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."
wilderness:I've posted before that I think a better term would be pan-theory, but such a theory in this context is always based on the axiom of property rights. The ethical and economical argument on how best to deal with scarcity, ie. property.
Juan: wilderness:I've posted before that I think a better term would be pan-theory, but such a theory in this context is always based on the axiom of property rights. The ethical and economical argument on how best to deal with scarcity, ie. property. Well, do you think that panarchy assumes a common/universal understanding of property rights ?
No.
Juan: Or else panarchy means that different 'governments' provide their own definitions ?
It does.
Juan: In the first case you have libertarianism and on top of it a second layer of 'voluntary government' which seems to be a pretty odd construction.
Voluntary adherence to any society is a respect of the liberty of any one person, so, there again the root issue comes up again. But I answered "No" to the first question so this therefore differs from what you said here.
Juan:In the second case you have what we have now.
yes
Juan: A system where individuals are at the mercy of the 'majority' or at the mercy of the better organized criminal associations.
yes or it could go the other way, a system at the mercy of liberty-lovers. The world is dynamic.
Thus why I don't like the term panarchy. It's an attempt to make a static definition of the world without an acknowledgement of what an individual may desire ala liberty.
BUT if panarchy is defined simply in what I see it to mean, ie. pan-theory, then it does accomplish defining the world in terms of anarchy but not in terms of liberty and the pursuit of justice. Panarchy is void in quarreling with injustice. It is void of an individuals motive. It simply says, here's justice, here's injustice and panarchy takes note of both of these existing. But it's void of motive of the act of justice. It's a positivist, sterile theory in my opinion. Because there are various theories based on property and communism is one of them. But if somebody wants to live under communism in anarchy so be it, but obviously their application of a flawed theory on property/scarcity will cause unnecessary problems for such a society.
AJ:That way it's easier to see how someone could be non-libertarian (they want a welfare state for their society) but tolerant (they will allow you to opt out).
I don't understand this. If someone allows you to opt out of their welfare state, how are they a non-libertarian?
And on the "tolerance" issue, the heart of the matter seems to be this: Would your panarchist legal system tolerate the existence of non-panarchist legal systems?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Juan:Did you read the original presentation of panarchy ? http://web.archive.org/web/20071111152004/http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html
I tried to read it, but it is written in a torturous manner. Is there a shorter version that isn't based in this annoying and needlessly verbose style?
Also, I think you know what people here mean by panarchy. If you do not, I think we can reference this,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html
which I am sure you have read before.
So, if we understand what I mean by panarchy, can you;
1) verify we are talking about the same thing
and
2) explain your issues with my conception (if you have any)
Thanks.
LS,
Taken from that link:
"Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed."
If that's what in essence panarchy means, then that's what I mean by the natural right of liberty.
The only quarrel I have with this concept is some people, and I haven't seen you do it but others here in this forum that advocate panarchy, take it as a theory void of motive. What I mean by that is it does boil down to consent or voluntarism, etc..., but some people thereby don't want to uphold that position because in panarchy there can be people that are criminally minded so if that's how they want to live, ie. criminally minded, then that's fine because it is panarchy of course. It's a theory of panarchy void of passion (motive). AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights. How is that panarchy? AJ, in my opinion, has never been a good spokesman for what panarchy means. He usually slides into some quibble about 'words are not thoughts' and usually doesn't comes back to a discussion.
So if the above is essentially panarchy (that which I quoted) then I have no quarrel with it.
wilderness: "Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed." If that's what in essence panarchy means, then that's what I mean by the natural right of liberty.
well, thats simply a libertarian anarchy with a letter P in front of the anarchy.
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
nirgrahamUK: wilderness: "Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed." If that's what in essence panarchy means, then that's what I mean by the natural right of liberty. well, thats simply a libertarian anarchy with a letter P in front of the anarchy.
I know.
And I don't get it either. It is a name change like those previously named Austrians economists who changed their website name.
edit: Also notice in the first sentence the definition begins with "which each person is at liberty to choose"... ala natural rights. *shrugs*
wilderness:The only quarrel I have with this concept is some people, and I haven't seen you do it but others here in this forum that advocate panarchy, take it as a theory void of motive.
Not void of motive. We know that man acts, and thus man has motives. The folks I think you are referring to, as far as I know, do agree with the action axiom.
wilderness:What I mean by that is it does boil down to consent or voluntarism, etc..., but some people thereby don't want to uphold that position because in panarchy there can be people that are criminally minded so if that's how they want to live, ie. criminally minded, then that's fine because it is panarchy of course.
I believe that this isn't correct and has lead to a lot of arguments that were unnecessary. Some people may want to live criminally minded, and I do not. And I do not wish to live victim minded either, so we will have conflict (as Rozeff says, utopia is not possible) and will have to resolve it.
wilderness:It's a theory of panarchy void of passion (motive)
I would strongly disagree. I consider myself a panarchist by this standard, and I am not void of passion. I am incredibly passionate (sometimes to my detriment).
wilderness:AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights. How is that panarchy? AJ, in my opinion, has never been a good spokesman for what panarchy means. He usually slides into some quibble about 'words are not thoughts' and usually doesn't comes back to a discussion.
I think AJ can do a poor job of explaining himself some times, but to think he could be the spokesman for something polycentric doesn't seem quite right to me.
wilderness:So if the above is essentially panarchy (that which I quoted) then I have no quarrel with it.
liberty student: wilderness:The only quarrel I have with this concept is some people, and I haven't seen you do it but others here in this forum that advocate panarchy, take it as a theory void of motive. Not void of motive. We know that man acts, and thus man has motives. The folks I think you are referring to, as far as I know, do agree with the action axiom.
i don't think I explained this very well. What I meant by the void of motive has more to do with your next response so I'll address that there.
liberty student: wilderness:What I mean by that is it does boil down to consent or voluntarism, etc..., but some people thereby don't want to uphold that position because in panarchy there can be people that are criminally minded so if that's how they want to live, ie. criminally minded, then that's fine because it is panarchy of course. I believe that this isn't correct and has lead to a lot of arguments that were unnecessary. Some people may want to live criminally minded, and I do not. And I do not wish to live victim minded either, so we will have conflict (as Rozeff says, utopia is not possible) and will have to resolve it.
The motive aspect is referring to the act of resolution, ie. "resolve it". As you say so do I: I do not wish to live victim minded. The act of justice is motivated by the individual who is in the act of bringing resolution. I don't see justice working any other way, other than individuals either supporting or directly involved in the acting out of justice. And without justice, ie. bringing resolution, then moral agents will be spinning wheels forever. And to bring justice doesn't mean 'go after the bastards'. It can mean going quietly along staying focused on ones family and finding ways to keep the ones individual niche in the market humming along. It doesn't have to be that exciting like going off to find the holy grail full of adventures slaying the dragon and rescuing damsels in distress. I think sometimes people think there has to be all this excitement and making change today kinda thing. I think it's being patient and sustaining what good I already have and possibly more good may come along and I will be thankful.
liberty student: wilderness:It's a theory of panarchy void of passion (motive) I would strongly disagree. I consider myself a panarchist by this standard, and I am not void of passion. I am incredibly passionate (sometimes to my detriment).
Ok. In what I wrote in the previous response may entail why I wrote void of passion. But you like justice, or want to find ways to make resolutions so you're not void of passion.
liberty student: wilderness:AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights. How is that panarchy? AJ, in my opinion, has never been a good spokesman for what panarchy means. He usually slides into some quibble about 'words are not thoughts' and usually doesn't comes back to a discussion. I think AJ can do a poor job of explaining himself some times, but to think he could be the spokesman for something polycentric doesn't seem quite right to me.
true. 'spokesman for any group' that is anarchic is like a tribe having somebody step forward saying they are the chief. there really were no chiefs.
wilderness:The act of justice is motivated by the individual who is in the act of bringing resolution. I don't see justice working any other way, other than individuals either supporting or directly involved in the acting out of justice. And without justice, ie. bringing resolution, then moral agents will be spinning wheels forever.
I think I understand this. And I agree with the following caveat (if it is not implict). Justice is not a universal notion. What you think is just may differ from what I think is just. The way we resolve issues of justice where definitions differ are through negotiation, compromise, compensation and finally through violent conflict.
The lesson from people like Hoppe is that by forcing people with different views under a universal system, conflict is created. Natural order is niche based (perhaps below the feudal level, to the individual level). Panarchy. It is not a singular notion of what is law, property, justice etc. And it is utopian to think that we can achieve such an absolute understanding, because even if we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people still have free will to believe otherwise. That is why Christians, Atheists and Buddhists can all think they have it figured out simultaneously. And they could all be wrong and the Hindus might know what they do not.
The trick here being, in a utopian panarchy, people would not think the same thing, they would not act in a manner which causes conflict. And I feel that is the aim of libertarianism. Maybe it is splitting hairs, but the distinction is important to me.
My transformation really occurred between D. Friedman and Nassim Taleb. I stopped seeing morality exclusively as an intellectual argument and began to appreciate that my morals are limited by my capacity to perceive reality. Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, our perception of what is natural order cannot account for unknown unknowns, and so the idea of absolutes, while comforting and somewhat reliable, might not withstand the test of time.
wilderness:true. 'spokesman for any group' that is anarchic is like a tribe having somebody step forward saying they are the chief. there really were no chiefs.
Yep. No disrespect to AJ. I think he knows I think a lot of him and his ability to reason.
Htut: I went from B to A.
I went from B to A.
Tell us more about your journey. Like what kind of anarchy were you imagining when you were an anarchist but not a libertarian?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
liberty student: Justice is not a universal notion. What you think is just may differ from what I think is just. The way we resolve issues of justice where definitions differ are through negotiation, compromise, compensation and finally through violent conflict. The lesson from people like Hoppe is that by forcing people with different views under a universal system, conflict is created. Natural order is niche based (perhaps below the feudal level, to the individual level). Panarchy. It is not a singular notion of what is law, property, justice etc. And it is utopian to think that we can achieve such an absolute understanding, because even if we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people [could] still have free will to believe otherwise. My transformation really occurred between D. Friedman and Nassim Taleb. I stopped seeing morality exclusively as an intellectual argument and began to appreciate that my morals are limited by my capacity to perceive reality. Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, our perception of what is natural order cannot account for unknown unknowns, and so the idea of absolutes, while comforting...might not withstand the test of time.
The lesson from people like Hoppe is that by forcing people with different views under a universal system, conflict is created. Natural order is niche based (perhaps below the feudal level, to the individual level). Panarchy. It is not a singular notion of what is law, property, justice etc. And it is utopian to think that we can achieve such an absolute understanding, because even if we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people [could] still have free will to believe otherwise.
My transformation really occurred between D. Friedman and Nassim Taleb. I stopped seeing morality exclusively as an intellectual argument and began to appreciate that my morals are limited by my capacity to perceive reality. Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, our perception of what is natural order cannot account for unknown unknowns, and so the idea of absolutes, while comforting...might not withstand the test of time.
I added/subtracted one or two words to show my interpretation, but this was good stuff, LS. Should be posted (& elaborated?) @ NT, honestly. Would make for a perfect swan song before a long period of inactivity :)
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
liberty student: wilderness:The act of justice is motivated by the individual who is in the act of bringing resolution. I don't see justice working any other way, other than individuals either supporting or directly involved in the acting out of justice. And without justice, ie. bringing resolution, then moral agents will be spinning wheels forever. I think I understand this. And I agree with the following caveat (if it is not implict). Justice is not a universal notion. What you think is just may differ from what I think is just. The way we resolve issues of justice where definitions differ are through negotiation, compromise, compensation and finally through violent conflict.
yes. And to me, 'motive' entails motivation to uphold what one believes. Liberty is less of an active force than justice, I mean, when I am simply refraining, ie. negative liberty, it's more passive than say justice which involves resolution. Resolution isn't refraining. While I refrain, ie. negative liberty, I may not argue at all (and if one puts the burden of proof on me it would be a negative proof fallacy). But justice, though not as necessarily as passive as negative liberty, it does not mean that justice only involves violence. As you say here justice involves: "negotiation, compromise (not of principles I add as a caveat), compensation..." and yes if need be self-defense. Cause it would not be considered just if the violence was initiated.
liberty student:The lesson from people like Hoppe is that by forcing people with different views under a universal system, conflict is created. Natural order is niche based (perhaps below the feudal level, to the individual level). Panarchy. It is not a singular notion of what is law, property, justice etc. And it is utopian to think that we can achieve such an absolute understanding, because even if we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people still have free will to believe otherwise. That is why Christians, Atheists and Buddhists can all think they have it figured out simultaneously. And they could all be wrong and the Hindus might know what they do not.
true, but if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals. This all is natural rights and the result called anarchy given another name called panarchy.
liberty student:The trick here being, in a utopian panarchy, people would not think the same thing, they would not act in a manner which causes conflict. And I feel that is the aim of libertarianism. Maybe it is splitting hairs, but the distinction is important to me.
that's the result of liberty, ie. natural rights.
liberty student:My transformation really occurred between D. Friedman and Nassim Taleb. I stopped seeing morality exclusively as an intellectual argument and began to appreciate that my morals are limited by my capacity to perceive reality. Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, our perception of what is natural order cannot account for unknown unknowns, and so the idea of absolutes, while comforting and somewhat reliable, might not withstand the test of time.
that's a personal episteme change in your perspective. Knowledge will always change how principles are used. This really is how I've always thought about this. I've thought liberty results in free-thinkers. That's the whole idea behind not being aggressed against. The path to discovery is thereby kept open and not hindered by unnecessary violence. The discussion on natural rights for me has always been the bulwark to maintain all the lively, creativity in the human spirit if let unturnished by violence can reach a potential yet unknown. Talking about protecting natural rights for me has always been the activity meant for the front lines, close to conflict and how to resolve the conflict in a moral way. But it's what's happening back home, away from the front lines, that's what all this protection of natural rights is about. The real meat and potatoes of what is worth protecting is all the various paths each individual will walk in life doing all kinds of things that are creative and unique.
I think focusing on the absoluteness of natural rights as life's path, is, to forget that there is way more to life than constantly needing to protect it. Protecting life is a little detail. The bigger picture is what is being protected. And that's considerably unique for each person, tree, house, and so much else in this world. The worldviews and paths in life (the what is being protected) is the much larger picture. Natural rights for me are the fringe activity taken up, hopefully in time, less and less, because I don't want to have to constantly need to protect life - but - rather live the life that is being protected.
Some economists I think also get too narrow on this point too. To be value-free becomes a life's path. It becomes only what life is about for them. But I think dressing up life and applying/labeling all sort of values on different aspects of life, non-violently, can be fun and creative.
it's a good perspective to have and I'm glad you have that.
Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years,
Sage: AJ:That way it's easier to see how someone could be non-libertarian (they want a welfare state for their society) but tolerant (they will allow you to opt out). I don't understand this. If someone allows you to opt out of their welfare state, how are they a non-libertarian?
Exactly I think the reason for the theory of panarchy in the first place, as somehow different from anarchy or AnCap, is that so far there has been this underlying sense that, for example, all private courts would be dispensing some basic law template, and that the competition would only be between providers of this service, not between legal systems.
Sage:And on the "tolerance" issue, the heart of the matter seems to be this: Would your panarchist legal system tolerate the existence of non-panarchist legal systems?
A panarchist legal system is not an entity so it can't "tolerate" anything, only individuals can. That's essentially asking if each individual would allow themselves to be drafted into a legal system without their consent, and I think the answer is no, people would probably not accept that once the precedent for voluntary association was firmly in place.
Why anarchy fails
Juan:I wonder though, how you can talk about panarchy despite not having read the pertinent material.
The same way someone can understand the action axiom without reading Human Action and the study guide.
Juan: know what panarchy means, and I provided the original source. If you don't want to read it fine.
I can read it, but it will be painful, and I asked you for something more accommodating. My time is relatively short.
Juan:Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, lol. ultra-cheap moral relativism.
Not really. It's about an appreciation for epistemology. There was a time before you knew about libertarianism, that you may have believed something which was not libertarian. Well, maybe not you because you seem to see everything in absolutes, but for many of us, this is a process of learning, understanding and contributing new ideas. I was not born a radical anarchist. YMMV.
wilderness:And to me, 'motive' entails motivation to uphold what one believes.
Thanks for the reply. I want to give it its due, so I may not reply until later today or tomorrow, but I will endeavour to reply in good time.
@Nitro, thank you very much. We've been kindred spirits for some time now. But time to blog? Ha!
AJ:Exactly I think the reason for the theory of panarchy in the first place, as somehow different from anarchy or AnCap, is that so far there has been this underlying sense that, for example, all private courts would be dispensing some basic law template, and that the competition would only be between providers of this service, not between legal systems.
I don't know who thought that: the difference being "legal systems". Anarchy simply means no rulers.
wilderness:Anarchy simply means no rulers.
What is a ruler? It is at the minimum, a legal monopoly. Where law flows in one direction between two parties.
I agree that the difference is between competing legal systems.
wilderness:Voluntary adherence to any society is a respect of the liberty of any one person, so, there again the root issue comes up again. But I answered "No" to the first question so this therefore differs from what you said here.
It simply says, here's justice, here's injustice and panarchy takes note of both of these existing.
But if somebody wants to live under communism in anarchy so be it,
wilderness:AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights.
Argue against people having their own systems of natural rights, no. Argue against the notion that natural rights must objectively apply to everyone, yes. This is perfectly in line with panarchy. I have even posted a thread in support of natural rights in the subjective sense. You say "argue against" as if it meant "aggress against" rather than just critiquing someone's logic.
wilderness:...and usually doesn't comes back to a discussion.
Yes, when there's nothing to come back to. While you're at it, you might post links of such examples for everyone's benefit.
liberty student: wilderness:Anarchy simply means no rulers. What is a ruler? It is at the minimum, a legal monopoly. Where law flows in one direction between two parties. I agree that the difference is between competing legal systems.
I define a ruler, in this context, as somebody that arbitrary initiates physical aggression. If I get to a point in which I don't know and don't find any worthwhile answers that are logical, then to me these are opinions, ie. arbitrary decisions. I will not base actions of self-defense on an opinion. It's also why even though I see many injustices in the world I don't go around trying to resolve them with force either. Now if somebody attacks my property that's when I know that I'm being moral in my self-defense. Will others disagree with me due to why the conflict may have arisen, such as I live in a neighborhood of animal rightist and they see me pet my dog wrong and want to make me pay resolution. What can I say? I disagree with them, and they came after me. If I disagree with others, I think it would be difficult for me to come after them. I wait for what I know is an appropiate, timely response.
I'd rather wait as long as I can than fire a shot.
Juan: wilderness:Voluntary adherence to any society is a respect of the liberty of any one person, so, there again the root issue comes up again. But I answered "No" to the first question so this therefore differs from what you said here. I'm not sure I follow.
I meant it's about the natural right of liberty again, which some panarchist find abhorent to talk about, but the resolution comes back to apply if there is or is not liberty in a situation each and every time when it comes to issues of justice.
Juan:quoting me: It simply says, here's justice, here's injustice and panarchy takes note of both of these existing. Juan: I don't think so. The self described panarchists/moral 'subjectivists' seem to believe that panarchy means justice is 'subjective' - which in practice means that terms such as justice/injustice are meaningless.
true. That's what I mean. I meant what you or I would call injustice or justice and then be motivated to do something about it, some panarchists find the need to simply say, "So what? because in panarchy what somebody thinks is injustice or justice doesn't matter as they all can live together in panarchy."
It devolves into the land of no-clarity and so it's hard for me to try to put it the way I've seen some panarchists describe it.
Juan:me: But if somebody wants to live under communism in anarchy so be it, you:They are still bound to respect the property rights of 'third parties'. So is that really 'panarchy' ?
I don't know. But you make my point that even under communism the issue still boils down to property rights (liberty/natural rights).
AJ: wilderness:AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights. Argue against people having their own systems of natural rights, no. Argue against the notion that natural rights must objectively apply to everyone, yes.
Argue against people having their own systems of natural rights, no. Argue against the notion that natural rights must objectively apply to everyone, yes.
obviously you don't understand what liberty means which is your continual problem.
AJ:This is perfectly in line with panarchy. I have even posted a thread in support of natural rights in the subjective sense. You say "argue against" as if it meant "aggress against" rather than just critiquing someone's logic.
You're stuck in your own little making.
AJ: wilderness:...and usually doesn't comes back to a discussion. Yes, when there's nothing to come back to. While you're at it, you might post links of such examples for everyone's benefit.
thankfully i don't need to as you agree, "Yes".
^^ Perfect example of a line of discussion not worth coming back to.
wilderness:But you make my point that even under communism the issue still boils down to property rights (liberty/natural rights).
Juan: It seems as if panarchists don't understand their own theory though.
Not all panarchists are the same.
I don't see how panarchists don't meet this.
wilderness:Liberty is less of an active force than justice
We were both talking about justice and somehow liberty got included. I'm not sure they are the same thing. Drawing parallels between them might not be very congruent.
wilderness:if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals.
There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective.
wilderness:This all is natural rights and the result called anarchy given another name called panarchy.
wilderness:that's the result of liberty, ie. natural rights.
See, this is bringing in NR and assigning it the value of liberty. NR = liberty, liberty = NR. We're starting to get off the topic of panarchy, and move back to objective anarchy (for lack of a better term). In panarchy, people could be down with NR or not. It wouldn't matter wrt panarchy itself. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all.
wilderness:I think focusing on the absoluteness of natural rights as life's path, is, to forget that there is way more to life than constantly needing to protect it. Protecting life is a little detail. The bigger picture is what is being protected. And that's considerably unique for each person, tree, house, and so much else in this world. The worldviews and paths in life (the what is being protected) is the much larger picture. Natural rights for me are the fringe activity taken up, hopefully in time, less and less, because I don't want to have to constantly need to protect life - but - rather live the life that is being protected.
I agree with this. What is important (life itself, to be protected) is determined individually, not collectively or objectively.
wilderness:Some economists I think also get too narrow on this point too. To be value-free becomes a life's path. It becomes only what life is about for them. But I think dressing up life and applying/labeling all sort of values on different aspects of life, non-violently, can be fun and creative.
I think I, AJ, Zefreak and Lilburne in particular have been charged with this, but I don't think it's correct. We're value free, in the sense that we don't impose our values on others, not that we lack values or don't desire to value things. Every person acts purposefully, even if their purpose is to be neutral, then they value neutrality more than partisanship. When I claim to be a praxeologist, I mean that I acknowledge that everyone acts with rational purpose, and judge my relations and ends accordingly. Thus if someone disagrees with me, they see things differently, not that they are irrational. Even if someone acts in a self-contradicting manner, they are still acting purposefully, for some reason, they value being contradictory higher than being consistent.
This isn't subjective or relative (as Juan may claim), as much as axiomatic.
I just want everyone to get along, and let's all be creative and explore all there is to explore. I get annoyed with people who want to control the creativity and energy of others, but I am trying to focus on negativity less (by being an adult about utopianism) and focus more on what is in front of us that we can reasonably effect in our short and fragile lives.
Juan:Your comment on slavery was nonsense
I'm sorry you feel that way Juan.
Juan:You have nothing but moral relativism.
If all I have is moral relativism, that is substantially better than claiming a false morality. But YMMV (more relativism for you).
Juan:And you are not even consistent with that. Here :
What is inconsistent with my claim that something is either right or wrong? I believe in objective reality, but I think it is understood the is-ought gap has not been crossed. You'll note, I also claim "the case isn't clear to me yet", which is consistent with my position on epistemology. I can't know, what I do not know. When I know, I will know what is right and wrong.
Nitroadict: Juan:It seems as if panarchists don't understand their own theory though. Not all panarchists are the same.
Juan:It seems as if panarchists don't understand their own theory though.
Thanks. I lol'd.
wilderness:I define a ruler, in this context, as somebody that arbitrary initiates physical aggression.
I would call that an aggressor, but I don't think an aggressor is necessarily a ruler. A ruler is someone who can coerce you with aggression or (loosely) the threat of aggression. Someone who just punches you or breaks into your shed isn't necessarily trying to rule you.
AJ makes a good point that words are very limiting when it comes to communicating. We end up spending a lot of time trying to argue ideas through words, and all the differentiations of meaning each person applies to each word.
wilderness:obviously you don't understand what liberty means which is your continual problem.
wilderness:You're stuck in your own little making.
wilderness:thankfully i don't need to as you agree, "Yes".
I'm happy we're able to discuss peaceably right now, but I've seen you be this dismissive to AJ many times, and I have never noticed him treat you in such a condescending manner. If you really think so little of him and/or his opinions so much, why bother to engage? It seems counter-productive to the goal of moving towards understanding.
I don't know how else to convey to you, despite your distrust of people who don't see things as you do, that we're not amoral and evil. That it is possible to discuss theory and ideas without imposing moral judgments on them or projecting your moral judgments on others. That moral judgments while natural and prevalent, aren't the foundation of all discourse.
And in many cases, the promotion of moral judgments in an absolute manner (see our friend Juan) just lead to being isolated and turning people off. You don't have to compromise what you believe, I think many of us "subjective ethicists" have been pretty respectful about your choice to your own morality. That's consistent with "our" view. But objective perspectives always seem much harder and less forgiving, and in my opinion, often end up running contradictorily to the goal of peace and progress.
I like you. I accept you. I don't want to beef with you. If we can get along, we will both be better off. If we cannot get along, we will both be better off to get some distance and avoid conflict. But I really want to give the former a chance.
If all I have is moral relativism, that is substantially better than claiming a false morality.
What is inconsistent with my claim that something is either right or wrong?
Rozeff:Panarchism is a new political philosophy
Panarchism has new conceptions of what a people who are governed, a government, and consent mean. These give rise to a new conception of the nonterritorial State and revised ideas about sovereignty and authority.
There need not be a single sovereign authority that imposes law on all, unless it happens to be by consent.
Government is the social coordination of human personal interactions.
Different people understand freedom and liberty in different ways,
Coordination problems involving human interaction are not going to disappear.
Many of today's government functions can remain in place for those who want them while making them voluntary for those who do not. The idea in these cases is not to end government but make it consensual. Vast amounts of regulation of labor relations, energy, education, health, and welfare are such that one neighbor can live without certain rules even if his neighbor wants them. Instead of attempting to take Medicare away
[panarchy] sets out a just and peaceful destination that can be achieved peaceably, which is a future of reform in which the State abandons its territorial claims.
liberty student: wilderness:obviously you don't understand what liberty means which is your continual problem. wilderness:You're stuck in your own little making. wilderness:thankfully i don't need to as you agree, "Yes". I'm happy we're able to discuss peaceably right now,
I'm happy we're able to discuss peaceably right now,
I don't see what I said was so condensing. AJ is misleading as his post showed. He doesn't understand what liberty means if he thinks an 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist' or anybody that adheres to negative liberty will violate his liberty. It's a contradiction on his part, and that's why I think it's his continual problem. I said he's stuck in his little making, meaning, he's putting up 'walls that divide" us that are not there to begin with. I said "little" because in this big universe it's his little (I'm little too) making (doing) that is putting up "walls that divide" us. And he couldn't answer this post I sent him which proves my point on how he doesn't know how to dialogue.
AJ:^^ Perfect example of a line of discussion not worth coming back to.
lol
liberty student: wilderness:And to me, 'motive' entails motivation to uphold what one believes. I don't see how panarchists don't meet this.
those that doesn't recognize natural rights (which include justice) don't meet this
liberty student: wilderness:Liberty is less of an active force than justice We were both talking about justice and somehow liberty got included. I'm not sure they are the same thing. Drawing parallels between them might not be very congruent.
they are not the same thing, ok.
liberty student: wilderness:if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals. There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective.
But I never said what the cause was.
When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I'm not talking about when it is not a good cause.
liberty student: wilderness:This all is natural rights and the result called anarchy given another name called panarchy. See, this is bringing in NR and assigning it the value of liberty. NR = liberty, liberty = NR. We're starting to get off the topic of panarchy, and move back to objective anarchy (for lack of a better term). In panarchy, people could be down with NR or not. It wouldn't matter wrt panarchy itself. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all.
I never said anything about "objective". So that's getting off topic.
liberty student: wilderness:I think focusing on the absoluteness of natural rights as life's path, is, to forget that there is way more to life than constantly needing to protect it. Protecting life is a little detail. The bigger picture is what is being protected. And that's considerably unique for each person, tree, house, and so much else in this world. The worldviews and paths in life (the what is being protected) is the much larger picture. Natural rights for me are the fringe activity taken up, hopefully in time, less and less, because I don't want to have to constantly need to protect life - but - rather live the life that is being protected. I agree with this. What is important (life itself, to be protected) is determined individually, not collectively or objectively.
You said, "What is important... determined individually". An objectivist or subjectivist or mother-goose all say this. On principle, it doesn't matter if somebody calls themself a subjectivist or objectivist or mother-goose. This is all getting off-topic.
liberty student: wilderness:Some economists I think also get too narrow on this point too. To be value-free becomes a life's path. It becomes only what life is about for them. But I think dressing up life and applying/labeling all sort of values on different aspects of life, non-violently, can be fun and creative. I think I, AJ, Zefreak and Lilburne in particular have been charged with this, but I don't think it's correct. We're value free, in the sense that we don't impose our values on others,
I think I, AJ, Zefreak and Lilburne in particular have been charged with this, but I don't think it's correct. We're value free, in the sense that we don't impose our values on others,
That's impossible. You talk about other people all the time. Everybody does. And calling it an opinion doesn't change the fact that the "talk" is about somebody else and it's not about you. Everybody labels everybody and the world. Call a tree a tree and it has now been labeled with a name you value.
liberty student:..not that we lack values or don't desire to value things. Every person acts purposefully, even if their purpose is to be neutral, then they value neutrality more than partisanship. When I claim to be a praxeologist, I mean that I acknowledge that everyone acts with rational purpose, and judge my relations and ends accordingly. Thus if someone disagrees with me, they see things differently, not that they are irrational. Even if someone acts in a self-contradicting manner, they are still acting purposefully, for some reason, they value being contradictory higher than being consistent.
ok. that's common sense.
liberty student:This isn't subjective or relative (as Juan may claim), as much as axiomatic.
liberty student:I just want everyone to get along, and let's all be creative and explore all there is to explore. I get annoyed with people who want to control the creativity and energy of others, but I am trying to focus on negativity less (by being an adult about utopianism) and focus more on what is in front of us that we can reasonably effect in our short and fragile lives.
ok