Eioul:I'm not sure I follow how that refutes anything. Initiating force happens to be immoral, since it violates a persons rights. But the only reason I would say that initiating force should be illegal is because it is a violatiion of rights, not because it is immoral. In a practical sense we agree, but where we differ is our moral reasoning.
This is a convoluted mess. What is illegal? We're not talking about arbitrary law. We're talking about immorality.
You claimed that religion was immoral. I asked you how it could be immoral if it is voluntary. Since then, you have admitted that initiating force is immoral because it is a violation of rights. But you still haven't explained how religion violates rights.
Can you offer any clarity on your position?
Do you still support this position (below)? If so, how?
Eioul: liberty student: If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it? If it is immoral, of course. Which would include things that are collectivist in nature i.e. religion.
liberty student: If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it?
If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it?
If it is immoral, of course. Which would include things that are collectivist in nature i.e. religion.
I think as long as its voluntary and consensual then it's libertarian.
I side with you here .I used to be a liberal too so thats where i came from and i would say i still hold to 'liberal' type views myself:-
support same sex marriage/gay adoption, atheist but not really anti religion,fluid definition of family etc.
I think its really divisive that culturally conservative libertarians bundle there personal views in with libertarianism and culturally liberal ones do the same.
whether either of the two is conducive to a libertarian society is an interesting question but 1 irrelevant at present and 2 probably irrelevant in the future.I mean in a libertarian society there would be a diversity of communities cultures and values.
about left libertarianism. you do need to be wary of it .often it promotes an attack on contracts, wages,hierarchy etc essentially the basic parts of major austro libertarian thought. I often find 'left libertarianism' is just a cover for leftism in general. we need to get away from this left/right false dichtomy.we're all libertarians neither left nor right.
For the record I don't consider myself left libertarian or culturally conservative. I'd say im culturally liberal but i often agree with cultural conservatives in some respects.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
liberty student: This is a convoluted mess. What is illegal? We're not talking about arbitrary law. We're talking about immorality.
I probably used to many words that would need clarification. I was simply trying to say that "initiation of force isn't the only immoral thing, but it's the only time you can forcibly *do* something to another person". I wasn't talking about arbitrary law, I was trying to say that initiation of force is the only proper standard for any law to consider.
Religion absolutely does not violate rights (when it is voluntary), but whether or not someone violates rights is not the standard in which I judge morality. It is only *one* of the ways in which I judge people.
Eioul:I was simply trying to say that "initiation of force isn't the only immoral thing
Yes it is.
Eioul:but whether or not someone violates rights is not the standard in which I judge morality.
Then your definition of morality is not libertarian.
Eioul:It is only *one* of the ways in which I judge people.
Libertarianism isn't about judging people based on their preferences. If you consider voluntary and peaceful action immoral, then that is your problem. It has nothing to do with the scope of this discussion.
I think what he is trying to say that morality extends beyond questions of violence, like pornography, adultery etc. Perhaps he is having trouble in relying the thought that there is a distinction between what is wrong legally speaking [ such as NAP violation ] and what is wrong socially [ perhaps something concerned with judeo-christian values ].
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
How does one separate spiritual thought from any other thought? Afterall, we are talking about thoughts not just actions. Two people may act identically, but for two very different reasons. Is one immoral because he acted based on his spiritual beliefs whereas the other is moral because he's an atheist?
Laughing Man: I think what he is trying to say that morality extends beyond questions of violence, like pornography, adultery etc. Perhaps he is having trouble in relying the thought that there is a distinction between what is wrong legally speaking [ such as NAP violation ] and what is wrong socially [ perhaps something concerned with judeo-christian values ].
Yes, that is what I wanted to convey. But more specifically, what is wrong for an individual rather than socially.
I'm not suggesting this is a libertarian definition of morality, but libertarianism is not an ethical philosophy anyway. Purely a political philosophy.
Eioul:But more specifically, what is wrong for an individual rather than socially.
Who are you to determine what is wrong for others?
Laughing Man:I think what he is trying to say that morality extends beyond questions of violence, like pornography, adultery etc.
It's positivism.
liberty student:Who are you to determine what is wrong for others?
Presumably you follow some kind of moral subjectivism. But as a libertarian, you must think that justice is objective.
So how do you justify saying that one part of morality — justice — is objective, and yet that the rest of morality is subjective?
liberty student:How can something voluntary be immoral?
Do you think it's immoral to peacefully advocate and promote statism?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage:But as a libertarian, you must think that justice is objective.
Why?
Sage:Do you think it's immoral to peacefully advocate and promote statism?
Of course not.
liberty student: Who are you to determine what is wrong for others?
It would only be possible to say what principles to use to determine what is right or wrong. A lot of things are not necessarily immoral. Usually only an individual can decide what is right or wrong based upon their values. But the key is to use principles rather than rules.
Sure you blame me. You've never taken responsibility for anything you do since I have known you*.
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:1) it is collectivistic whereas libertarianism is built around individualism.
The libertarian party, and families, and firms are 'collectivist' in the way you are using the word
Juan:2) it is fraud. You know, force and fraud, two things libertarians (usually) oppose....
libertarians are opposed to fraud that is de facto implicit theft. i.e. property has been extorted under false pretences. can you prove implicit theft?The challenge here would be to even attempt it on a case by case basis for everyone you have been calling religiously 'collectivised', since I doubt you can demonstrate property theft for the whole class at a stroke. (but maybe you can)
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
Sage: Presumably you follow some kind of moral subjectivism. But as a libertarian, you must think that justice is objective. So how do you justify saying that one part of morality — justice — is objective, and yet that the rest of morality is subjective?
You are starting to distinguish the conflict of 'ethical subjectivism' and through the same author [ Long ] I did no less.
Eioul: Yes, that is what I wanted to convey. But more specifically, what is wrong for an individual rather than socially.
Well perhaps the wrong words on my part. I meant the realm of social interaction. Not necessarily legal dealings.
Eioul:I'm not suggesting this is a libertarian definition of morality, but libertarianism is not an ethical philosophy anyway. Purely a political philosophy.
Well its not a philosophy of life per say. It does have ethical implications. It establishes what is and isn't wrong in terms of legal theory. There are sphere of morality beyond libertarianism like whether pornography is good or bad, is smoking good? etc.
Eioul:It would only be possible to say what principles to use to determine what is right or wrong. A lot of things are not necessarily immoral. Usually only an individual can decide what is right or wrong based upon their values. But the key is to use principles rather than rules.
Are you going to answer my question, or continue to evade it?
Juan:LS, you know I answered your questions before. But I admit there's another possibility. You lost your memory... Anyway, to recap : Revealed religion is a collectivistic fraud. It's at odds with libertarianism for two key reasons 1) it is collectivistic whereas libertarianism is built around individualism. 2) it is fraud. You know, force and fraud, two things libertarians (usually) oppose.... So, all you have is a strawman, that is, suggesting that I would like to use force to interfere with 'voluntary' collectivism and fraud. Of course I won't but that doesn't mean I won't call liars liars.
Wonderful hand waving Juan. By why can't you answer my questions? Are people who practice revealed religion frauds? Are they behaving in an unlibertarian manner? We both know that the people behind LvMI, many are theists. You have taken some cheap shots now and then, but let's get to the bottom of your obsession with religion, and whether it is actually compatible with your own definition of libertarianism. That is if you have the moral courage to avoid watering down and obfuscating, and being direct about your views you normally have no problem promoting here.
Juan:Now, with respect to your position
My position wasn't part of the debate. This is simply more obfuscation. You're trying to defend your position, by undermining your questioner for being a subjective ethicist. But that's another debate I would be happy to have with you. However, in this context of this discussion, it is simply dishonest ad hom.
Juan:you don't know me.
On the contrary, I know you by your actions, not these middle of the road words you use to hide behind. You've got a reputation as attacking people for their personal views, and personal habits, while proclaiming libertarian superiority. That's not my opinion, that is observable fact.
The question is, will you be honest with us when confronted on it, or will you attempt to avoid responsibility for the things you have said. The choice is yours.
Laughing Man:You are starting to distinguish the conflict of 'ethical subjectivism' and through the same author [ Long ] I did no less.
The me-tooism on losing arguments doesn't help your cause. So far, Sage has only made assertions, not discoveries.
Sage:Presumably you follow some kind of moral subjectivism. But as a libertarian, you must think that justice is objective.
Sage,
I am a subjectivist libertarian And this is what i mean by that.
My subjective values are such that I regard ALL murder, theft, and enslavement as wrong, and violent retribution for such crimes as right.
I do not pretend such values exist outside of my own psyche.
Nonetheless, I will band together with others of similar subjective values (including those admirable but confused folk who try to project their subjective values upon the cosmos) to actualize what we regard as justice.
I'll put it this way. I'm not suggesting I'm the one who is determining what is right or wrong. Rather, it is what people are and what is required to live and flourish (somewhat like virtue ethics, as far as I know) that determines what is right or wrong. It should not be determined by decree from people or by some deity. That implies living in regard to your self-interest and being a rational person. That is why being irrational and acting in someone else's interests rather than your own is immoral.
Eioul:I'll put it this way.
I wish you would just answer the question.
Eioul:I'm not suggesting I'm the one who is determining what is right or wrong.
Ultimately you are. Because you don't use the word "rational" the way an Austrian would. You use it the way an Objectivist would, that is what is rational, is what is good, not what is rational, is a connection between action and objective. Ultimately, the only way to determine what is rational by your reasoning, is what you perceive as being in someone's interests. Because if you perceive their end as differently from how they determine it, one of you is being irrational.
Eioul:Rather, it is what people are and what is required to live and flourish (somewhat like virtue ethics, as far as I know) that determines what is right or wrong.
Who determines what is required to live and flourish? This is where objective ethics start to tread close to collectivism.
liberty student:This is where objective ethics start to tread close to collectivism.
please,lets not conflate all strands of objective ethics.
nirgrahamUK:please,lets not conflate all strands of objective ethics.
I didn't conflate anything.
well; that's aright then.
Nir:The libertarian party, and families, and firms are 'collectivist' in the way you are using the word
libertarians are opposed to fraud that is de facto implicit theft.
can you prove implicit theft?
LS: Are people who practice revealed religion frauds?
Are they behaving in an unlibertarian manner?
We both know that the people behind LvMI, many are theists. You have taken some cheap shots now and then,
LS: J: Now, with respect to your position My position wasn't part of the debate.
J: Now, with respect to your position
You're trying to defend your position, by undermining your questioner for being a subjective ethicist.
Juan:No. To begin with, a family is different from a business and a business is different from a statist political party.
irrelevant, we know there are differences between the things I mentioned. the point was your definition of collectivism is so loose and expansive it encompasses things that are plainly compatible with libertarianism and individualism properly understood.
Juan:Now, families do come close to collectivism.
Juan: You don't choose your family members.
Juan:depending on where you are born, your parents will even choose your wife for you. Doesn't sound very libertarian does it ?
some 'families' are indeed based on force and are on their face unlibertarian, and others aren't. just like some individuals act through force and are on their face unlibertarian. but you must readily admit, that there are inidividuals and families that are not based on force, and are libertarian, they are collectivist in the loose sense, and not collectivist in the technical/important/what-we-talk-about-all-day-on-this-forum-sense.
Juan: Doesn't sound very libertarian either
the point was your definition of collectivism is so loose and expansive it encompasses things that are plainly compatible with libertarianism and individualism properly understood.
if they 'come close' but don't reach it, there's no issue right? right.
it doesnt sound like clear thinking on your part,
Lilburne:Nonetheless, I will band together with others of similar subjective values (including those admirable but confused folk who try to project their subjective values upon the cosmos) to actualize what we regard as justice.
Ah but what if you are waylayed by an individual who is not of your community? Is he/she or isn't he/she obligated to respect your person and property?
My understanding of collectivism is Misesian '
Mises:If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual's actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being. Then one cannot evade the question whose ends take precedence whenever an antagonism arises, those of the state or society or those of the individual. The answer to this question is already implied in the very concept of state or society as conceived by collectivism and universalism. If one postulates the existence of an entity which ex definitione is higher, nobler, and better than the individuals, then there cannot be any doubt that the aims of this eminent being must tower above those of the wretched individuals. (It is true that some lovers of paradox — for instance, Max Stirner — took pleasure in turning the matter upside down and for all that asserted the precedence of the individual.) If society or state is an entity endowed with volition and intention and all the other qualities attributed to it by the collectivist doctrine, then it is simply nonsensical to set the shabby individual's trivial aims against its lofty designs.
Mises: The main characteristic of collectivism is that it does not take notice of the individuals will and moral self-determination.
liberty student: Who determines what is required to live and flourish? This is where objective ethics start to tread close to collectivism.
Not who but what. The facts of reality can help one figure out what is right or wrong. And since we're both humans, there are some things that are proper and therefore happen to be moral for both of us. Such as individuality and reason. Is pornography moral or immoral? There is no *absolute* answer. Most things are moral or not depending on the reasons for doing so (or reasons for valuing) and how those relate to an individual's values. I'm not a mind reader so I can't know what someone's reasons are without asking them.
Trees require water to live. If a tree is to live, it ought to use water. But trees cannot think or choose, so it is pointless to discuss what a tree "ought" to do. In fact, a question of ought can only apply to anything with volition (aka humans). This sort of knowledge is discovered through observation and other means of reasoning.
I can't answer anything about a "who" determining what is right or wrong. It is the facts of reality that would determine what is right or wrong. What is right or wrong isn't "hard coded" (i.e. Thou Shalt Nots). It is based on principles.
Clearly, all this rests on other philosophical questions such as "What is knowledge? Is reality really real? How do I know what I observe is valid?" so I don't know if anything I just suggested is proof of anything to you.
So you still have no answer? You promote objective reality while admitting you can't define it. You claim theists are collectivist, but can't explain why. You claim religion is immoral, but you can't define morality.
This is very disappointing. I don't see any point in continuing. There is only so much meandering and equivocation I can pay attention to.
Juan: Well, I think there's a difference between the people who are victims of fraud and the people who do the preaching....
Tom Woods has written books about Catholicism. Is he preaching fraud?
Juan:Yes, and I've no problem saying that when they talk about religion they are fraudsters. Furthermore, their mixing politics and religion is nuts. And I believe that one of the reasons they oppose the current state is because they favor theocracy, not because they love liberty.
I want to be sure I understand this as you mean it. People like Ron Paul, Bob Murphy and Lew Rockwell are fraudsters. Is this correct?
Juan: You are saying something, no ? You are defending something ? You are arguing some point ? I though so...
No, I am clarifying your attacks on members of LvMI in conflict with the forum rules.
Juan:You are attacking my moral position
No, you claimed to be libertarian, but you hold collectivist views. I am attempting to clarify if you are libertarian or not.
Juan:Again, what do I need to take 'responsibility' for ?
If you're going to continue posting here, you will have to take responsiblity for when you post false claims or insults about Misesians.
liberty student: So you still have no answer? You promote objective reality while admitting you can't define it. You claim theists are collectivist, but can't explain why. You claim religion is immoral, but you can't define morality.
I did answer, I tried to explain that you shouldn't be asking that question since it was phrased in such a way that traps me into saying right or wrong is subjective i.e. only determined by an individual and however an individual simply feels, or to admit I'm a hypocrite who is trying to act as god, decreeing by my own will what is good or bad. Both answers are incorrect. And those are the only answers for such a question. So it had to be rephrased to be answered in an intelligible way without simply saying "that's a stupid question".
A theist is necessarily collectivist because it is subjugating oneself to the will of their god or even their church and abandoning their own values for some greater power's values.
Morality is what one ought to do (in general, as in applied to any and all moral philosophy). Or more specifically for my point of view on ethics, what is *good* for one to do.
I do not see where you think I admitted to being unable to define objective reality. I'll define now then; it is reality as it is. As in reality isn't just a result of my consciousness but exists independent whether or not I were alive.
Now I can explain a lot more in depth why I think any and all theism is collectivist, but that is far more than I intended to talk about when I first posted in this topic. Maybe I'll make a post about it some other time.
Eioul:I did answer, I tried to explain that you shouldn't be asking that question since it was phrased in such a way that traps me into saying right or wrong is subjective
But right and wrong are subjective, you are trying to claim they are objective, and rooted outside of our individual preferences.
Eioul:A theist is necessarily collectivist because it is subjugating oneself to the will of their god or even their church and abandoning their own values for some greater power's values.
If that was true, that's not collectivist.
Eioul:Morality is what one ought to do (in general, as in applied to any and all moral philosophy). Or more specifically for my point of view on ethics, what is *good* for one to do.
So morality is positive?
Eioul:As in reality isn't just a result of my consciousness but exists independent whether or not I were alive.
Can you exist without your consciousness?
Eioul:Now I can explain a lot more in depth why I think any and all theism is collectivist, but that is far more than I intended to talk about when I first posted in this topic.
I don't think you need to. But you still haven't made a case for how theism is immoral by any objective standard. You're not even able to make the case it is collectivistic.
I'm an atheist btw, I just hate bad argumentation against theism. I also don't think it is necessary in a libertarian society. Whether someone believes in nothing, or Buddha, or Mohammad or practices zen, is completely irrelevant to the issues of a free society. Those are preferences, no different from sexual preferences, food preferences, entertainment preferences etc.
To summarize, YOU can FEEL that theism is immoral, but you can't prove it. You certainly would be acting immorally to oppose it with force.
I think you're an objectivist right? We're going to have big gaps between Rand's arbitrary objectivism [sic] and libertarian anarchism. Ancap can be consistent, objectivism cannot.
liberty student: But right and wrong are subjective, you are trying to claim they are objective, and rooted outside of our individual preferences.
There is an objective right or wrong, depending on the particular context.
I think I see what you mean. It is possible to abandon your own values to some deity's values and still not put the "collective" first. I'm not sure of any religions that aren't collectivist though, except maybe like Satanism or similar religion. In either case, religion is always irrational and anti-individual (see the Mises quote from earlier)... That's why it is bad.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. What is good for an individual is thinking and self-interest. Anything that is against that is bad.
Yeah, I can. I just wouldn't realize that I exist.
I'm an atheist btw, I just hate bad argumentation against theism. I also don't think it is necessary in a libertarian society.
That is true, it isn't exactly necessary. I could care less what someone else is doing if my rights are not being violated.
Don't you mean that you FEEL it would be acting immorally to oppose it with force? Who are you to say it is immoral to oppose it with force?
I think you're an objectivist right?
I would not call myself one (since I don't agree on the reasoning about government among a few other things), but obviously my ethics are heavily influenced.
I don't plan to respond further; not because I'm evading you, but because it's important to recognize when I'm not getting anything of further importance in this discussion.
LS:No, I am clarifying your attacks on members of LvMI in conflict with the forum rules.
Nir - Mises: The main characteristic of collectivism is that it does not take notice of the individuals will and moral self-determination.
Juan: I think that an institution like revealed religion is a great example of collectivistic thinking at work.
oh, you single out revealed religion since you find that Aboriginals belief in 'The Dreaming' to be compatible with individualism?