussion is moot. We're not in the business of judging minds and hearts. If one "really believes in" the NAP, he's a libertarian. It doesn't matter whether he does so because he believes it will maximize prosperity, or because it's "just right," or because he thinks it will protect him from others' aggression, or keep him out of hell, or lead him to Nirvana, or give him washboard abs. It suffices that the NAP is embraced.
Not from the standpoint of ethical theory it doesn't, and libertarianism is in part an ethical theory. You seem to be falling back on your conception of libertarianism as only a legal philosophy here but in doing so you are in danger of excluding morality from it as well. You've claimed that you don't exclude morality from it but by excluding principle reasons from consideration you are effectively doing that.
Len Budney:That's a funny question, since I maintain at least as staunchly as anyone that the NAP is an absolute. I merely state that as long as you accept this, your motivations for accepting it are of no interest to me. (Except, as I mentioned before, that some motivations might suggest instability, and prompt me to keep an eye on you.)
They may not be of any interest to you. But from the standpoint of ethical theory they are important. As far as the law is concerned, motivations don't generally matter. As far as being concerned with you leaving me in peace is concerned, your motivations don't matter much either (except to the extent you pointed out). But motivations do matter for whether someone counts as respecting rights or merely refraining from violating them.
Jon Irenicus:As for Mises' praxeological system being non-rigorous and mathematical, what do you mean?
Mathematics is reasoning logically from axioms--no more, no less. It has very little to do with equations. In fact many areas of mathematics don't have any equations at all. So whenever someone reasons logically from axioms, he's doing math. Mises attempts to do just that in Human Action, so he's doing math. He thought he wasn't, though, because he wasn't using equations.
It was non-rigorous because he didn't pin down his axioms and definitions well enough to make them airtight. A cranky mathematician might call that "bad" mathematics, but ALL mathematics was "bad" in that sense up until about 150 years ago. Mises was a pioneer, and plowed ahead rather than stopping to dot his i's and cross his t's. Praxeology can be made rigorous, and I'd like to see it done (but it's bloody hard, so I've basically given up looking for low-hanging fruit there).
Len Budney: As for Hoppe, he tries to develop a realist rationalism but I think he is ultimately unsuccessful. That's because he tries to evade the iron law of rationalism: one cannot start without axioms and definitions. He tries, like the misguided greeks, to prove axioms. It can't be done.
I think you're speaking in ignorance here. Aristotle, for example, never tried to prove any axiom. And how does Hoppe try to prove any axiom for that matter?
Proof refers to logical deduction. By definition one can't prove an axiom (i.e., via logical deduction). Aristotel knew that. I think Hoppe knows that too.
Len Budney:Philosophers have never learned that lesson, so I hope that my emphatic statement doesn't rub you the wrong way--odds are good that you too are trying to derive morality from nothing. References to eudaimonia virtually prove it: I'm willing to bet that at the bottom of your ethics is the notion that "morality" consists in fish being fully fish, humans being fully human, and so on. The iron law will nail you every time: down deep in your discourse, your definition of being "true to one's humanity" will include the NAP. That's the spot where you're assuming what you're trying to prove.
This is all mistaken and confused.
The NAP is not an axoim, btw; it is a conclusion derived from a long chain of reasoning. It simply can't be a philosophically satisfactory starting point.
Len Budney:I don't try to prove the NAP, because I know it can't be done. Any argument I use will lead back to the most basic assumptions, one of which is guaranteed to be the NAP (or a disguised equivalent). Instead I try to convince people, by appealing to their desire not to be aggressed against.
This is mistaken in a number of ways. And I think it's based on mistaken assumptions about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethical theory. Yes, any argument in favor of the NAP will lead back to discussions of metaphysics and epistemology because the NAP is not an axiom. And no, the NAP will not be at the base of all premises.
Your approach may be good for persuading people, good rhetorically, but it doesn't suffice for providing a philosophical defense of the NAP.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:It's not a trap. It's sound ethical theory. We're not concerned here with epistemic problems like whether we can tell someone is really virtuous. But from the standpoint of ethical theory, he doesn't count as virtuous if he only does it out of fear of punishment.
Then you're setting yourself an unsolveable problem. The depths of the human psyche are vast and murky--you yourself can't even say whether you do something "only" for this reason or that. It's extremely rare that a person has "only" one reason anyway. I'm honest to my wife, not only because I uphold that virtue, but also because I know I won't like the consequences if I don't. So am I virtuous? Evil? 30% virtuous? 50%? God alone knows--I sure don't, and you certainly have no idea.
The whole quest is a fool's errand. But I'm leery of entering into conflict with you on this point, because we're also on the boundaries of a religious war between philosophers and mathematicians. I think that most of what philosophers do is a fool's errand, because it always boils down to arguing definitions through an infinite regression.
But from the standpoint of ethical theory they are important.
Aside from the philosopher/mathematician thing, I have a pragmatic question: would you rather get your theory just right, and die in slavery, or would you rather be free, though you don't finish your theory? Does your theory matter more to you, or the reality of freedom? Having watched Christians go through the same tail-chasing regression, I can tell you: first, you'll end up either concluding that nobody is a "real" libertarian, or divorcing your model from reality and accepting us at face value despite your theory to the contrary; second, you'll not get much closer to attaining actual freedom while you try to chase this recursion to its bottom. It has no bottom. It should suffice for me to assure you that I embrace non-aggression. If I turn out to be a liar, call me on it. Otherwise, take me at my word.
Len Budney: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Len Budney:Ah. Then I think you're being hyperphilosophical here. There is no such dichotomy, although Rand and Mises seemed to think there was. ? Rand rejected it. But many people adhere to it self-consciously and many fall into the trap of thinking in the mode of one false side of the coin or the other. Did you not read the rest of my post? Anyone who thinks there's a genuine dichotomy between rationality and empricism is epistemologically confused. There is no dichotomy. A rationalist who eschews empiricism doesn't understand rationalism. An empiricist who eschews rationalism doesn't understand empiricism.
Did you not read mine? From the beginning I called it a false dichotomy. But your post seemed to treat it as if no one ever accepted one side or the other of this false dichotomy.
Len Budney:Rand considered herself an empiricist and eschewed rationalism (i.e., "a priorism"). To that extent, she didn't really understand empricism. Mises was a rationalist (i.e., an "a priorist") who eschewed empiricism. To that extent, he didn't really understand rationalism. (His diatribes against mathematics illustrate that further, BTW. His praxeology is not rigorous, but it is distinctly mathematical--despite the dearth of equations.)
This is quite simply mistaken and evinces misinterpretations of both Rand and Mises. Rand criticized Mises' "apriorism" because she saw it as Kantian and rationalist. Mises rejected positivist-empiricism and rightly so. But Rand accepted conceptual truths. She most emphatically did not consider herself an empiricist in the sense implied by the false dichotomy. And Mises didn't reject experience and a non-positivist-empiricist conception of the empirical. There are problems with Mises's conception of praxeology along Kantian lines, but you grossly overstate them.