liberty student: I don't care why you hold those principles, only that you do. So apply them consistently. If you claim to be a libertarian, be consistent with libertarianism. And that means non-aggression because aggression is not compatible with individual liberty.
I don't care why you hold those principles, only that you do. So apply them consistently. If you claim to be a libertarian, be consistent with libertarianism. And that means non-aggression because aggression is not compatible with individual liberty.
What would you suggest be the word used to describe a person who is a proponent of libertarianism (the political philosophy)? I have always considered a libertarian to be a proponent of libertarianism. Are you suggesting that a libertarian is a follower of a particular ethical philosophy? Would you then say that libertarianism is a political philosophy with a set of followers, some of whom are libertarian and others who are not?
Autolykos:I, for one, hold to libertarian political philosophy because I hold to libertarian moral philosophy.
+1,000
Micah71381:What would you suggest be the word used to describe a person who is a proponent of libertarianism (the political philosophy)?
I don't know what a political philosophy is. What is a political philosophy?
If the person in question supports aggression, then they are a statist. If they embrace the market, they are a libertarian.
Micah71381:Are you suggesting that a libertarian is a follower of a particular ethical philosophy?
See above.
Micah71381:Would you then say that libertarianism is a political philosophy with a set of followers, some of whom are libertarian and others who are not?
I would say that most people are full of crap and call themselves things, whether it is Christian, or anti war or small government or libertarian, and don't in any way embrace the means and ends attached to those labels. I have a low regard for people who talk a good game and act contrary to their stated beliefs.
As stated in another thread, I think the key here is that I am a consequentialist libertarian and you (I presume) are a deontological libertarian. This seems to clear up pretty much everything you and I argue about.
The NAP isn't dependent on natural rights.
As I said, the NAP in the context of moral relativism doesn't make sense. It is just one persons Idea of what constitutes aggression against another persons. If people have different beliefs regarding ownership of resources, then can each can come to the conclusion that the other person is violating the NAP.
If we're all gonna switch to Micah's definitions, then for the record I'm a moral nihilist!
Micah71381: If I eat breakfast it's not because I believe it's 'right'. I eat breakfast because I belive it will maximize my utility. I don't avoid killing people beacuse I think it's 'right'. I avoid killing people because I believe it will maximize my utility. This is me making a value judgement, not making a moral decision.
If I eat breakfast it's not because I believe it's 'right'. I eat breakfast because I belive it will maximize my utility. I don't avoid killing people beacuse I think it's 'right'. I avoid killing people because I believe it will maximize my utility. This is me making a value judgement, not making a moral decision.
A pretty important part of Misesian philosophy is that rightness is utility. That's why it's all subjective.
Micah71381: Ah, I have run into this before. You are misusing the word "moral". As defined in several dictionaries it is dependant on a metaphysical belief in right/wrong. The word is rooted in a belief in the unproveable, that there is an objective rigth/wrong.
Ah, I have run into this before. You are misusing the word "moral". As defined in several dictionaries it is dependant on a metaphysical belief in right/wrong. The word is rooted in a belief in the unproveable, that there is an objective rigth/wrong.
Different people use the same words differently. Around here, being a Misesian doesn't mean being a moral nihilist. It's only the people like Vichy who try to be sensational and say that they think that morality is crazy or whatever. But it's all just a stupid word game. Arguing about definitions is an endless road. I try to stand above the strife, and I suspect that you should too. It's not a path conducive to figuring out how the world works.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Eric: If people have different beliefs regarding ownership of resources, then can each can come to the conclusion that the other person is violating the NAP.
If people have different beliefs regarding ownership of resources, then can each can come to the conclusion that the other person is violating the NAP.
That's actually what everybody does though!
I. Ryan: Different people use the same words differently. Around here, being a Misesian doesn't mean being a moral nihilist. It's only the people like Vichy who try to be sensational and say that they think that morality is crazy or whatever. But it's all just a stupid word game. Arguing about definitions is an endless road. I try to stand above the strife, and I suspect that you should too. It's not a path conducive to figuring out how the world works.
If we can't agree on a language how are we supposed to have meaningful conversations about how the world works? It seems to me that the easiest way to talk about how the world works is to agree on an authoritative source for language, not because it's more accurate of a source than any other but because provides a Schelling point. A dictionary seems ideal to me since every word in the language is defined (save a very few words very new to the language), it is easily accessible to everyone and in almost all cases it's definitions are the ones people use without thinking about it.
If we agree to have different definitions for any given word then we'll spend all of our time discussing our definitions rather than discussing an interesting topic. This is especially true if I don't know which words are being used differently by the other parties because I then can't safely assume that any given word they use is intended to mean what I assume it does. By having a common language we can now effectively communicate higher level topics besides the language itself.
It seems that the worst case is to do as you suggest and just assume that any given word in use means what you think it means and not discuss the definition nor agree on a source for the definition because this can only lead to miscommunication.
Naevius: how do you validate using force against those who murder and steal
how do you validate using force against those who murder and steal
On the means to fulfilling our value judgements.
Naevius: if it's only your subjective moral value over another's?
if it's only your subjective moral value over another's?
We beat the other people into submission because we can. They try the same, but usually lose.
Naevius: If it's because property rights and the non aggression principle cause the greatest good for the greatest number, why is this something that should be aimed for in the first place?
If it's because property rights and the non aggression principle cause the greatest good for the greatest number, why is this something that should be aimed for in the first place?
Basically, Mises recognized that the reason why morality came about was because for most people, if other people do well, then they do too. The division of labor is more productive than isolation. So the greatest good for the greatest number is what maximizes their utility. It grounds utilitarianism in a non-metaphysical philosophy.
But I would say that the greatest good for the greatest number thing is sort of a relic. Even though that's why Mises called his philosophy "utilitarianism", I don't think that it's particularly expedient to keep bringing it up. It's more useful to just ask what your ultimate ends are, and what the means would be for them. It's usually not any sort of "the greatest good for the greatest number" stuff. You would need to have extremely long time horizon to feel the strain of stealing stuff on the division of labor. Probably.
Anyway, don't take this last section too seriously. I'm not confident about this stuff. It's just an attempt.
Micah71381:As stated in another thread, I think the key here is that I am a consequentialist libertarian and you (I presume) are a deontological libertarian. This seems to clear up pretty much everything you and I argue about.
You are a consequentialist, but I am not sure you are a libertarian.
Eric:As I said, the NAP in the context of moral relativism doesn't make sense. It is just one persons Idea of what constitutes aggression against another persons. If people have different beliefs regarding ownership of resources, then can each can come to the conclusion that the other person is violating the NAP.
Your issue isn't with moral relativism, it is with interpersonal relationships. If people have different beliefs of what consititutes ownership, and everyone does, since none of us see things exactly the same, at the same time, for the same reasons, then there may be a conflict. And conflicts require resolution.
This is still not an issue for, or exclusive to, the NAP. You would have this problem with or without the NAP, the NAP only describes a principle that both parties could hold and agree upon, thus reducing the amount of conflict, and increasing utility for both actors.
Btw, aggression in the voluntarist sense is the initiation of physical force. That narrows down a lot of gray area.
"This is because rothbard believed in natural rights. However, there are no such things as natural rights. The NAP does not make sense in the context of ethical relativism."
Nope, negative. "Nevertheless, by coming out with a genuinely new theory (amazing in itself, considering the long history of political philosophy) Hoppe is in danger of offending all the intellectual vested interests of the libertarian camp. Utilitarians, who should be happy that value freedom was preserved, will be appalled to find that Hoppean rights are even more absolutist and "dogmatic" than natural rights. Natural rightsers, while happy at the "dogmatism" will be unwilling to accept an ethics not grounded in the board nature of things. Randians will be particularly upset on the satantic immanual kant and his "synthetic a priori". Randians might be mollified, however, to learn that Hoppe is influence by a group of German Kantians (headed by mathematician Paul Lorenzen) who interpret Kant as a deeply realistic Aristotelian, in contrast to the Idealist interpretation common in the U. S. As a natural rightser, I don't see any real contradiction here, or why one cannot hold to both the natural rights and the Hoppean rights ethic at the same time. Both rights ethics, after all, are grounded, like the realist version of Kantianism, in the nature of reality. Natural law, too, provides a personal and social ethic apart from libertarianism; this is an area Hoppe is not concerned with." ~ ... pg 2, http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/liberty_symposium.pdf
"I think the key here is that I am a consequentialist libertarian"
Response?
"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH, Economics and ethics of private property, p354
I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it.
I dont understand what the point of this passage was? This passsage neither proves that natural rights exist nor that the NAP makes sense in the context of moral relativism.
As I said, if one does not accept natural rights, then what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person.
"I dont understand what the point of this passage was?"
lol. You didn't? (1) He didn't just accept natural rights. So you were wrong. AND so are those who have previously in this thread claimed Rothbardians cannot accept more than one set of objective ethics. Rothbard himself is walking proof that is wrong. Try again.
"This passsage neither proves that natural rights exist"
It wasn't meant to. You've rejected, I don't care.. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you of it. And yet performative contradictions are fun. Argumentation ethics ya'll, keep trying to argue that you cannot argue. Will post the below for you to consider then.
"nor that the NAP makes sense in the context of moral relativism"
And what is your point here?
"As I said, if one does not accept natural rights, then what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person."
That's great. And as I pointed towards, different interpretations of what constitutes aggression doesn't change the fact that:
"Whether or not something is true, false, or undecidable; whether or not it has been justified; what is required in order to justify it; whether I, my opponents, or none of us is right - all of this must be decided in the course of argumentation. This proposition is true a priori, because it cannot be denied without affirming it in the act of denying it. One cannot argue that one cannot argue, and one cannot dispute knowing what it means to raise a validity claim without implicitly claiming at least the negation of this proposition to be true." "With the a priori of argumentation established as an axiomatic starting point, it follows that anything that must be presupposed in the act of proposition-making cannot be propositionally disputed again. It would be meaningless to ask for a justification of presuppositions which make the production of meaningful propositions possible in the first place. Instead, they must be regarded as ultimately justified by every proposition-maker. And any specific propositional content that disputed their validity could be understood as implying a performative contradiction […], and hence, as ultimately falsified." "The law of contradiction is one such presupposition. One cannot deny this law without presupposing its validity in the act of denying it. But there is another such presupposition. Propositions are not free-floating entities. They require a proposition maker who in order to produce any validity-claiming proposition whatsoever must have exclusive control (property) over some scarce means defined in objective terms and appropriated (brought under control) at definite points in time through homesteading action. Thus, any proposition that would dispute the validity of the homesteading principle of property acquisition, or that would assert the validity of a different, incompatible principle, would be falsified by the act of proposition-making in the same way as the proposition 'the law of contradiction is false' would be contradicted by the very fact of asserting it. As the praxeological presupposition of proposition-making, the validity of the homesteading principle cannot be argumentatively disputed without running into a performative contradiction. Any other principle of property acquisition can then be understood - reflectively - by every proposition maker as ultimately incapable of propositional justification." "(Note, in particular, that this includes all proposals which claim it is justified to restrict the range of objects which may be homesteaded. They fail because once the exclusive control over some homesteaded means is admitted as justified, it becomes impossible to justify any restriction in the homesteading process - except for a self-imposed one - without thereby running into a contradiction. For if the proponent of such a restriction were consistent, he could have justified control only over some physical means which he would not be allowed to employ for any additional homesteading. Obviously, he could not interfere with another's extended homesteading, simply because of his own lack of physical means to justifiably do anything about it. But if he did interfere, he would thereby inconsistently extend his ownership claims beyond his own justly homesteaded means. Moreover, in order to justify this extension he would have to invoke a principle of property acquisition incompatible with the homesteading principle whose validity he would already have admitted.)" ~ HHH
Micah71381: If we can't agree on a language how are we supposed to have meaningful conversations about how the world works?
If we can't agree on a language how are we supposed to have meaningful conversations about how the world works?
I could speak Misesian while you speak Vichian. That would be fine.
Micah71381: It seems to me that the easiest way to talk about how the world works is to agree on an authoritative source for language, not because it's more accurate of a source than any other but because provides a Schelling point. A dictionary seems ideal to me since every word in the language is defined (save a very few words very new to the language), it is easily accessible to everyone and in almost all cases it's definitions are the ones people use without thinking about it.
It seems to me that the easiest way to talk about how the world works is to agree on an authoritative source for language, not because it's more accurate of a source than any other but because provides a Schelling point. A dictionary seems ideal to me since every word in the language is defined (save a very few words very new to the language), it is easily accessible to everyone and in almost all cases it's definitions are the ones people use without thinking about it.
Two things:
It's always a bad idea to claim (like you did earlier in this thread) that somebody misused a word. As if a definition could be wrong or something. So what's there to do in these kinds of situations? I try to use the clearest and simplest language possible, and I refuse to challenge anybody's definitions. With your definition, I'm a moral nihilist. Whatever. That's fine. That would be a momentous concession for most people here, but it's totally fine for me. I simply don't have any pet definitions. Most people get some sort of complex of associations with their words, and just can't switch. The phrase "moral nihilist" is disgusting to them; they couldn't possibly be that. Or whatever. But I simply don't care. They're just words.
I try to lead by example. I don't attempt to impose any of my definitions on anybody; I simply do my best to disambiguate their language, and make mine already unambiguous. If they find that I ask all the right questions for them to find that it would be more useful to adopt my style, that's great. And if not, that's fine too. I think that it would be better to reserve the word morality to refer to our means/ends for how to interact with each other, but it's not a big deal if you don't agree. I'm prepared to use the word my way in my posts while understanding that you're using the word your way in your posts. Doesn't matter one bit. We'll be fine.
The conclusion is that it's useless to quibble about definitions. Just take a look at how your recent arguments have gone.
Micah71381: If we agree to have different definitions for any given word then we'll spend all of our time discussing our definitions rather than discussing an interesting topic.
If we agree to have different definitions for any given word then we'll spend all of our time discussing our definitions rather than discussing an interesting topic.
Per the last section, I don't agree. After you establish how you use a word, I don't need any extra instruction.
Micah71381: This is especially true if I don't know which words are being used differently by the other parties because I then can't safely assume that any given word they use is intended to mean what I assume it does. By having a common language we can now effectively communicate higher level topics besides the language itself.
This is especially true if I don't know which words are being used differently by the other parties because I then can't safely assume that any given word they use is intended to mean what I assume it does. By having a common language we can now effectively communicate higher level topics besides the language itself.
Unfortunately it would be pretty hard to make a safe assumption ever.
Almost every argument on this forum is a gigantic definition failure. It would be nice if we could make a bunch of safe assumptions about how everybody's using their words, but unfortunately that's hardly ever the case past the simple grammatical words and the other super common ones. Past that, it's a wreck.
But I don't think that trying to impose your definitions on somebody else is a good idea. It would be better to simply ask them for clarification until you know how to interpret their words, and otherwise just lead by example with how you use your words. If you try to argue about definitions, you're always gonna find yourself in one of these spirals. You'll talk about it all day and get nowhere. There will be a lot of bad feelings too. It's just not worth it.
Micah71831: It seems that the worst case is to do as you suggest and just assume that any given word in use means what you think it means and not discuss the definition nor agree on a source for the definition because this can only lead to miscommunication.
You probably know this by now, but I definitely don't think that we shouldn't discuss the definitions. I just don't think that it would be a good idea to argue about them. Just lead through example by using the clearest ones yourself, and otherwise simply spend a lot of energy making sure that you're interpreting their words correctly. You guys can use different definitions all you want as long as you know it. We all do that anyway.
Conza88: "I think the key here is that I am a consequentialist libertarian" Response? "As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH, Economics and ethics of private property, p354
I am uncertain what definition of consequentialist ibertarianism the author is using but the way he argues against it indicates to me that it is not in line with my definition of the term. This page gives a description that is in line with my views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism
Conza88: I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it.
You are making the assumption that I agree with the author on this topic.
@Ryan
You bring up some good points and I can appreciate how my assertion that someone's definition of a word as being incorrect was not conducive to discussing the topic at hand and I can also appreciate that due to the nature of language there are no absolute definitions, only popular ones.
I, Ryan: Almost every argument on this forum is a gigantic definition failure. It would be nice if we could make a bunch of safe assumptions about how everybody's using their words, but unfortunately that's hardly ever the case past the simple grammatical words and the other super common ones. Past that, it's a wreck.
I have noticed this exact same problem in almost every thread here which is why it seems like something in need of a solution. Your suggested solution is to teach by example using only simple easily definable terms. While this works, it tends to result in very verbose statements that could be summed up in a single word or two but instead take a paragraph to explain. I agree that for the more complex terms the dictionary tends to fall short. However, even in physics the dictionary definition for terms doesn't directly conflict with a physicists definition. The dictionary may not delve as deep into the definition as a peer reviewed journal article might on the subject but it doesn't directly contradict. For example, if you look up the definition of an atom in a dictionary it doesn't contradict what a physicist knows, it just isn't as detailed. The problem I had was that one person's definition of a word was in direct conflict with the dictionary definition.
The reason I prefer a dictionary over a book is because a book doesn't provide easy access to it's definitions. Perhaps if this site had something along the lines of a glossary then I can see how that would be preferrable to a dictionary because the site could then add additional depth to the definition of various terms/phrases.
I do agree with you that as long as I understand how the other person is using the word and they understand how I am using it we can converse. Again though the problem is that we will end up spending the vast majority of our time defining terms rather than actually communicating about topics. As a software engineer if I want to speak with another software engineer on a topic it can proceed quickly if we are both using complex words we have a mutual understanding for. I can tell the same thing to a non software engineer but it would likely take me a book or two worth of text to simplify it down to words that he understands.
It's by using complex mutually agreed upon words that allows us (humans) to communicate about complex and abstract topics. If you take that away we lose some ability to communicate about complex or abstract topics due to resource constraints (time, working memory, etc.). Your suggestion that we learn to utilize other people's definition makes thinking about a topic more difficult because internally we can't assign it to a single word and utilize our brains natural chunking mechanisms to contemplate the topic. We could replace our definition with their definition but this not only takes significant time to retrain your brain but also when I leave this forum to go talk to other people in the world about something I then have to retrain myself back to using the popular definition rather than the local definition.
"I am uncertain what definition of consequentialist ibertarianism the author is using but the way he argues against it indicates to me that it is not in line with my definition of the term. This page gives a description that is in line with my views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism"
Haha, that is exactly what he is addressing. I'd suggest you labor to understand the points raised and then address them.
"You are making the assumption that I agree with the author on this topic."
And which author is this? That comment was directed at others, since you haven't been hammering on about that. Yet you also fall under the consequentialist category.
Let's try again:
"Let me start by asking what is wrong with the position taken by Mises and so many others that the choice between values is ultimately arbitrary? First, it should be noted that such a position assumes that at least the question of whether or not value judgments or normative statements can be justified is itself a cognitive problem. If this were not assumed, Mises could not even say what he evidently says and claims to be the case. His position simply could not exist as an arguable intellectual position. At first glance this does not seem to take one very far. Indeed, it still seems to be a far cry from this insight to the actual proof that normative statements can be justified and that it is only the libertarian ethic which can be defended. This impression is wrong, however, and there is already much more won here than might be suspected. The argument shows us that any truth claim, the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective or valid (all terms used synonymously here), is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation. Since it cannot be disputed that this is so (one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue), and since it must be assumed that everyone knows what it means to claim something to be true (one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true), this very fact has been aptly called "the a priori of communication and argumentation." Arguing never consists of just free-floating propositions claiming to be true. Rather, argumentation is always an activity, too. However, given that truth claims are raised and settled in argumentation and that argumentation, aside from whatever it is that is said in its course, is a practical affair, it follows that intersubjectively meaningful norms must exist-precisely those which make some action an argumentation-which have a special cognitive status in that they are the practical preconditions of objectivity and truth." ~ The Economics and Ethics of Private Property p.314-15, Hoppe
I want to thank Conza88 for the great contributions.
I have always asked myself how could anyone not become involved in a contradiction if he first says that the Hoppe's axiom is not valid and then proceeds to say that people don't need a-priori ethics, or that such don't exist at all, but rather ethics could be contracted, i.e. come out as a result of some cooperation. Well my question is - do or do not these actors who contract to come up with the "free market ethics" act? If they are acting they are doing so with the presumpion of some preestablished ethics. The action they are commiting while contracting demonstrates that they are already keeping some moral rules.
Others suggest that a-priori ethics are unnecessary, since people will reconsize the benefits of cooperation and simply will not do "wrong things"(how could you say that something is wrong if you think that ethics does not exist?). But wait a minute, when they are talking about cooperation they do not refer to the such as a whole but rather to some category of cooperation. And this category is the one which includes humen interaction which produces an outcome they like. So they do not have any argument against such activities as stealing and killing. They like the cooperation which aims at outcome that they appreciate, and deem the action involved in such cooperation "good", and whatever other outcomes could be produced that they don't like are deemed "bad" simply because they don't like them. (that is why every theft of killer could use the same false argument for a justification of his actions)
As you are probably aware - the axiom that Hoppe formulated, which states that the individual is the one who is in exclusive control over his body, can not not be proven and what is else it does not tell you that someone else should not initiate aggression against you. It merely refutes any arguments that try to prove the opposite - which is a positive - that someone should coerce you. So his axiom just shows that arguments that are for the initiation of aggression are unsound. Not that they are unethical, but rather unsound.
I was surprised to see the reputation of the following thread, which contains at least several non-sequiturs in the OP that completely corrupt what he is trying to articulate: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22196.aspx
"I want to thank Conza88 for the great contributions. "
Hey, no worries!
"As you are probably aware - the axiom that Hoppe formulated, which states that the individual is the one who is in exclusive control over his body, can not not be proven and what is else it does not tell you that someone else should not initiate aggression against you. It merely refutes any arguments that try to prove the opposite - which is a positive - that someone should coerce you. So his axiom just shows that arguments that are for the initiation of aggression are unsound. Not that they are unethical, but rather unsound."
Well said. "My entire argument, then, claims to be an impossibility proof. But not, as the mentioned critics seem to think, a proof that means to show the impossibility of certain empirical events, so that it could be refuted by empirical evidence [such as the existence of non-libertarian societies-RPM and GC]. Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to justify non-libertarian property principles without falling into contradictions . . . empirical evidence has absolutely no bearing on it." (Hoppe 1988, p. 53)
"I was surprised to see the reputation of the following thread, which contains at least several non-sequiturs in the OP that completely corrupt what he is trying to articulate"
Ha, typical. I missed that as I was travelling. Can I be bothered wading through the probable circle jerk? Nay.
Eric:As I said, if one does not accept natural rights, then what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person.
It differs from person to person regardless of whether natural rights come in to play or not. Everyone's value judgments are unique.
I really wish you had responded to my post, because I have already eviscerated this sort of argument from you.
Conza88:I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it.
Who are you referring to specifically?
"Who are you referring to specifically?"
What would that change / focusing on that achieve? I'd prefer to keep the discussion prominently on the arguments, not the people promoting them. But you seem to have only enquired about the latter, not the former. In addition to ignoring previous points raised - i.e "tolerance" & consequentialism.
Conza88:What would that change / focusing on that achieve?
Clarity.
Conza88:I'd prefer to keep the discussion prominently on the arguments, not the people promoting them.
Then why did you say anything at all?
Conza88:But you seem to have only enquired about the latter, not the former. In addition to ignoring previous points made - i.e "tolerance".
Cool red herring bro.
My question was simple and direct. Who specifically were you calling out? If you can't name names, then spare us your condemnation. Internet cowards are a dime a dozen.
How does exactly the specified person who made the argument which Conza proved invalid relates to the validy of Conza's own argument? What does it matter whether a theorist who has demonstrated that another theorist's argument is invalid has named this other theorist or not? Doesn't his proof still hold or it doesn't?
I do not see the red herring... But I see that you are the one participant in the debate who questions the feelings and emotions of another participant as a way may be to proof him wrong?
I see several conclusions being drawn but no premises for those conclusions. It's possible that this is because I am reading this section out of context in which case would you mind including his premises?
Conclusions he comes to that I don't see premises for:
The other conclusions appear to be based on these statements which are unfounded, at least in this single excerpt. Alternatively, if you have a personal argument in favor of any of those conclusions that will work just as well.
For reference, this is the thread:
liberty student: Conza88: liberty student: Conza88:I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it. Who are you referring to specifically? I'd prefer to keep the discussion prominently on the arguments, not the people promoting them. Then why did you say anything at all?
Conza88: liberty student: Conza88:I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it. Who are you referring to specifically? I'd prefer to keep the discussion prominently on the arguments, not the people promoting them.
liberty student: Conza88:I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it. Who are you referring to specifically?
I see that there are people who can not grasp the axiom formulated by Hoppe. Think over this:
No one but the human individual himself is the ultimate decision maker about the way his body to be disposed. This essentialy means that only he can possibly decide who to include or exclude in the control of this particular body.
I am not talking here how come that actually only he can do so. Whether the self is in control, whether some spirit inside the body or whatever. It does not matter what exactly inside the body takes the decisions. What matters is that this thing is the one that first and only homesteaded the particular body in question and what is more; this thing can not be replaced with another thing; no two things could simultaneously be ultimate-decision makers.
From here then every action performed by the thing or the thing's body as its means only confirms this. Every action of a thing or thing's body involved in an argument which goal is to settle a way for interaction with another thing demonstrates in practice the double confirmation of this axiom. And every action of a thing or thing's body which aims at the impossibility of conquering another thing and becoming the thing of its body demonstrates unreasonabless, which does not suffice a valid argument in defence of coercion. That is what the axiom is all about: it proofs the invalidy of all the arguments that are for coercion; what it does not proof is that coercion should not be practiced. But until someone comes with a valid argument for coercion (he first has to successfully escape the inherent contradiction of arguing for coercion) no such argument will exist and first and only homesteaded things will still be the only legitimate ultimate-decision makers about their bodys'.
"Conza chose to make an appeal to riddicule against some set of people on this forum. Liberty student wanted to know who they were. Conza indicated that he didn't want to derail the conversation. Liberty student pointed out that Conza initiated the derailing by appealing to riddicule in the first place, which started the whole chain."
If a theorist has already made a sufficient refutal of someone's argument how does it matter if he even starts making flying somersault?
vaduka: If a theorist has already made a sufficient refutal of someone's argument how does it matter if he even starts making flying somersault?
I was tired when I posted last night and forgot to make my point. :P Both of them are being petty is what I was getting at. Conza for his initial appeal to riddicule and liberty student for not ignoring it.
vaduka: I see that there are people who can not grasp the axiom formulated by Hoppe. Think over this: No one but the human individual himself is the ultimate decision maker about the way his body to be disposed.
No one but the human individual himself is the ultimate decision maker about the way his body to be disposed.
My contention lies with this statement. It presumes that the human individual is a single indivisible object, not a collection of cells, molecules, atoms, etc. In essence, it is assigning special value to the collection of matter that makes up a human compared to the collection of matter that makes up a dog, a spider, a tree or a stone.
I am not against assigning special value to the human collection of matter but it seems to me to be a very weak premise for an argument. In this case, you are assigning special value to the collection of matter we define as human and then you are deriving theorems from that specialness. The problem is, it's impossible to define that specialness objectively since it is an abstract nonscientific concept. While you may believe the specialness to have a certain set of bounds or properties I may not agree and there is no way to reconcile that disagreement through science and logic. Reconciliation requires a shared metaphysical belief system.
In this particular example you are defining a human as the ultimate decision maker for the matter that makes them up. What about someone who is brain dead? In a coma? Asleep? They are not capable of being a decision maker so does that mean they are free to being homesteaded by other thinking entities? Do you believe that a dog, who can make decisions for themselves, can also not be homesteaded by another decision making body (e.g.: humans)? What about a rat? Spider?
The point of that last paragraph was to show that you are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and while I don't fault you for it in any way and in most cases I likely agree with you where to draw the line, it is a very easy argument to logically invalidate and therefore a poor premise for further arguments.
Micah71381:I was tired when I posted last night and forgot to make my point. :P Both of them are being petty is what I was getting at. Conza for his initial appeal to riddicule and liberty student for not ignoring it.
I wasn't petty at all. I asked him to clarify his remarks. He never retracted them, he just refused to make them specific which frankly is nonsense.
Conza is a very bright man (and a friend of mine outside this forum) but that doesn't mean we can't have intellectual disagreements, and that doesn't mean that sloppy argumentation (his or mine) should slide.
vaduka:How does exactly the specified person who made the argument which Conza proved invalid relates to the validy of Conza's own argument?
I never claimed it did.
vaduka:What does it matter whether a theorist who has demonstrated that another theorist's argument is invalid has named this other theorist or not?
Laughing at people isn't an argument. It's good form to give the other side an opportunity to respond, instead of taking a vague swipe at what could have been several posters, in this thread and others, non-specifically. If his refutation was strong, he should have no issue with identifying the source of the flawed rgument.
vaduka:But I see that you are the one participant in the debate who questions the feelings and emotions of another participant as a way may be to proof him wrong?
Am I? Where have I done this? Please source it.
Thank you for posting.
Hoppe's axiom does not use as a premise for its conclusion what is the substance of the thing that occupies the role of an ultimate decision-maker. He does not bother to explain what is or what is not the human individual consisted of. This consideration whether or not humans represent a distinct matter or do not represent a distinct matter does not serve as a premise for his conclusion. He does not treat human matter in some special way, that supposedly grants some special status of the human matter over that of the non-human matter. He is not considering matter. He also does not consider non-humans. That is because non-humans can not engage in argumentation, either because they can not reason or they are inanimate or do not have proper cognitive functions. Can you possibly debate with an animal or with a rock? Do arguments for any moral rules made by non-humans exist? Can moral rules be established between a human party and a non-human party? The way non-humans ought to act is not a possible subject of argumentation between a human and a non-human. Hence, the way non-humans ought to act can not be bound to moral rules. When a guy that uses a dog in his circus demands from this dog to do something and it actually does so is not a primer for established moral rules between the guy and the dog. A dog is A) not a human and B) can not elaborate an argument. The dog is an animate thing. If a human recognizes the dog as a thing that can probably render services useful to his want satisfaction and he can control the dog - this makes the dog another scarce resource.
How do exactly humans that are braind dead or in coma act?
You can not homestead a human individual neither when he is awake, nor when he is asleep. "... and what is more; this thing can not be replaced with another thing; no two things could simultaneously be ultimate-decision makers."
I am sorry for my poor quotation ability. I hope that you can properly understand which part of what I have written addresses which part of your text.
Am I correct in understanding that the key here is an object's capability of argumentation? If so, does that mean a human with a mental deficiency causing them to be unable to argue becomes a scarce resource rather than a human with the ability to homestead (including homestead his own body)? What if this deficiency is temporary such as in children (they grow out of it) or while asleep/in a coma (it ends once you awaken)? What about people who are born with a permanent deficiency (mentally retarded)? What about people who develop a permanent deficiency later in life (dementia, damage to the prefrontal cortex, etc.)?
I am not arguing your point, just trying to understand it. In fact, I don't necessarily have a problem with your definition of "capability of argumentation" as the defining factor, I just want to make sure I understand it before I really think it through and try to poke holes in it.
Micah71381: Your suggested solution is to teach by example using only simple easily definable terms. While this works, it tends to result in very verbose statements that could be summed up in a single word or two but instead take a paragraph to explain. [...] As a software engineer if I want to speak with another software engineer on a topic it can proceed quickly if we are both using complex words we have a mutual understanding for. I can tell the same thing to a non software engineer but it would likely take me a book or two worth of text to simplify it down to words that he understands. [...] It's by using complex mutually agreed upon words that allows us (humans) to communicate about complex and abstract topics. If you take that away we lose some ability to communicate about complex or abstract topics due to resource constraints (time, working memory, etc.).
Your suggested solution is to teach by example using only simple easily definable terms. While this works, it tends to result in very verbose statements that could be summed up in a single word or two but instead take a paragraph to explain.
[...]
As a software engineer if I want to speak with another software engineer on a topic it can proceed quickly if we are both using complex words we have a mutual understanding for. I can tell the same thing to a non software engineer but it would likely take me a book or two worth of text to simplify it down to words that he understands.
It's by using complex mutually agreed upon words that allows us (humans) to communicate about complex and abstract topics. If you take that away we lose some ability to communicate about complex or abstract topics due to resource constraints (time, working memory, etc.).
I guess that I meant as simple as possible for the situation. I didn't mean that you should try to expand every word into some sort of huge paragraph worth of explanation. I think that most people tend to take their jargon way too far, but it still has its place. I just meant that it would be useless to use a complex grammatical form in the place of a simple one meaning the same thing, or a big word in the position of a small one referring to the same thing. Useless if you're trying to share ideas, I mean.
Micah71381: The reason I prefer a dictionary over a book is because a book doesn't provide easy access to it's definitions.
The reason I prefer a dictionary over a book is because a book doesn't provide easy access to it's definitions.
I suggested Human Action because we sort of expect everybody to be fluent in Misesian language here. If you're not fluent in it, we're prepared to quote him and stuff, but we just sort of act as if you already know it anyway. I mean, not everybody here does that, but it works if you do. Some of the people here focus more on Rothbard or something, and that's fine. It's just like, if you're speaking something foreign to us, we expect you to break it down into ordinary language, or translate it into one of our languages (Misesian, Rothbardian, or whatever).
But remember that I didn't even agree that we should both use the same language. I could speak Misesian while you speak Vichian. That would be fine. So with that in mind, I don't think that my actual position is susceptible to that criticism (that a book doesn't provide easy access to its definitions). It's just that most of the people here read Mises, Rothbard, and so on, and are fluent in that kind of language. If you want to speak to us, you must teach us your language (by translating it into one of ours or using ordinary language to define it), or keep your ideas to yourself until we learn yours on our own. We don't need to source the definitions unless it would be the best way to explain what we're saying.
Micah71831: Perhaps if this site had something along the lines of a glossary then I can see how that would be preferrable to a dictionary because the site could then add additional depth to the definition of various terms/phrases.
Perhaps if this site had something along the lines of a glossary then I can see how that would be preferrable to a dictionary because the site could then add additional depth to the definition of various terms/phrases.
That might be something to work on. Maybe the Wiki will serve that purpose at some point.
Micah71831: Again though the problem is that we will end up spending the vast majority of our time defining terms rather than actually communicating about topics.
Again though the problem is that we will end up spending the vast majority of our time defining terms rather than actually communicating about topics.
That's the unfortunate reality of our situation though. Just take a look at all of the assertions on this forum. They're all mostly just a bunch of definitions. At least if you understand where I'm coming from, you would know what you're doing. Check out this part of this post. Is that a definition or an assertion? It's a definition masquerading as an assertion. You'll find that all day long around here and a ton of other places. Our language isn't very good at distinguishing definitions from assertions. And it leads to a lot of endless semantic arguments. It's a big problem.
In a lot of cases, we really do have to spend the vast majority of our time defining terms rather than actually communicating about topics. Most of the discussions on this forum (and a lot of other places!) are an epic communicaton failure. If they were to step back and accept that they actually do need to spend the great majority of their effort on getting the language straight, then at least there would be a lot less nonsense. Most of the arguments on this forum are just word slinging. One guy's words against the other's.
It would be nice if we were all using the same words the same way, but I just don't know how that would be practical with English (or any other natural language). Every word has like 7,000 meanings, there are like 1,000 synonyms for everything, the grammatical structure is a wreck, and so on. With what we have to work with right now, I prefer to just accept everybody's definitions straight up. If I talk to your past self from a few days ago, I would refer to myself as a moral nihilist. But if I talk to LS, I probably wouldn't. That's it.
But I try to make my language as useful as possible. I avoid a lot of different grammatical forms because they're messier than these. I avoid a lot of different words because they're more confusing than these. And so on. If I lead by example enough, and I ask for clarification at the right times enough, I think that would be the best way to communicate right now. Suggesting other people to do it my way instead of theirs just doesn't seem like it would work, but of course I haven't ruled anything out.
Micah71831: Your suggestion that we learn to utilize other people's definition makes thinking about a topic more difficult because internally we can't assign it to a single word and utilize our brains natural chunking mechanisms to contemplate the topic.
Your suggestion that we learn to utilize other people's definition makes thinking about a topic more difficult because internally we can't assign it to a single word and utilize our brains natural chunking mechanisms to contemplate the topic.
But why would you need the words to contemplate the topic?
I try to translate their word language (whatever variant of English) into my thought process (pictures, sounds, and so on), and then that is what I contemplate. If I want to share my contemplations with them, I translate my thought process into my word language (some other variant of English). That's all. I try not to contemplate the words unless I'm trying to figure out how to make one of the translations. Knowing their word language and my own at the same time isn't categorically different than knowing both Spanish and French. It's just a matter of degree, and it doesn't pose any problems for my thought process.
Micah71831: We could replace our definition with their definition but this not only takes significant time to retrain your brain but also when I leave this forum to go talk to other people in the world about something I then have to retrain myself back to using the popular definition rather than the local definition.
We could replace our definition with their definition but this not only takes significant time to retrain your brain but also when I leave this forum to go talk to other people in the world about something I then have to retrain myself back to using the popular definition rather than the local definition.
If you spoke both German and Japanese, you would need to remember to "retrain" yourself every time you move from Germany to Japan or vice versa, right? That doesn't seem too bad. It would be better if we all spoke the same universal language, but that doesn't seem like it would be practical yet.
vaduka: I was surprised to see the reputation of the following thread, which contains at least several non-sequiturs in the OP that completely corrupt what he is trying to articulate: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22196.aspx
Care to elaborate in the original thread, or open up your own for that purpose?
I. Ryan: Micah71831: Your suggestion that we learn to utilize other people's definition makes thinking about a topic more difficult because internally we can't assign it to a single word and utilize our brains natural chunking mechanisms to contemplate the topic. But why would you need the words to contemplate the topic? I try to translate their word language (whatever variant of English) into my thought process (pictures, sounds, and so on), and then that is what I contemplate. If I want to share my contemplations with them, I translate my thought process into my word language (some other variant of English). That's all. I try not to contemplate the words unless I'm trying to figure out how to make one of the translations. Knowing their word language and my own at the same time isn't categorically different than knowing both Spanish and French. It's just a matter of degree, and it doesn't pose any problems for my thought process.
This is a very interesting topic currently heavily discussed at the academic level of cognitive psychology and one that no one can answer yet. Last I read up on the current research (about a year ago) the majority consensus was that there is a very strong correlation between thought and language but it is heavily debated whether thought begets language or language begets thought. Humans do think in a spoken language (English, French, Japanese, etc.) but researchers aren't entirely sure if thought requires language in order to occur or if language is a side effect of thought and it's optimization mechanisms.
There is some very interest research on the topic, particularly the studies on people who never learned a language growing up (very rare cases) and people with certain types of brain damage that impact speech, cognitive function, etc. The research supports both language begets thought and thought begets language so some think the two may be interdependent.