wilderness:I am simply saying liberty is better than tyranny. Don't you agree? I think sometimes it's over-complicated. The issue. Liberty is better. I like it. It is good. I don't want to live in tyranny. etc, etc...
Yes, I agree; liberty, in my opinion, is a right granted to us by our creator. But, if god and objective ethics are merely illusory, why shouldn't I become a tyrant and get whatever I can, by any means necessary?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
i leave that question for whomever it may concern.
good night
Esuric: Yes, I agree; liberty, in my opinion, is a right granted to us by our creator. But, if god and objective ethics are merely illusory, why shouldn't I become a tyrant and get whatever I can, by any means necessary?
Conscience, consequences, economics, perhaps what you want is a free market...
Angurse:Conscience, consequences, economics, perhaps what you want is a free market...
From a societal point of view that makes sense. But can we really say that an individual, who strategically pursues hedonism, is acting immorally?
Esuric:From a societal point of view that makes sense. But can we really say that an individual, who strategically pursues pure hedonism, is acting immorally?
Sure, just like we can say that someone who wears neon pink sweat pants has bad taste.
Angurse:Sure, just like we can say that someone who wears neon pink sweat pants has bad taste.
So you think morality is a social convention?
Esuric:So you think morality is a social convention?
Its a subjective preference, as such society does play some role in its formulation.
Esuric:Yes, I agree; liberty, in my opinion, is a right granted to us by our creator.
Your other question, when asked in a serious manner, would indict you as the type of person most would not want to deal with.
Angurse:Its a subjective preference, as such society does play some role in its formulation.
A Saudi man, then, is morally within his right to beat his wife if she looks at another man, say, the doorman.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Your other question, when asked in a serious manner, would indict you as the type of person most would not want to deal with.
Well you wouldn't know that. I wouldn't advertise it.
Esuric:A Saudi man, then, is morally within his right to beat his wife if she looks at another man, say, the doorman.
He is as moral as the fellow wearing pink trousers is tasteful.
I should leave philosophy for the philosophizers.
Esuric:Well you wouldn't know that. I wouldn't advertise it.
Esuric: But, if god and objective ethics are merely illusory, why shouldn't I become a tyrant and get whatever I can, by any means necessary?
But, if god and objective ethics are merely illusory, why shouldn't I become a tyrant and get whatever I can, by any means necessary?
Esuric:But, if god and objective ethics are merely illusory, why shouldn't I become a tyrant and get whatever I can, by any means necessary?
Because you probably have a normal conscience, and I know from your posts that you have a good understanding of Austrian economics. (See my earlier post.)
Lilburne: Because you probably have a normal conscience, and I know from your posts that you have a good understanding of Austrian economics. (See my earlier post.)
I don't believe any of that bullshit, but that's not what I'm investigating. I'm trying to figure out why I don't believe any of that bullshit; is it because of social norms burned into my psyche, or because of something else?
Esuric:is it because of social norms burned into my psyche, or because of something else?
Both?
Angurse:Both?
Well, 'something else' is a little vague, don't you think?
Esuric:Well, 'something else' is a little vague, don't you think?
Yeah, you could probably spend your entire life trying to figure out what exactly drives our personalities, genetics, culture, environment,... and then you could spend another life figuring out which ones are more important than others. I just don't care.
Angurse:I just don't care.
Yeah, well that was a point I was trying to make in another discussion. People take what they believe to be obvious matters of fact for granted. They don't ask the tough questions.
E. R. Olovetto: zefreak: Solid_Choke: Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn't say that application of Jasay's reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren't in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched. I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism 'relatively untouched'. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP. Why? Stuff like this is why I usually don't bother with these 10+ page threads on natural rights. Also, why do you say "a central [tenet]" rather than "the central tenet", as if there is something else?
zefreak: Solid_Choke: Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn't say that application of Jasay's reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren't in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched. I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism 'relatively untouched'. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP.
Solid_Choke: Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn't say that application of Jasay's reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren't in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched.
Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn't say that application of Jasay's reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren't in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched.
I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism 'relatively untouched'. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP.
Why? Stuff like this is why I usually don't bother with these 10+ page threads on natural rights. Also, why do you say "a central [tenet]" rather than "the central tenet", as if there is something else?
I would argue that the NAP by itself cannot be the foundation for Rothbardian ethics. The Homesteading Principle plays as large a part of forming his ethics as the NAP.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Damn guys, this is getting awfully off topic.
Maybe i need to explain it further. What I mean is, why keep the libertarian ethical argument in ones head when reasoning how to act. That argument is often a (or the) counter balance for doing otherwise useful stuff (making money from the state, using state power for self interests, exploiting the non-libertarian aspects of intellectual and regular property, etc).
The Lilburne manifesto and other answers just seemed to say "'cause it feels right". This seems like a mystical fantasy to me, not unlike any religion or cult. I think that having that as the basis for libertarianism puts it on the level of a religion, nothing else. I do feel its affects from time to time, but given that ignoring it is not hypocritical or contradictory at all, why not do so?
nandnor: If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism? Why go through the trouble to make the world better and more libertarian instead of pragmatically making one's own life better and more comfortable, whatever its ideological implications be? Why even acknowledge moral ideas for oneself instead of ignoring any kind and working from there? Letting go of the morals seems like letting go of a big burden to me.
If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism? Why go through the trouble to make the world better and more libertarian instead of pragmatically making one's own life better and more comfortable, whatever its ideological implications be?
Why even acknowledge moral ideas for oneself instead of ignoring any kind and working from there? Letting go of the morals seems like letting go of a big burden to me.
There can be nothing more than a personal answer to your justified question. Here's my own: I restrain from taking the “look the other way” path, avoid getting involved in politics, even by “mere” voting, let alone by actively plundering my conationals, although there is a 99% chance that this would be my only way of living in anarchy (at the price of imposing slavery on others), I renounce all such things not out of a mystical belief in “objective” morality, but simply because thus my own utility is maximized, my own desire is satisfied. Nothing more that that can “compel” you to be a libertarian, or justify the philosophy.
nandnor:Maybe i need to explain it further. What I mean is, why keep the libertarian ethical argument in ones head when reasoning how to act. That argument is often a (or the) counter balance for doing otherwise useful stuff (making money from the state, using state power for self interests, exploiting the non-libertarian aspects of intellectual and regular property, etc)
Because the intrinsic structures of libertarianism are against using the state for dominance. We would be contradicting the means/ends of libertarianism if we say put everyone and concentration camp and told them they were free. People can do such but I wouldn't call them libertarians. They are something else.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
nandnor:What I mean is, why keep the libertarian ethical argument in ones head when reasoning how to act.
The so-called libertarian ethical arguments only apply to political theory in a monopoly context (they could of course still be useful in jurisprudence). In the case of the old libertarians and classical liberals, this monopoly context was minarchy.
Under minarchy, you need libertarian principles to justify government actions and restrictions on those actions.
What I think has happened is libertarianism has started to move away from the monopoly paradigm, into anarchism or panarchism as a dominant political theory instead of minarchism. I think the switch from monopoly to non-monopoly is a fundamental paradigm shift that has caught many off guard - including Rothbard, Hoppe, and many others. This becomes obvious when, for example, an advocate of anarchy (entailing no monopoly on force) implies that certain rules (such as the NAP) will be upheld absolutely in a given society, without making it clear that this is just an educated guess at how things will turn out.
As for reasoning how to act, we all will do this in our own self-interest, under a sufficiently broad definition of self-interest (to include empathy for others, any religion one follows, etc.). How best to further one's own self-interest is a huge question and I think quite beyond the scope of this discussion.
Why anarchy fails
nandnor:The Lilburne manifesto and other answers just seemed to say "'cause it feels right". This seems like a mystical fantasy to me, not unlike any religion or cult. I think that having that as the basis for libertarianism puts it on the level of a religion, nothing else. I do feel its affects from time to time, but given that ignoring it is not hypocritical or contradictory at all, why not do so?
I think you have it backwards. People who believe in some higher ethic - an objective ethic - that has not been proven are at the level of cult/relgion. Having libertarianism grounded in consequences, economic science, epistemology, and selfishness seems to be far more realistic.
monopoly, not a monopoly, these are old concepts. nothing new.
Angurse,
when i think of "cause it feels right" the first thing that pops into my head is Obama's personality cult and the waves of people standing in the massaive crowd in Chicago when he gave his acceptance speech. Politicans are not reasonable. There isn't one government theory that holds intellectual water. Politicans therefore are the archetype of how to rouse the feelings of others and how to make others feel like they are independent and can feel inspired to do something individually. so many people cried for joy that day...lol... it made me laugh so loud. Politicans have a knack for making a larger amount of people feel that what the politican is saying is what they have felt for so long. The individuals in the crowd feel he is saying what they have been feeling individually all this time. Politicans know how to tap into this. They don't have reasons to offer to they go with emotional appeal.
wilderness:when i think of "cause it feels right" the first thing that pops into my head is Obama's personality cult and the waves of people standing in the massaive crowd in Chicago when he gave his acceptance speech. Politicans are not reasonable. There isn't one government theory that holds intellectual water. Politicans therefore are the archetype of how to rouse the feelings of others and how to make others feel like they are independent and can feel inspired to do something individually. so many people cried for joy that day...lol... it made me laugh so loud. Politicans have a knack for making a larger amount of people feel that what the politican is saying is what they have felt for so long. The individuals in the crowd feel he is saying what they have been feeling individually all this time. Politicans know how to tap into this. They don't have reasons to offer to they go with emotional appeal.
Good point, whenever a country is facing a crisis situation it is the emotions that are appealed to, not reason.
nandnor:Damn guys, this is getting awfully off topic. Maybe i need to explain it further. What I mean is, why keep the libertarian ethical argument in ones head when reasoning how to act. That argument is often a (or the) counter balance for doing otherwise useful stuff (making money from the state, using state power for self interests, exploiting the non-libertarian aspects of intellectual and regular property, etc). The Lilburne manifesto and other answers just seemed to say "'cause it feels right". This seems like a mystical fantasy to me, not unlike any religion or cult. I think that having that as the basis for libertarianism puts it on the level of a religion, nothing else. I do feel its affects from time to time, but given that ignoring it is not hypocritical or contradictory at all, why not do so?
If objective moreality does exist, then what justifies libertarianism? Nuthin', and doesn't matter.
nandnor:If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?
Some would consider not having sex before marriage to be moral and it's opposite to be immoral. This is the subjective part. The objective part has to do with stealing when not faced with an instinctual situation, i.e. steal or starve.
If you steal you will piss off the person from whom you stole. The objective moral here is NAP. Violence initiated leads to consumption. Consumption=destruction. If this principle were subjective, then we would not need anyone to produce anything. The moral is objective in the sense that the more it is adhered to, the more prosperous the aggregate population is. It is also objective in that the less it is adhered to the greater the number of people are denied justice. Every time you justify a violation of the NAP you help tip the balance of two forces Liberty/Violence in favor of violence. Likewise, if you adhere you tip the scales the other way.
Morality is subjective, because every man justifies his action before acting. Morals are what humans use to justify their actions and deter negative emotions e.g. guilt, shame, helplessness, solitude.
The term Moral Compass is a metaphor used to convey the message that the journey of life is difficult, and that if you use this compass to find your way, then you will find joy in your life, and that if you ever lose your way to refer back to that compass.
It is in this sense that morality is objective.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Wilderness,
Your absolutely right. But I'm not defending libertarianism on the "cause it feels right" appeal. I'm not trying to appeal to peoples emotions to persuade them, nor am I telling them they are acting immoral because of some objective ethic or natural law - I cannot see much difference between that and just saying "because God says so." I reakky don't find justification along moral or ethical lines. Rather, I've argued for its basis through logic and epistemology. I find this to be a far more rational approach. (A politician would never try such a thing!)
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."
Saan:Morality is subjective, because every man justifies his action before acting.
Angurse: Your absolutely right. But I'm not defending libertarianism on the "cause it feels right" appeal. I'm not trying to appeal to peoples emotions to persuade them, nor am I telling them they are acting immoral because of some objective ethic or natural law - I cannot see much difference between that and just saying "because God says so." I reakky don't find justification along moral or ethical lines. Rather, I've argued for its basis through logic and epistemology. I find this to be a far more rational approach. (A politician would never try such a thing!)
Well throughout the history of natural law, natural law has always meant intellectual law. It is logic and epistemology, metaphysics, etc... It wasn't until Spinoza and Hobbes came along and changed the definition of natural to mean where the beasts roam and that the state is legitimate cause it is bringing civilization out of the beastly inclinations of nature. They completely perverted what natural meant in natural law for their own manipulative ends. History is a war of definitions over the labels, at times, and sometimes it can be tracked down on who started spreading the lies, in this case, Hobbes and Spinoza.
I'm going through History of Economic Thought vol. I for the Mises book club [ which everyone should join ] and I'm surprised how much history there is to natural law written by Rothbard. It's good stuff.
I agree. All I am saying is that men act on false justifications. They use morals to reach these justifications.
Laughing Man: I'm going through History of Economic Thought vol. I for the Mises book club [ which everyone should join ] and I'm surprised how much history there is to natural law written by Rothbard. It's good stuff.
Maybe that's a book I'm closer to reading. Currently I'm reading "Economics in One Lesson", Adam's "Wealth of Nations" (that book is freakin' 900 pages), and Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle".
zefreak: E. R. Olovetto: zefreak: Solid_Choke: Arguments using epistemological premises AND ethical premises ARE NOT epistemological arguments (in the way that I stipulated it). Also, I didn't say that application of Jasay's reasoning leads one to accept the NAP. Instead it shows that statists (and anyone who would restrict liberty) aren't in a position to know what they must know in order for their arguments to pull their own weight. They literally require what is unthinkable in order to justify statism. Of course they could reject any attempt to justify statism altogether and simply do it whether they have a reason or not and the epistemological arguments for libertarianism would have nothing to say about it. You must look beyond epistemology to justify getting up in the morning, but epistemological arguments tear the hell out of statism while basically leaving libertarianism relatively untouched. I agree with this, although I think epistemological arguments do much more than leave libertarianism 'relatively untouched'. It destroys a central tenant of libertarianism, the NAP. Why? Stuff like this is why I usually don't bother with these 10+ page threads on natural rights. Also, why do you say "a central [tenet]" rather than "the central tenet", as if there is something else? I would argue that the NAP by itself cannot be the foundation for Rothbardian ethics. The Homesteading Principle plays as large a part of forming his ethics as the NAP.
I don't agree with Rothbard on some things... Anyhow, I'm sorry but you are confused. Neo-Lockean homesteading, property rights, proportionality, etc. are all corollary to (deduced from) the non-aggression principle.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.