Anarchist Cain: Wilmot of Rochester:But why is it a crime to violate this "natural law"? This is my search. Why is it unethical to "aggress"? By what right does one have the ability to aggress? Whether you believe in God or Evolution, when humans were created it was not as if one were given the fundamental ethic to make him/herself the master and the other the slave.
Wilmot of Rochester:But why is it a crime to violate this "natural law"? This is my search. Why is it unethical to "aggress"?
By what right does one have the ability to aggress? Whether you believe in God or Evolution, when humans were created it was not as if one were given the fundamental ethic to make him/herself the master and the other the slave.
It gave certain men the ability to make others his slave.. is that not natural? The above is not a positive refutation of his question.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
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."
Juan:BORING.
This is the 3rd thread in which this arguement has gone in circles. It is indeed boring.
(I know you are talking about me, although I hardly find that to be cogent criticism)
zefreak:It gave certain men the ability to make others his slave.. is that not natural? The above is not a positive refutation of his question.
The site has granted moderators with the ability to ban members, is it not natural that they should ban all members then?
The reason it is not is becasue it is detrimental to the continuance of the site, same goes for those that have the ability to enslave, it is detrimental to the continuance of a society....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: zefreak:It gave certain men the ability to make others his slave.. is that not natural? The above is not a positive refutation of his question. The site has granted moderators with the ability to ban members, is it not natural that they should ban all members then? The reason it is not is becasue it is detrimental to the continuance of the site, same goes for those that have the ability to enslave, it is detrimental to the continuance of a society....
and if the continuance of society and material well-being are ends, then property rights are well established and useful means to achieve said ends.
Just so you are aware of your assumptions.
zefreak:and if the continuance of society and material well-being are ends
Material well-being is subjective, I am happy with an acre and a small home, you are happy with a mansion
The continuance of society is a means to material well-being, because in a society, however loosely organized, is how man works in conjunction with man in order to trade in the market, and trade brings us material well-being...
zefreak:then property rights are well established and useful means to achieve said ends.
I will thank Conza for this one....
I am quoting Mises
Cain,
That's essentially my point. I argue that no one possesses the innate and inherent right to... well... anything, be it from or to something. Maybe it will turn out that in the end I disagree with that current view, but currently, I'm not seeing much in the way that should suggest morality is at all inherent or objective.
existence is elsewhere
You use the words "subjective" and "objective" all the time without any quotes. So I assumed that you do not know that it leads to confusion. Could you explain why you use such words without any quotes?
"Oh" "yes", "using" "words" "without" "quotes" "is" "what" "leads" "to" "confusion"...
I'm also curious to see where Rothbard denies the role of passions in ethics, as all Aristotelian forms of natural law/rights are founded upon them...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Wilmot of Rochester: That's essentially my point. I argue that no one possesses the innate and inherent right to... well... anything, be it from or to something. Maybe it will turn out that in the end I disagree with that current view, but currently, I'm not seeing much in the way that should suggest morality is at all inherent or objective.
Alright. Maybe we can try this again.
This is a serious question: Does a person's biological brain perform judgements and understandings?
If so, then you've defined the human brains biological side, thus, inherent/innate of moralizing. It's what judgements and understandings exclusively do i.e. moralize. The degree of moral insight (philosophical wisdom) in such moral actions (practical wisdom) varies according to a number of events e.g. age, experience, environment, what a person has learned, etc... The moral impact of these mental faculties when demonstrated varies according to context.
Aristotle:
"...and of judging soundly; for 'well' and 'soundly' are the same thing. And from this has come the use of the name 'understanding' in virtue of which men are said to be 'of good understanding', viz. from the application of the word to the grasping of scientific truth; for we often call such grasping understanding."
I did not invent a new connotation of "inalienable rights." I used "inalienable rights" as simply rights that cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. That's the mainstream definition.
As a side note, Walter Block's conception of libertarianism clashes with Rothbard's because it is an alienable conception of rights in this sense (hence his notion of "voluntary slavery" that Rothbard would have rejected).
Brainpolice: I did not invent a new connotation of "inalienable rights." I used "inalienable rights" as simply rights that cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. That's the mainstream definition. As a side note, Walter Block's conception of libertarianism clashes with Rothbard's because it is an alienable conception of rights in this sense (hence his notion of "voluntary slavery" that Rothbard would have rejected).
Benjamin Tucker argued that "rights" created by contracts are alienable because he claimed that only contracts can create "rights". Therefore, Tucker's individualist anarchism was alienable in the same sense as Walter Block's.
David Friedman proposed a system in which private security agencies create law and experiment with different theories of "rights". Therefore, Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism was alienable in the same sense as Walter Block's.
However, Murray Rothbard did not believe that all "rights" were "inalienable". For instance, Rothbard denied the "right to self-ownership" for criminals because he advocated retribution against them. Therefore, the criminals have their rights "alienated" in a sense. So determining if rights are "alienable" or "inalienable" depends on your definition of "aggression."
For example, if you define "voluntary slavery" as voluntary action instead of aggression, then Walter Block does rights as "inalienable". Similarly, one could argue that Rothbard's conception of "rights" as "alienable" because he advocated retribution against criminals. See how you can easily reverse "alienable" to "inalienable" and vice versa?
In my opinion, the alienable/inalienable rights dichotomy is just as about as flawed as the positive/negative rights dichotomy. Positive rights complement negative rights in the same way as alienable rights complement inalienable rights.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
By what authority?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
The physical ability to dominate weaker beings. Not all men are created equal. No authority other than that. If that is "natural", and you conflate "natural" with "right", doesn't that amount to "might makes right"?
zefreak:The physical ability to dominate weaker beings. Not all men are created equal. No authority other than that. If that is "natural", and you conflate "natural" with "right", doesn't that amount to "might makes right"?
So the only authority in a state of nature is brute strength, not wit or cunning? And if you conclude that strength is the authority are you really rationlizing that domination happens for the mere existence of strength?
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:The physical ability to dominate weaker beings. Not all men are created equal. No authority other than that. If that is "natural", and you conflate "natural" with "right", doesn't that amount to "might makes right"? So the only authority in a state of nature is brute strength, not wit or cunning? And if you conclude that strength is the authority are you really rationlizing that domination happens for the mere existence of strength?
Ok then, the physical and mental ability to dominate weaker beings. This is "natural", is it not?
Juan:the zefreak entity keeps on pushing keys on his keyboard.
I value your posts. (Of course, they have no inherent value)
zefreak: Anarchist Cain: zefreak:The physical ability to dominate weaker beings. Not all men are created equal. No authority other than that. If that is "natural", and you conflate "natural" with "right", doesn't that amount to "might makes right"? So the only authority in a state of nature is brute strength, not wit or cunning? And if you conclude that strength is the authority are you really rationlizing that domination happens for the mere existence of strength? Ok then, the physical and mental ability to dominate weaker beings. This is "natural", is it not?
First the contrast of zefreak: So now you're for slavery. How quaint. Let's pull out the plantations again zefreak wants some plowin' done.
Now if good understanding, a little mental recognition happened: Liberty anyone? Or isn't everybody allowed to pursue good judgement in zefreak's world... If you are human and thus have judgement and understanding faculties therefore, then you are biologically moralizing. Morals are grounded upon biological fact.
wilderness: Morals are grounded upon biological fact.
Morals are grounded upon biological fact.
Biological fact with a few value assumptions thrown in for good measure. Otherwise the man with greater capacity to think and act (physical + mental ability) would be "justified" in dominating the weaker, due to his natural faculties.
And please, anyone with half a brain can see I am not advocating slavery. I am, and always have been, arguing that your position is epistemically flawed.
zefreak: wilderness: Morals are grounded upon biological fact. Biological fact with a few value assumptions thrown in for good measure.
Biological fact with a few value assumptions thrown in for good measure.
I think we can move on with the discussion that now you recognize this, maybe. There are value assumptions and we can weed through them. The biological fact is judgement and understanding are morality. Not the effects of judging and understanding - judging and understanding themselves are morality. That's the very definition that's been around for thousands of years. Now how somebody judges and understands varies.
zefreak: Otherwise the man with greater capacity to think and act (physical + mental ability) would be "justified" in dominating the weaker, due to his natural faculties.
Otherwise the man with greater capacity to think and act (physical + mental ability) would be "justified" in dominating the weaker, due to his natural faculties.
I'm not sure. This needs context. Liberty protects the weak and the strong. The virtue of liberty is justice. Liberty doesn't discriminate and is unbiased with all people. It's how the strong and weak alike act, their various judgements that would be a valid justice inquiry.
zefreak: And please, anyone with half a brain can see I am not advocating slavery. I am, and always have been, arguing that your position is epistemically flawed.
Yes I understand you state zefreak that liberty is flawed. You go on about how allowing each person to be able to pursue happiness without unjustified interference from others is flawed. I get that.
And please, anyone with half a brain can see I am not advocating slavery.
Juan:zefreak please explain where/what is the non-material stuff that is 'created' when material objects interact. You know, I'm rather dumb so a simple example might help. Material ball hits material floor. Where's the non-material stuff ?
I've explained this already. It's not that a non-material entity is created, it is that the concept "force" "reflection", "consciousness" (my point all along) describes the interaction between material, but does not describe a material of its own. Hence why your facetious demand for an "ounce of consciousness" was based on a misunderstanding of consciousness.
Juan:You are advocating something and nothing.
lol, that kind of critcism wouldn't faze anarcho-merco!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Juan:And please, anyone with half a brain can see I am not advocating slavery. You are advocating something and nothing. You are a sophist.
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics, which unfortunately cannot be derived from facts. I think a much more formidable strategy than equivocating ethical and ontological uses of ownership is to expose inconsistencies within contrary ethical systems. For example, most people do believe that they have a property right to themselves, from which you can extrapolate private property and so forth. Exposing inconsistencies will not "prove" to them that they "should" change, but as most people pride themselves in being rational beings, they might accept such an argument.
"According to you there are no arguments against slavery. Yes, you are indirectly advocating slavery."
Do you know what "advocate" means? This is a false dichotomy.
There is no proof of A. Therefore I support the opposite of A.
Juan:Sorry, your answer is a non-answer. And I don't think you can deal with consciousness when you're unable to provide a coherent explanation of the "non-physical" physical interaction in the case of two simple bodies. Now, you wouldn't be trying to smuggle in some sort of 'cartesian dualism' would you ?
An electron emits a photon. The emission (process) can be classified as a physical phenomenon, but it is not a "material" that can exist seperate the entities involved in the process.
I think you are making this a much bigger deal than it really is. You see how it is absurd to ask for a unit of a process?
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics, which unfortunately cannot be derived from facts.
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics,
Juan:Hehe. Well, zefreak says he's not advocating slavery. Perhaps it follows he's advocating non-slavery...or he's doing something entirely different. Maybe he's just a typing entity, a bunch of atoms plus some mysterious (at least to me) relations.
Juan: According to you there are no arguments against slavery. Yes, you are indirectly advocating slavery.
Exactly! There are some others, a tiny number, that agree with zefreak and indirectly they advocate slavery. They would say - but you can't prove slavery isn't wrong.
zefreak:I think you are making this a much bigger deal than it really is. You see how it is absurd to ask for a unit of a process ?
I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics.
nirgrahamUK: Juan:You are advocating something and nothing. lol, that kind of critcism wouldn't faze anarcho-merco!
lol... I'm sure he's debunking quantum mechanics right now and he'll reveal two sentences in a post and say: 'Now see how easy that was, quantum mechanism isn't valid at all.'
wilderness: Juan: According to you there are no arguments against slavery. Yes, you are indirectly advocating slavery. Exactly! There are some others, a tiny number, that agree with zefreak and indirectly they advocate slavery. They would say - but you can't prove slavery isn't wrong.
Wrong. Withholding support is not advocating. I feel dirty even having to explain this to you.
zefreak: I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them.
I understand consistency and reason are not categorical imperitives that "must" be followed, but I value them and hence advocate them.
So you don't follow them, but you advocate them. More of that A is not-A crap.
zefreak: Wrong. Withholding support is not advocating. I feel dirty even having to explain this to you.
lol...
You withhold support of non-slavery, thus, you'll let slavery walk through the front door. You ought to feel dirty.
Juan:I am advocating for a reasonable, epistemically viable foundation of ethics. Okay, so 1) What foundation is that ? 2) What sort of ethics have you built based on that foundation ?
The axioms I base my ethics on are universability, consistency and self-ownership (property). These are first principles, not derived from fact. Because of this, I have no real persuasive ability if such principles are rejected. This cannot be avoided.