I've been in a seemingly everlasting debate with a smart friend of mine. He conceeds most of my points, but he cannot accept that freedom and economic efficiency are the highest ends of society. This was my latest email to him on this point. Please give me some pointers. I feel like I'm lacking something...
First, the means/ends dichotomy does not describe anything of absolute substance. It is an intellectual construct that we use to help explain things. There is no system that can determine whether something is solely a means or an ends. Obviously, however, humans enjoy some things but not others. It is obvious most people take less joy in manual labor than in the resulting products of that labor. Thus means and ends fit such an example neatly. A society cannot have such clearly defined means and ends. Society does not have a brain. We must assume all ends are emotional, a characteristic of the human spirit. To say that there is an ends to science or reason is very misleading. What is the ultimate purpose of all of mankind? This is question asked eternally with no clear answer. There can be none. Ends imply a value judgment - that one set of outcomes is preferable to another. Reason only seeks to explain what is and what will be, not what should be. Individuals can make value judgments about society - I can say that a peaceful world is better than one constantly at war. But society itself cannot, except through institutions made up of many individuals. The Republican and Democratic Parties are such institutions, as are governments. Freedom is a pre-requisite to the expression of individual desire. As such, there can be no social institution that suppresses freedom and still claim that it can have any purpose. Ultimately, the illusion that some institutions indeed can is explained simply by some faction of individuals that make up this group retaining enough freedom to make value judgments. Thus, social institutions are not constructs that can have ends outside of their individual members. Where individuals' ends conflict, the social institution is a method by which some ends are repressed and others are expressed. Obviously, individuals can have ends that conflict with the ends of others. A mass murderer's ends conflict with others' desire to survive. Social institutions (such as law and government) attempt to repress the mass murderer's desires to allow the expression of the others. However, social institutions can also be arranged so that a mass murderer actually directs the social institution at the behest of most of society. Thus, in a libertarian definition of freedom, which actually seeks to repress anti-social ends (those ends which do not promote mutual gain), individuals are given the most opportunity to both define and pursue their ends, without conflicting upon the social (mutually beneficial) ends of any others. This is why it is such a high value. Economic efficiency should not be viewed as anything different than freedom, as I described above. They are one and the same. One may describe it as more of a means than an ends; but this is not so according to society at large. If libertarian freedom must be repressed to achieve economic efficiency, it is not economic efficiency at all. It is merely rewarding some at the expense of others. Libertarians would agree with you that some individuals will use freedom and economical arguments to promote their own benefit at the expense of others, and that such behavior should be outlawed. They merely contend that the modern monopoly state is an ineffective means to accomplish this, and that it is much more often used as a vehicle which purposefully violates libertarian law and definitions of freedom.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
pretty good stuff
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Why should freedom and economic efficiency be the highest ends of society? All I know is that they are my perceived highest ends of society, but another person may want equality among men, and it's all right about it.
I would expand the point of freedom on the basis that freedom also implies freedom to think. And it is in the ability to think, to analysis problems, that allows for new knowledge to be created. Thus, allowing us to find solutions to problem in a manner better than from the top-down methods attempted in the past. To further hammer that point home, consider all the experiments with collective intelligence over the past one and a half centuries, which has shown the best solutions are not found by any panel of experts, but by individuals working on their own individual knowledge (as they were free to think and act on those thoughts). That alone should kick the pants out of any utilitarian arguments that may come up.
For further reading, get Wisdom of the Crowds.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Hate to point this out, but you agree with your friend.
meambobbo:He conceeds most of my points, but he cannot accept that freedom and economic efficiency are the highest ends of society.
meambobbo:A society cannot have such clearly defined means and ends.
Other people may have different ends. As long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedom, they are perfectly legitimate. Your argument about freedom and economic efficiency may in some cases contradict each other. For example, if some anarcho-communists wish to voluntarily create a commune within a libertarian society, as long as the commune is entirely mutually consensual, then they should be allowed to pursue such endeavors. Yet their commune will be far less efficient than any market institutions. Maybe if you qualify it with that statement it might help? Otherwise your arguments appear sound.
society is just 'code' for all of the people. and we promote a just and good society,as an end, for us . because implicitly it means a collection of just and good individuals.society doesnt have a higher end. it is not possible for it to have ends of its own. we certainly can have ends, and having a just society is one of them.(free and therefore economically 'efficient')
why do people want a society that is economically efficient and free? well, its because of their opinions regarding individuals; it means that the individuals in it. are free, and that they are able to further remove themselves from poverty (as judged from their individual perspectives), furthermore, a free society means that the individuals are engaging in mutually benficial behaviour to achieve their ends, and this is just, (and directly contrasted by todays standards where some definite proportion of society are 'permitted' to conduct their lives in non-mutually beneficial behaviour, and since they administer the system of law and order, others that even they consider to be beyond the pale, are more likely to exist and less likely to brought to justice.)
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
Stephen Forde: Hate to point this out, but you agree with your friend. meambobbo:He conceeds most of my points, but he cannot accept that freedom and economic efficiency are the highest ends of society. meambobbo:A society cannot have such clearly defined means and ends.
I think his point is that one can't rationally advise others on their ends, however, a society should be organized in such a way as to make the attainment of individual ends as easy as possible.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Stephen Forde: Hate to point this out, but you agree with your friend. meambobbo:He conceeds most of my points, but he cannot accept that freedom and economic efficiency are the highest ends of society. meambobbo:A society cannot have such clearly defined means and ends. I think his point is that one can't rationally advise others on their ends, however, a society should be organized in such a way as to make the attainment of individual ends as easy as possible.
Yeah, but he undercuts his own argument. If society is to be organized a certain way, this requires cooperation from other members of society. So arguing that society ought to be organized in a certain manner is advising others of their ends. I know what he's going for. I don't think its coherent. Ultimately, he needs an agument which demonstrates why individuals in society ought to respect the rights of others. Different individuals have different aims. Some want to hit others over their head and grab their stuff because it's easier than working. Some individuals are better off now than they would be if their was no state. Why should they agree that society should be organized in a way that makes the attainment of individual ends as easy as possible.
Stephen Forde:Yeah, but he undercuts his own argument. If society is to be organized a certain way, this requires cooperation from other members of society. So arguing that society ought to be organized in a certain manner is advising others of their ends. I know what he's going for. I don't think its coherent. Ultimately, he needs an agument which demonstrates why individuals in society ought to respect the rights of others. Different individuals have different aims. Some want to hit others over their head and grab their stuff because it's easier than working. Some individuals are better off now than they would be if their was no state. Why should they agree that society should be organized in a way that makes the attainment of individual ends as easy as possible.
Stephen, you have hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why I asked for help. My friend believes my argument amounts to arguing for a collectivist social ends, whereas I claim social interaction can only be a means to many individuals' ends. And I was never claiming "my" arrangement would be a nirvana for all involved.
I think the misunderstanding revolves around that he believes that those better off from the existence of the state are the innocently poor and weak, whereas I believe they (on the whole) would be better cared for without the state. Those truly harmed by the negation of the state IMO would be those whose ends are to control the lives of others and those who seek to profit from state subsidies. This is a relatively small group, and not one in most of the public's favor.
I never posted what I wrote to cheerlead my own drivel. I want constructive criticism to make it say how you understand it. My friend sees it as myself trying to impose my ends onto others, with the ends themselves being freedom. He is arguing that many would prefer economic/social order/security, etc. to economic/social freedom. I'm trying to get him to understand that the trade off is a lie.
meambobbo: My friend sees it as myself trying to impose my ends onto others, with the ends themselves being freedom.
My friend sees it as myself trying to impose my ends onto others, with the ends themselves being freedom.
The English language can be ambiguous at times, and this is one of them. Freedom means (roughly) not imposing your ends on others. To "impose" this onto another person is to allow them to pursue their own ends, in which case you're not imposing anything at all. Freedom doesn't need to be imposed in any case, everybody desires it for themselves. Anybody desiring a certain end must oppose interference from others in attaining that end.
I'm thinking about forcing him to read Boundaries of Order at gunpoint. Such sweet irony.
It's all about values. What if someone desires living in an egalitarian and poor society? I think we're trying to impose our ends on them. The same as they try to impose their ends on us if we want to accumulate wealth individually. The issue is not about freedom and interference from attaining it. The concept of freedom and interference of freedom also differ between different ideologies. I believe the underlying issue is about property. This philosophical questions wouldn't arise if there wasn't any scarcity at all. The issue to discuss is whether the consequences of a private property society is preferable or not to a common property society.