Scott, your comparison of BDSM to worshipping the state was really fucking awful. Only the most horribly uninformed leftist would think that BDSM involves actual domination of the type that limits individual growth and self-expression. I've talked to people who are into that stuff, it's not what you think.
Scott F: filc: Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist. "Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?" Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument. "This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism." I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential.
filc: Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist. "Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?" Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument. "This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism." I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential.
Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist.
"Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?"
Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument.
"This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism."
I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential.
So you believe it absolutely essential that all actors receive the exact same compensation. Regardless of their ability, work spent, and competency? You advocate egalitarianism?
What I mean by fallacy is, egalitarianism is an inherent fallacy. Man is not equal, he is born unique. That is a positive, one that makes the world rich, not a negative we should aim to destroy.
No one advocating equality, other than maybe Pol Pot and other such totalitarian commies, wants equality in the sense of sameness. If anyone's commiting a fallacy, it's you: conflating any talk of equality with equality of ends and confomity, when Scott defined exactly what he means by "equality" and it's something different then what you're saying. Do you think the free market will have generally more equal disparities of wealth? If so, you're advocating equality.
vaguelyhumanoid:No one advocating equality, other than maybe Pol Pot and other such totalitarian commies, wants equality in the sense of sameness. If anyone's commiting a fallacy, it's you: conflating any talk of equality with equality of ends and confomity, when Scott defined exactly what he means by "equality" and it's something different then what you're saying. Do you think the free market will have generally more equal disparities of wealth? If so, you're advocating equality.
If that is the case, why the consentration on wealth disparity at all? I am wondering if you missed my point. THe way the startement about equality is presented. The problem is In-equality or wealth disparity, and the solution is the market.
My point is this is a fallacy. There is no problem in wealth disparity. We could never pretend to know how much disparity there should be. Wealth disparity is a symptom of another problem, not a problem itself. When you re-define the problem and terms, people's anger and resentment gets misplaced.
Point in case, it USED to be that the word "inflation" was defined as a practice of expanding the money supply. Modern times however have redefined the term to mean any general rise in prices of goods and services. This clever trick of re-defining the terms and problems, people become mislead into directing their resentment to a consequence of a greater problem, rather then a problem itself. As a result the Fed has free reign to try and correct the problem of rising prices of goods and services, when in reality it's not aproblem at all.
Just as wealth disparity is not a problem at all. In both cases the market will moderate the two, but it is dangerously incorrect to pretend that rising prices, and that income in-equality is bad. Perhaps if what you say is true, the manifesto's section on equality should be re-written to better clarify. And if that is the case, perhaps it could also reconsider all the other syndicalist jargon included in the manifesto and see why it's inherently flawed.
Income disparity is not a problem, but you are trying to defend it as if it is.
The Belief that large wealth disparity is due...
Who cares? Explain to me why wealth disparity is wrong?
If I may be so bold, I'd like to point out what I see as some major semantic disputes between self-styled left-libertarians like Scott F. and non-left-libertarians like Liberty Student. There seem to be certain words which have rather disparate meanings on the part of each "side" in this discussion.
One of the words in dispute is "capitalism". While non-left-libertarians take this word to be synonymous with "free market", left-libertarians do not. What the latter call "capitalism" is similar to (if not the same as) what the former call "corporatism". Either way you cut it, I think both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians alike support complete private ownership of the means of production.
Another word in dispute is "morality". Non-left-libertarians typically take this to mean something like "a set of precepts that warrant violent retaliation (i.e. coercion) if disobeyed". Left-libertarians, on the other hand, typically take "morality" to mean something like "a set of precepts that warrant disapproval, protest, and/or disassociation if disobeyed". It seems clear to me that left-libertarians don't consider everything they protest or disapprove of to warrant violent retaliation. However, I think they would do well to adopt some term to distinguish what non-left-libertarians call "morality" from what they call "morality". As an aside, my own usage of "morality" is essentially non-left-libertarian, but I use the term "ethics" to refer to "morality" in the left-libertarian view. I think it can be safely said that both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle as one of the foremost (if not the foremost) guiding principles.
I see a third dispute which isn't so much over semantics as it is over something I'll term "social focus". By that term, I mean social issues and/or phenomena that a person tends to draw his attention to. Historically, it seems that "left" vs. "right" has involved a distinction of social focus more than anything else. Those termed (and who term themselves) "right" tend to focus on social order and stability. Whether they want to maintain a particular social order is immaterial here. If they don't, then they typically side with whatever ponderous majority seems to prevent itself.
On the other hand, those termed (and who term themselves) "left" tend to focus on preventing simple disapproval from morphing into violent retaliation. They've seen how, throughout history, those who have suffered the most repression have typically been those who were already disapproved of by prevailing majorities. Furthermore, they see how such disapproval was often based on things which the recipients of the disapproval had no control over, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, inherited socioeconomic status, etc. In other words, the "left" considers itself a bulwark against what it sees as moral or legal hypocrisy.
Hopefully the above helps to shed some more light on the "left-libertarian controversy". I think that open and honest communication (if not debate) requires one to understand where his fellow conversants are coming from. In striving for such an understanding here, it seems to me that the differences between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians are largely cosmetic; otherwise, they concern differences of emphasis.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
vaguelyhumanoid: Scott, your comparison of BDSM to worshipping the state was really fucking awful. Only the most horribly uninformed leftist would think that BDSM involves actual domination of the type that limits individual growth and self-expression. I've talked to people who are into that stuff, it's not what you think.
I'm confused.When did I say this? I'm not against BDSM.
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.
Scott F: vaguelyhumanoid: Scott, your comparison of BDSM to worshipping the state was really fucking awful. Only the most horribly uninformed leftist would think that BDSM involves actual domination of the type that limits individual growth and self-expression. I've talked to people who are into that stuff, it's not what you think. I'm confused.When did I say this? I'm not against BDSM.
Ok I see what your referring to. This:-
LS:"If I want to be tied up, or have rough sex what business is it of yours?"
Me:The same logic could be applied to "If I want to worship statism, what business is it of yours".
No I didn't mean that. To be clear, what I was saying was if your going to argue why should we even care about the morality or immorality of a situation -not specifically BDSM but anything like that taking them as a hypothetical- then it seems you can't really argue we SHOULD care about statism.I'm saying opposition to being morally critical undercuts anarchism/libertarianism.I was NOT arguing against BDSM.I have no problem with it.It's not immoral.
filc: Scott F: filc: Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist. "Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?" Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument. "This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism." I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential. "So you believe it absolutely essential that all actors receive the exact same compensation." This isn't very clear. 1. When you say "exact same", it sounds like your accusing me of all or nothing egalitarianism which I've already said I reject and is a straw man. 2. What do you mean by "compensation"? compensation for what? "Regardless of their ability, work spent, and competency?" Further seems to imply no 1. "You advocate egalitarianism?" some kinds,yes.Don't you? I think libertarianism is egalitarian in some ways. " Man is not equal, he is born unique. " Ok.So your are using a straw man.Let me stop you right there. Do I believe in KINDS of equality -of which there is many? yes! Do I believe in them all ? No! Some kinds of inequality clearly do exist and are to varying extents unavoidable e.g. difference of moral character, difference of ability,difference of intelligence,height differences etc etc.So I do not deny man is born unique but that doesn't rule out equality only kinds which were impossible to begin with. Too often the argument without thought goes from "man is difference " or "kinds of inequality exist or are unavoidable " (facts I do not deny) to " ALL OF these are natural" or "all equality is nonsense" - a non sequitur shallow defense of existing society.
"So you believe it absolutely essential that all actors receive the exact same compensation."
This isn't very clear.
1. When you say "exact same", it sounds like your accusing me of all or nothing egalitarianism which I've already said I reject and is a straw man.
2. What do you mean by "compensation"? compensation for what?
"Regardless of their ability, work spent, and competency?"
Further seems to imply no 1.
"You advocate egalitarianism?"
some kinds,yes.Don't you? I think libertarianism is egalitarian in some ways.
" Man is not equal, he is born unique. "
Ok.So your are using a straw man.Let me stop you right there. Do I believe in KINDS of equality -of which there is many? yes! Do I believe in them all ? No! Some kinds of inequality clearly do exist and are to varying extents unavoidable e.g. difference of moral character, difference of ability,difference of intelligence,height differences etc etc.So I do not deny man is born unique but that doesn't rule out equality only kinds which were impossible to begin with.
Too often the argument without thought goes from "man is difference " or "kinds of inequality exist or are unavoidable " (facts I do not deny) to " ALL OF these are natural" or "all equality is nonsense" - a non sequitur shallow defense of existing society.
To be clear I do not favour the equality you think I do which is absolute conformity:- which is (1) impossible.No one can conform 100% and (2) would be undesirable since I favour inequality and difference when it is not relevant to morality and favour diversity as a cultural value.I think a conformist world would be dull and lifeless without progress or rationality.Essentially it would not remain anarchy for long.
Your manifesto is then misleading, as it leads one to believe that the culprit, or problem of focus is in-equality, and income disparity. Which are not really problems at all.
It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren't problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn't mean they aren't problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
As for the typical strawmen about equality, a number of points:
(1) There is controversy over the extent to which various inequalities can be chalked up nature vs. nurture. An egalitarian is (rightly) skeptical of conservative rationalizations for currently existing disparties *as if* they were "the natural order", when such a position ignores the myriad of factors irreducible to anything innate. Once again, the egalitarian need not totally deny the existence of natural difference, but they do (rightly) reject rationalizing it all via innatist positions.
(2) One can aknowledge that people are naturally different, and hence unequal, while thinking that such natural inequality does not merit moral distinctions or justify relative positions of authority per se. This is a common part of egalitarianism, and indeed even the most narrow of libertarians (perhaps other than a few odd apples who barely qualify as libertarians anymore) are somewhat egalitarian at this level.
Autolykos: "Either way you cut it, I think both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians alike support complete private ownership of the means of production." If Private includes both individual and collective ownership then yes.But I do not feel the need to entangle it with other concepts. "It seems clear to me that left-libertarians don't consider everything they protest or disapprove of to warrant violent retaliation. " Correct.Glad we climbed out of that quagmire of misunderstanding. "I think it can be safely said that both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle as one of the foremost (if not the foremost) guiding principles." Most do correct. " By that term, I mean social issues and/or phenomena that a person tends to draw his attention to. " Correct.This is the thin vs thick debate. "right" tend to focus on social order and stability. " 1. This is not inherently good 2. something of a false dichotomy as if whoever is the 'left' does not. "On the other hand, those termed (and who term themselves) "left" tend to focus on preventing simple disapproval from morphing into violent retaliation." That's part of it but not the whole story. "They've seen how, throughout history, those who have suffered the most repression have typically been those who were already disapproved of by prevailing majorities." Correct.Hence the regard for the the marginalized/ the downtrodden. "Furthermore, they see how such disapproval was often based on things which the recipients of the disapproval had no control over, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, inherited socioeconomic status, etc. In other words, the "left" considers itself a bulwark against what it sees as moral or legal hypocrisy." In some sense yes. "I think that open and honest communication (if not debate) requires one to understand where his fellow conversants are coming from." Definately.I've always held this but not always lived it. Critics of left-libs need to read and understand left-lib ideas ,literature and influences.When I did this myself,I became left lib.The reason I posted the manifesto was to promote understanding not to troll or cause an almighty argument like it has. " it seems to me that the differences between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians are largely cosmetic; otherwise, they concern differences of emphasis." Here I'd have to disagree.Non left-libs approach issues differently with certain anti-leftist/anti socialist prejudices and tend towards knee jerk opposition.
"Either way you cut it, I think both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians alike support complete private ownership of the means of production."
If Private includes both individual and collective ownership then yes.But I do not feel the need to entangle it with other concepts.
"It seems clear to me that left-libertarians don't consider everything they protest or disapprove of to warrant violent retaliation. "
Correct.Glad we climbed out of that quagmire of misunderstanding.
"I think it can be safely said that both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle as one of the foremost (if not the foremost) guiding principles."
Most do correct.
" By that term, I mean social issues and/or phenomena that a person tends to draw his attention to. "
Correct.This is the thin vs thick debate.
"right" tend to focus on social order and stability. "
1. This is not inherently good 2. something of a false dichotomy as if whoever is the 'left' does not.
"On the other hand, those termed (and who term themselves) "left" tend to focus on preventing simple disapproval from morphing into violent retaliation."
That's part of it but not the whole story.
"They've seen how, throughout history, those who have suffered the most repression have typically been those who were already disapproved of by prevailing majorities."
Correct.Hence the regard for the the marginalized/ the downtrodden.
"Furthermore, they see how such disapproval was often based on things which the recipients of the disapproval had no control over, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, inherited socioeconomic status, etc. In other words, the "left" considers itself a bulwark against what it sees as moral or legal hypocrisy."
In some sense yes.
"I think that open and honest communication (if not debate) requires one to understand where his fellow conversants are coming from."
Definately.I've always held this but not always lived it. Critics of left-libs need to read and understand left-lib ideas ,literature and influences.When I did this myself,I became left lib.The reason I posted the manifesto was to promote understanding not to troll or cause an almighty argument like it has.
" it seems to me that the differences between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians are largely cosmetic; otherwise, they concern differences of emphasis."
Here I'd have to disagree.Non left-libs approach issues differently with certain anti-leftist/anti socialist prejudices and tend towards knee jerk opposition.
filc: Your manifesto is then misleading, as it leads one to believe that the culprit, or problem of focus is in-equality, and income disparity. Which are not really problems at all.
That wouldn't be correct.I think they- income disparity and inequality correctly explained- are problems but the kind you are claiming I support is neither a position I hold nor a problem.
We can not speak of any theoretical problem by universally catagorizing groups of unique individuals in unique situations in stagnant catagories, any more than we can speak of the injustices Neptune causes Pluto. This is conservativism, this is stagnantion, this is theology, this is apologitics, this is scientism, this is the Protestant tradition.
If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
We can not define or clarify other peoples problems outside of our own power. This is the danger of intellectualism, propaganda and apologies for its pet projects it. What you speak of is propaganda.
There is controversy over the extent to which various inequalities can be chalked up nature vs. nurture. An egalitarian is (rightly) skeptical of conservative rationalizations for currently existing disparties *as if* they were "the natural order", when such a position ignores the myriad of factors irreducible to anything innate. Once again, the egalitarian need not totally deny the existence of natural difference, but they do (rightly) reject rationalizing it all via innatist positions
It doesn't matter; nature v nurture/ tabula rasa doesn't matter, the "natural order" of things do not matter for us. All that matters is what rules can be spoken of in a universal context; feminism, equality, elites, etc are not in this language unless maybe we speak of history. This is "intellectual central planning" if you wish to concern this in any scientific discussion. Focusing your rage on a libertarians crystal ball will do no good. It is tilting at windmills.
What? One can do a lot of things in a lot of ways and the price of tea in China, the rising of the tide, and the aesthetics of people who I don't even know exist are beyond any use to meditate over. Show someone the consequences of actions if you can; shilling for a Jinn in a bottle is actually letting loose Pandora's box.
ScottF:That wouldn't be correct.I think they- income disparity and inequality correctly explained- are problems but the kind you are claiming I support is neither a position I hold nor a problem.
Why are they problems.
CORRECTION: What I am claiming you support is this.
ScottF:I think they- income disparity and inequality correctly explained- are problems
Why is it a problem. What is inherently wrong about it. Why should it be the center piece of a bulliton point, so that the economy must revolve around this point of concern?
Did you read my post about the dangers of mis-placed concerns? And how thats a recipe for disaster? It may be that your solution to income disparity is the market, and indeed, the market would be the best solution if that were a problem to begin with.
However in your efforts and teachings, someone else will take part of what you said, and leave the rest. They may agree with you strongly that income disparity is a problem, but reject the solution of a market. As a result your just bolstering a socialist platform. All the while never explaining why income disparity is a problem to begin with. You just assume it is, without ever explaining why.
This is how socialist platforms begin., The market will never rid of income disparity in it's entirity. And if income equality is a key point, people will focus on why we are failing to obtain it, and then move away from markets to find a more forceful method to reach that goal.
So explain to me, and us, what exactly is wrong with income disparity. Why should we strive above all else to obtain income equality?
It is the material source of all coercive power? It is in itself a barrier to entry? It creates a war of the haves v have nots that has yet to not lead to intervention in the market? If the system doesn't equalize incomes, than what's the point?
Here's the point many are missing, equality in a political sense, is a process. It's not a destination.
One should promote equalization, and therefore prosperity, not necessarily equality... after all, we could all be equally poor.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Are you responding to me?
Your saying that income disparity is:
Epicurus:It is the material source of all coercive power? It is in itself a barrier to entry?
So if this is the culprit why not abolish income disparity? You think income equality would not be a material source for coercive power?
Seems like both you and SCottF have fallen for a Strawman.
Let me get this straight. IS this what you really intended to say?
Filc:what exactly is wrong with income disparity.
Notice I said exactly. Requesting for a detailed explanation. Here is your non-sequitur.
Epicirus:It is the material source of all coercive power?
Explain how one follows from the other, without having to amend your whole position.
Look you both can back out of this now and just realize your chasing a boogyman, it wouldn't be hard to simply re-word that bulletin item.
Epicurus:That's a seperate debate on whether equality is or isn't conducive to increased material well-being. I of course think it is, and I think history verifies that.
You need to be clear. What do you mean by "equal". Do you mean income equality? And what manner of empiricism are you employing to come to this conclusion historically.
Who would do this? We would have to give them money too, and they would have to use that money to increase their power. A bit circular, don't you think?
I'd rather promote people's empowerment.
Notice I said exactly. Requesting for a detailed explanation. Here is your non-sequitur. Epicirus:It is the material source of all coercive power? Explain how one follows from the other, without having to amend your whole position.
One does not have the means to coerce people without also having the resources to do so.
Clever ruse, but it didn't work. (I'll grant you that we're talking about wealth inequality. "income" in this sense is an improper label.")
And what manner of empiricism are you employing to come to this conclusion historically.
Generally surveying the power and economic structures of past societies and their relationship to the prosperity and/or progress of said societies.
One example is the plague. It killed a lot of people. This was terrible. But what occured because of it was a massive change in the general person's bargaining power against the empowered class. This provided access to a lot of wealth for the common man, which equalized power, comparably. This gave more people more time for non-laborly pursuits. This rising "middle class" was largely the source of the enlightenment and the later democratic movements and the industrial revolution. "First you get the money, then you get the women, then you get the power." ~Tony Montana (I think)
Of course I have to ascribe a moral/ethical state of betterment to the enlightenment, the democratic revolutions, and the industrial revolution, but I'm fine with that charge.
I thought you asked whats the point of the system? (The system being capitalism)
Increased material well-being is the answer.
As to whether equality is or isn't conductive to it, First I'd have to say what do you mean by equality? But in the Marxist sense, I'd say not.
Then would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by equality? The OP talks of income equality. Are you now trying to sidestep this?
Would you be so kind as to continue the discussion on the post Angurse provided? I am salivating at the mouth to hear your response!
Here.
filc: " And if that is the case, perhaps it could also reconsider all the other syndicalist jargon included in the manifesto and see why it's inherently flawed." Not this rubbish again.Next you'll call me a commie again.
" And if that is the case, perhaps it could also reconsider all the other syndicalist jargon included in the manifesto and see why it's inherently flawed."
Not this rubbish again.Next you'll call me a commie again.
William: It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren't problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn't mean they aren't problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort. "We can not speak of any theoretical problem by universally catagorizing groups of unique individuals in unique situations in stagnant catagories," ??? this sounds like "ahhh.I'm in denial" If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort. "We can not define or clarify other peoples problems outside of our own power. " As above. There is controversy over the extent to which various inequalities can be chalked up nature vs. nurture. An egalitarian is (rightly) skeptical of conservative rationalizations for currently existing disparties *as if* they were "the natural order", when such a position ignores the myriad of factors irreducible to anything innate. Once again, the egalitarian need not totally deny the existence of natural difference, but they do (rightly) reject rationalizing it all via innatist positions " feminism, equality, elites, etc are not in this language unless maybe we speak of history. " that's the An-cap assumption.How is feminism not in this 'language'? "This is "intellectual central planning" Scaremongering to rally the troops to the an-cap flag.It's easier to be an echo chamber than a discussion. (2) One can aknowledge that people are naturally different, and hence unequal, while thinking that such natural inequality does not merit moral distinctions or justify relative positions of authority per se. This is a common part of egalitarianism, and indeed even the most narrow of libertarians (perhaps other than a few odd apples who barely qualify as libertarians anymore) are somewhat egalitarian at this level. "and the aesthetics of people who I don't even know exist are beyond any use to meditate over. Show someone the consequences of actions if you can; shilling for a Jinn in a bottle is actually letting loose Pandora's box." Thin libertarianism becomes relativism.
"We can not speak of any theoretical problem by universally catagorizing groups of unique individuals in unique situations in stagnant catagories,"
??? this sounds like "ahhh.I'm in denial"
"We can not define or clarify other peoples problems outside of our own power. "
As above.
" feminism, equality, elites, etc are not in this language unless maybe we speak of history. "
that's the An-cap assumption.How is feminism not in this 'language'?
"This is "intellectual central planning"
Scaremongering to rally the troops to the an-cap flag.It's easier to be an echo chamber than a discussion.
"and the aesthetics of people who I don't even know exist are beyond any use to meditate over. Show someone the consequences of actions if you can; shilling for a Jinn in a bottle is actually letting loose Pandora's box."
Thin libertarianism becomes relativism.
Scott, what is the point of believing in objective values you cannot prove or even define?
Brainpolice: It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren't problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn't mean they aren't problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
I agree with this statement; just because something ought to be legal - or is allowed according to libertarian theory - doesn't mean that people can't consider it a problem, where we have problems with, problems that could be called 'moral' problems.
I think there is a tendency with some to deny the fact that something could be considered a problem, just because we deny that force is justified to change that problem. I consider some ways that people raise their children problematic, but it doesn't follow that I would want to advocate force to change that situation. Of course, my problem with that isn't praxeological or true a priori, but that doesn't mean that reasons can't be given why I think it's problematic and a rational debate can be made possible. Just because something isn't true a priori, doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant.
That's why I had a thread advocating the distinction between social and political philosophy and trying to emphasize that libertarians would profit from a social philosophy as well.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
AdrianHealey:I agree with this statement; just because something ought to be legal - or is allowed according to libertarian theory - doesn't mean that people can't consider it a problem, where we have problems with, problems that could be called 'moral' problems.
First, you have to define what moral is. Second, you have to ask how, if I have free will, I am able to be immoral with myself. And you have to answer the questions Scott can't answer intelligently (no one can) how you can claim I am doing something wrong with my life, my property, my body.
I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies.
AdrianHealey:I think there is a tendency with some to deny the fact that something could be considered a problem, just because we deny that force is justified to change that problem.
Who specifically does this? Can you name them and source proof?
AdrianHealey:I consider some ways that people raise their children problematic, but it doesn't follow that I would want to advocate force to change that situation.
Who cares what you consider problematic? It is their life not yours!
AdrianHealey:Of course, my problem with that isn't praxeological or true a priori, but that doesn't mean that reasons can't be given why I think it's problematic and a rational debate can be made possible.
You're welcome to sit around with your friends who care to listen, and judge other people's lives, but the fact that you have something to say, doesn't mean you have the authority to be listened to.
AdrianHealey:Just because something isn't true a priori, doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant.
Subjective opinions have truth value and relevance to the people who hold those subjective opinions, but subjective opinions (oughts) shouldn't be confused with objective truth (is).
AdrianHealey:That's why I had a thread advocating the distinction between social and political philosophy and trying to emphasize that libertarians would profit from a social philosophy as well.
It's flawed reasoning for you to assume that just because people don't have your social values, they lack any at all. People profit from what they value, not from what you or Scott or any other busy body liberal thinks they should value.
"First, you have to define what moral is."
<= How do you define it? The relationship between political philosophy, moral philosophy, ethics and philosophy of law isn't clear cut. One could argue that 'moral actions' are actions people ought to do. And you can distinguish those actions between actions that can be enforceable by law and ones that cannot be. Immoral actions are actions that people ought not to do. Some 'ought nots' can be enforced by law - one ought not rape someone else, this is immoral - and some shouldn't be enforceable by law - 'one ought not _not_ help someone in dying need, if it's at a low cost to him self'.
I've got a problem with the fact my toilet doesn't work. I have certain feelings about it. These feelings, in every day lingo, isn't usually called 'moral' in any specific way. I also got a problem with how some people treat other people, certain acts of abortion, certain acts of parenting, etc. These feelings are often called 'moral', because people talk about those things in ways of 'ought' and 'ought not'. Of course, these are different 'ought' and 'ought nots' as the ones claimed by libertarian philosophy, that just limits what actions can be enforced by the use of force. Somethings can be considered 'oughts' without anyone can use force to enforce it. Take, for example, 'helping someone in dying need' - an accident, someone drowning when you are a life guard of duty, calling the cops when you see someone getting robbed. People call that a moral obligation to help those people, but it's not enforceable by law (and that's how it should be.)
"Second, you have to ask how, if I have free will, I am able to be immoral with myself. And you have to answer the questions Scott can't answer intelligently (no one can) how you can claim I am doing something wrong with my life, my property, my body."
<= I don't think one can be immoral against oneself. But you deny that something can be called immoral if it's 'with your life, property and body'. This seems to depend on your definition of morality. I've given mine, so please show me yours. Or do you just define 'voluntary = moral'? Which makes this a semantic discussion. Anyway, if we consider that some moral oughts can exist whilst at the same time not enforceable by law, than yes, voluntary (inter) actions can be called immoral. Take, for example, the wife that stays with her husband even though he (psychologically) mistreats her. Do you call this voluntary? If so, than yes, this would be an example of a voluntary relationship between 2 people, where there are immoral acts. Just because the wife - given her options - voluntarily chooses to accept the life she has, doesn't mean the man isn't abusive or immoral. Another example is, again, not helping someone in dying need, even though you can very easily. This would be an immoral act.
Note that 'moral' and 'immoral' here aren't as logically necessary as I consider the (libertarian) natural law position, which is undeniably true. But just as history and thymology are sciences, however sciences that aren't true a priori and require empiricism, so are some moral questions not necessarily true a priori and depend on more contingent evaluations. One standard use for moral philosophy is to consider 'oughts' what helps social life in general and what ought hampers it - even though it cannot be enforced per se. A rule-utilitarian moral philosophy, sort of speak. And the rule 'helping people in dying need at low cost to your self' seems like a good moral rule, even though it's not necessarily true a priori.
I'm not sure if these examples match your sentence of 'how can you claim I'm doing something wrong with my own body', because the sentence was a bit cryptic. Maybe try and give some examples yourself? What kind of actions do you think some people might find immoral, but you do not.
"I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies."
<= So, again, how do you define 'moral' and why does it follow that 'anything voluntary is moral'? Not helping someone in dying need is voluntary. Would you call this a moral act? How about the wife knowing that her husbands beats their children, but remains silent. Is she acting moral, because she's voluntarily not telling anyone? These are 2 examples of something I would call immoral, but are voluntary actions on part of the relevant actor, given my definition of morality. Could you explain in depth your vision on this?
Could you give some other examples of things that are voluntary, but some people 'might' consider immoral?
"You're welcome to sit around with your friends who care to listen, and judge other people's lives, but the fact that you have something to say, doesn't mean you have the authority to be listened to."
<= That is true. (Moral) authority doesn't come from 'I have something to say'. Who's claiming otherwise?
I don't get the hostility in your posts, really. Nobody is saying 'we should force people to do whatever the fuck we like and we should force them not to do shit we don't like!!!!!' You do realize that, right?
"Subjective opinions have truth value and relevance to the people who hold those subjective opinions, but subjective opinions (oughts) shouldn't be confused with objective truth (is)."
<= Well, preaching to the choir, right there.
"It's flawed reasoning for you to assume that just because people don't have your social values, they lack any at all. "
<= That's actually a misrepresentation of my view. I do not think people here don't have social values. I only think that libertarians should talk social philosophy - as I defined it there - as well as political philosophy. I gave a whole explanation why I think libertarianism would profit from it in the relevant thread. I'm not saying 'we don't have social values'. I'm saying 'let's talk social values, because I know everyone here has them'.
Which can only be defended by relativism which is logically contradictory if not impossible.
Your essentially saying no voluntary relationship in which someone is being mistreated is immoral.That's absurd.
AdrianHealey: "First, you have to define what moral is." <= How do you define it? The relationship between political philosophy, moral philosophy, ethics and philosophy of law isn't clear cut. One could argue that 'moral actions' are actions people ought to do. And you can distinguish those actions between actions that can be enforceable by law and ones that cannot be. Immoral actions are actions that people ought not to do. Some 'ought nots' can be enforced by law - one ought not rape someone else, this is immoral - and some shouldn't be enforceable by law - 'one ought not _not_ help someone in dying need, if it's at a low cost to him self'. I've got a problem with the fact my toilet doesn't work. I have certain feelings about it. These feelings, in every day lingo, isn't usually called 'moral' in any specific way. I also got a problem with how some people treat other people, certain acts of abortion, certain acts of parenting, etc. These feelings are often called 'moral', because people talk about those things in ways of 'ought' and 'ought not'. Of course, these are different 'ought' and 'ought nots' as the ones claimed by libertarian philosophy, that just limits what actions can be enforced by the use of force. Somethings can be considered 'oughts' without anyone can use force to enforce it. Take, for example, 'helping someone in dying need' - an accident, someone drowning when you are a life guard of duty, calling the cops when you see someone getting robbed. People call that a moral obligation to help those people, but it's not enforceable by law (and that's how it should be.) "Second, you have to ask how, if I have free will, I am able to be immoral with myself. And you have to answer the questions Scott can't answer intelligently (no one can) how you can claim I am doing something wrong with my life, my property, my body." <= I don't think one can be immoral against oneself. But you deny that something can be called immoral if it's 'with your life, property and body'. This seems to depend on your definition of morality. I've given mine, so please show me yours. Or do you just define 'voluntary = moral'? Which makes this a semantic discussion. Anyway, if we consider that some moral oughts can exist whilst at the same time not enforceable by law, than yes, voluntary (inter) actions can be called immoral. Take, for example, the wife that stays with her husband even though he (psychologically) mistreats her. Do you call this voluntary? If so, than yes, this would be an example of a voluntary relationship between 2 people, where there are immoral acts. Just because the wife - given her options - voluntarily chooses to accept the life she has, doesn't mean the man isn't abusive or immoral. Another example is, again, not helping someone in dying need, even though you can very easily. This would be an immoral act. Note that 'moral' and 'immoral' here aren't as logically necessary as I consider the (libertarian) natural law position, which is undeniably true. But just as history and thymology are sciences, however sciences that aren't true a priori and require empiricism, so are some moral questions not necessarily true a priori and depend on more contingent evaluations. One standard use for moral philosophy is to consider 'oughts' what helps social life in general and what ought hampers it - even though it cannot be enforced per se. A rule-utilitarian moral philosophy, sort of speak. And the rule 'helping people in dying need at low cost to your self' seems like a good moral rule, even though it's not necessarily true a priori. I'm not sure if these examples match your sentence of 'how can you claim I'm doing something wrong with my own body', because the sentence was a bit cryptic. Maybe try and give some examples yourself? What kind of actions do you think some people might find immoral, but you do not. "I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies." <= So, again, how do you define 'moral' and why does it follow that 'anything voluntary is moral'? Not helping someone in dying need is voluntary. Would you call this a moral act? How about the wife knowing that her husbands beats their children, but remains silent. Is she acting moral, because she's voluntarily not telling anyone? These are 2 examples of something I would call immoral, but are voluntary actions on part of the relevant actor, given my definition of morality. Could you explain in depth your vision on this? Could you give some other examples of things that are voluntary, but some people 'might' consider immoral? "You're welcome to sit around with your friends who care to listen, and judge other people's lives, but the fact that you have something to say, doesn't mean you have the authority to be listened to." <= That is true. (Moral) authority doesn't come from 'I have something to say'. Who's claiming otherwise? I don't get the hostility in your posts, really. Nobody is saying 'we should force people to do whatever the fuck we like and we should force them not to do shit we don't like!!!!!' You do realize that, right? "Subjective opinions have truth value and relevance to the people who hold those subjective opinions, but subjective opinions (oughts) shouldn't be confused with objective truth (is)." <= Well, preaching to the choir, right there. "It's flawed reasoning for you to assume that just because people don't have your social values, they lack any at all. " <= That's actually a misrepresentation of my view. I do not think people here don't have social values. I only think that libertarians should talk social philosophy - as I defined it there - as well as political philosophy. I gave a whole explanation why I think libertarianism would profit from it in the relevant thread. I'm not saying 'we don't have social values'. I'm saying 'let's talk social values, because I know everyone here has them'.
While I don't agree with minor points here I think you've argued pretty well for what I'm talking about- thick libertarianism.
AdrianHealey: Brainpolice: It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren't problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn't mean they aren't problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people's actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort. I agree with this statement; just because something ought to be legal - or is allowed according to libertarian theory - doesn't mean that people can't consider it a problem, where we have problems with, problems that could be called 'moral' problems.
Then to the degree you accept this you accept some kind of thickness and reject some kind of thinness.
AdrianHealey:"First, you have to define what moral is." <= How do you define it?
<= How do you define it?
This is why debating with you is a waste of time. You use terms you won't define and when asked, claim you cannot clearly define.
AdrianHealey:<= I don't think one can be immoral against oneself.
So then one cannot behave immoral, voluntarily. Thanks.
AdrianHealey:<= That is true. (Moral) authority doesn't come from 'I have something to say'. Who's claiming otherwise?
Where does moral authority come from? That's the question you and Scott continue to avoid.
AdrianHealey:"I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies." <= So, again, how do you define 'moral' and why does it follow that 'anything voluntary is moral'?
<= So, again, how do you define 'moral' and why does it follow that 'anything voluntary is moral'?
How can something involuntary be moral? Try to experiment with logic when responding to me pls.
AdrianHealey:Not helping someone in dying need is voluntary. Would you call this a moral act? How about the wife knowing that her husbands beats their children, but remains silent. Is she acting moral, because she's voluntarily not telling anyone? These are 2 examples of something I would call immoral, but are voluntary actions on part of the relevant actor, given my definition of morality. Could you explain in depth your vision on this?
Are these non sequiturs, fallacies of composition or strawmen? I'm under no moral obligation to help someone in dying need. I'm under no moral obligation to report a crime. Do you understand the difference between positive and negative obligations?
AdrianHealey:<= That's actually a misrepresentation of my view. I do not think people here don't have social values. I only think that libertarians should talk social philosophy - as I defined it there - as well as political philosophy. I gave a whole explanation why I think libertarianism would profit from it in the relevant thread. I'm not saying 'we don't have social values'. I'm saying 'let's talk social values, because I know everyone here has them'.
It's irrelevant to libertarianism. The point of libertarianism is to facilitate diversity of social views peacefully, not to create a group mind with regards to social attitudes and norms. Again, tolerance is the highest libertarian value. What flavor ice cream you like, or which sex you are attracted to, or how much charity you should give, are all irrelevant to libertarianism. Libertarianism supports you making these decisions, but only for yourself.
If you want a social club, philosophy can't do that for you.
Scott F:"I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies." Which can only be defended by relativism which is logically contradictory if not impossible.
Non sequitur.
Scott F:Your essentially saying no voluntary relationship in which someone is being mistreated is immoral.That's absurd.
How can someone be mistreated if they want it? Are you arguing against free will?
liberty student:First, you have to define what moral is. Second, you have to ask how, if I have free will, I am able to be immoral with myself. And you have to answer the questions Scott can't answer intelligently (no one can) how you can claim I am doing something wrong with my life, my property, my body. I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies.
Whether the proposition "anything voluntary is moral" can be refuted depends on the definitions being used for "voluntary" and "moral" -- definitions which others are in no way obligated to agree with.
What are your own definitions for "voluntary" and "moral"?
"This is why debating with you is a waste of time. You use terms you won't define and when asked, claim you cannot clearly define."
<= Welcome to philosophy. I take it you haven't studied it?
"So then one cannot behave immoral, voluntarily. Thanks."
<= How does this follow from "I don't think one can be immoral against oneself."?
"Where does moral authority come from? That's the question you and Scott continue to avoid."
<= My parents, friends and peers have moral authority. I listen to them and if there arguments make sense about what I ought to do, I follow there suggestions (or try to so). Other moral authorities could be the church, a fraternal society, etc. Moral authority is not the same as legal authority - I hope the difference is clear by now?
I said: "Why does it follow that 'anything voluntary is moral'?"
LS said: "How can something involuntary be moral? Try to experiment with logic when responding to me pls."
<= Who is saying 'something involuntary can be moral'? I'm denying that: 'everything that people voluntarily do, can be called moral' - as I defined it and as the term is usually used in philosophy. I accept the statement: 'everything that people voluntarily do, ought to be legal', given the definitiosn ive provided regarding moral and legal philosophy. Denying that 'something voluntary can be called immoral' is not the same as saying 'something involuntary can be moral'.
" I'm under no moral obligation to help someone in dying need. I'm under no moral obligation to report a crime. Do you understand the difference between positive and negative obligations?"
<= Traditional libertarian taught that has any notion of philosophy and the terms used in that, would say that you don't have legal obligation to help someone in dying need and no legal obligation to report a crime. Saying that you don't have a moral obligation to report a crime goes beyond that. That means claiming that these kinds of actions would be undesirable from a social perspective. (Again, in the traditional vocabulary used by philosophers, libertarian and non-libertarians.) Do you agree with this conclusion? If not; why do you use the term 'moral' obligation and not the term 'legal obligation', as it is commonly used.
Libertarianism talks about what can justify force. Libertarianism doesn't talk about what would be morally desirable _given_ a libertarian law code. I agree that libertarianism 'is to facilitate diversity of social views peacefully, not to create a group mind with regards to social attitudes and norms' It doesn't follow that there can be no philosophical inquiry of these social attitudes and norms and there can be ought and ought not statements regarding these social attitudes and social norms.
So, yes, I do understand the difference between positive and negative obligation. I deny - like every other libertarian - that people have positive legal obligations against other peoples, i.e. that they have positive obligations that can be enforced by the law to help/assist other people. People only have legal negative obligations. Traditional libertarianism - Rothbard, Long, Friedman, Schmitdz, Nozick, Randians, etc. - doesn't deny the fact that people can have, in fact, positive _moral_ obligations. We just deny that people can have positive moral obligations.
if you want to differ from this - explaining that given my, or given your, definition, people have no moral obligation - feel free to do so. If you are merely saying that people can't have positive legal obligations, than sure. There is no difference.
"It's irrelevant to libertarianism. The point of libertarianism is to facilitate diversity of social views peacefully, not to create a group mind with regards to social attitudes and norms. Again, tolerance is the highest libertarian value. What flavor ice cream you like, or which sex you are attracted to, or how much charity you should give, are all irrelevant to libertarianism. Libertarianism supports you making these decisions, but only for yourself."
<= I agree that it is irrelevant to libertarianism as a political/legal theory. What I'm saying is that this isn't irrelevant, period. Could you agree with that?
liberty student: How can someone be mistreated if they want it? Are you arguing against free will?
So, you accept behaviorism?
Autolykos:Whether the proposition "anything voluntary is moral" can be refuted depends on the definitions being used for "voluntary" and "moral" -- definitions which others are in no way obligated to agree with?
What is your point?
liberty student: Autolykos:Whether the proposition "anything voluntary is moral" can be refuted depends on the definitions being used for "voluntary" and "moral" -- definitions which others are in no way obligated to agree with? What is your point?
Probably this: "What are your own definitions for "voluntary" and "moral"?"
You know, the part you didn't quote?
AdrianHealey:"So then one cannot behave immoral, voluntarily. Thanks." <= How does this follow from "I don't think one can be immoral against oneself."?
One can only act with one's self. Unless you believe I can control you, which I assure you I cannot, because if I could, you would make much better arguments.
AdrianHealey:<= My parents, friends and peers have moral authority. I listen to them and if there arguments make sense about what I ought to do, I follow there suggestions (or try to so). Other moral authorities could be the church, a fraternal society, etc. Moral authority is not the same as legal authority - I hope the difference is clear by now?
Yes, it is very clear you don't know what authority is. That ^^ is not an example of authority. Want to try again?
AdrianHealey:<= Who is saying 'something involuntary can be moral'?
So you agree, involuntary relations can never be moral?
AdrianHealey:<= Traditional libertarian
I have no idea what this concept or party is. It is meaningless to me. I'm not appealing to tradition. I am appealing to reason.
AdrianHealey:Libertarianism doesn't talk about what would be morally desirable _given_ a libertarian law code.
It cannot.
AdrianHealey:Traditional libertarianism - Rothbard, Long, Friedman, Schmitdz, Nozick, Randians, etc. - doesn't deny the fact that people can have, in fact, positive _moral_ obligations. We just deny that people can have positive moral obligations.
Does this make any sense? Besides the blatant appeal to authority that is.
AdrianHealey:I agree that it is irrelevant to libertarianism as a political/legal theory.
Ancap or voluntarism are not legal/political systems or theories.
AdrianHealey:What I'm saying is that this isn't irrelevant, period. Could you agree with that?
Your subjective opinions beyond voluntary relations are irrelevant to me. I don't care what voluntary choices you make or approve of. They are arbitrary and subjective.