"The identity axiom is a fact, the non-aggression axiom is a fact, and it does not seem like I should have to prove either"
Can you do me a favor, will you step into an unbiased observer's shoes for a moment? What would you do if you saw someone in an argument harping on about the fact that they're right because what they believe is "axiomatic"? Non agression is not self evident in any way. The identity axiom is obviously true a priori, man cannot concieve of a world in which it is not true, however, man can certainly concieve of a world in which agression is not wrong, whatever 'wrong' actually means.
If you met a socialist who claimed that altruism was axiomatically true and just kept stating that it was axiomatic and wouldn't even consider that it could be wrong then what would you say to him? What would you think of him? Becuase this method is not mature, it's not scientific, it's not reasonable it's dogmatic in every way imaginable. It would seem as though according to your method his reasoning would be perfectly acceptable, he just happens to adopt the wrong self evident truth that doesn't need to be proved....
"As an individualist, I don't really care what anyone thinks besides myself, save for Rothbard."
Step back and read this statement for a moment. RD, you are NOT a stupid person and you're too good for dogmatism, please stop this insanity.
"I agree that your statement on stealing is objective. But it is not universal, seeing that it violates the NAA."
Let's see, Oxford Dictionary defines universal as:
'of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases:
universal adult suffrage'
The non agression axiom is nowhere to be found in this definition by the most trusted dictionary on earth, therefore because my ethic cast its judgement over all men, it is indeed universal.
Now please tell me this. What are the chances of what you're saying being true? Rothbard was a man who became infatuated with the teachings of Ludwig Von Mises, a radical advocate of laissez-faire, and then spent a long economic career in which he agreed with almost every single sentence that Mises ever uttered except those which could even possibly give an excuse for government intervention such as his views in monopoly price (constituting the worst and most blatantly BS chapter of MES) and classical liberalism/utilitarianism. Now what are the chances that this ECONOMIST who ALREADY believed that a free market economy was optimal and was obviously looking to expand his arguments in favor of the market would suddenly stumble upon an AXIOM, something that need not be justified, something that is SELF EVIDENT, which happened to justify EVERYTHING HE ALREADY BELIEVED? What are the chances that an economist would discover an axiom and the on "'true' 'morality'" (whatever the hell that actually means)??? Not the thousands of philosophers who went before Rothbard, or who have come since, who would appear to have less of a reason for biased opinions from the get go, no, it was a single free market economist who discovered something that was, once again, SELF EVIDENT, and furthermore something which, to my knowledge 99% of all philosophers since have disagreed upon.
Please read this and tell me how exactly you can go on believing this.
@Tunk, Rothbard would say it violates self-ownership which he thinks is a discoverable axiom by reason. Rothbard thinks that freedom of choice is certainly the key aspect of choice to maintain. If you threaten to violate a person's self-ownership, you are exercising direct control over somebody's body/self/whatever. It would be wrong for the same reason most people see slavery as being wrong. In his system, if you withhold food from someone who is hungry, you are not aggressing against them because they are not entitled to that food that you produced; their situation arose in a state of nature and their hunger was not caused by any human being. If you forcefully feed someone cyanide, you are taking control of their body without their permission, and you are not entitled to use this person's body without permission.
He would also probably go on to say that using coercion to get what you want violates reciprocity and as a consistent ethical system, it would completely destroy the structure of production and no civilization could be had.
"He would also probably go on to say that using coercion to get what you want violates reciprocity and as a consistent ethical system, it would completely destroy the structure of production and no civilization could be had."
These are Rothbard's subjective preferences - he prefers consistent ethics and having structure of production. I think it is safe to say if I subjectively prefer abundance to famine then in order to achieve that I should follow the only objectively correct way - ancap. If I prefer that but follow statist or ansyn dogma then who is to stop me? Is it "wrong" to do that? Abundance may not be may ultimate goal at all! In sense of my goal (abudance) it is wrong, but not "morally" but logically. If some ethics is true way to achieve something then it is objective as in - if you follow this you will get there for sure. Still I'm the one making choice, so all ethics are subjective - I can choose knowingly or unknowingly objectively wrong ethics to reach my goal. Objective ethics (in sense of trying to objectively universalize ethics) is collectivizm.
"These are Rothbard's subjective preferences - he prefers consistent ethics and having structure of production. I think it is safe to say if I subjectively prefer abundance to famine then in order to achieve that I should follow the only objectively correct way - ancap. If I prefer that but follow statist or ansyn dogma then who is to stop me? Is it "wrong" to do that? Abundance may not be may ultimate goal at all! In sense of my goal (abudance) it is wrong, but not "morally" but logically. If some ethics is true way to achieve something then it is objective as in - if you follow this you will get there for sure. Still I'm the one making choice, so all ethics are subjective - I can choose knowingly or unknowingly objectively wrong ethics to reach my goal. Objective ethics (in sense of trying to objectively universalize ethics) is collectivizm."
This.
These are Rothbard's subjective preferences - he prefers consistent ethics and having structure of production. I think it is safe to say if I subjectively prefer abundance to famine then in order to achieve that I should follow the only objectively correct way - ancap.
Not quite. The point of noting that non-aggression is a building block of social cooperation (and, hence, civilization itself, the structure of production) is not to say "I like civilization, so therefore we shouldn't tolerate violations of the non-aggression principle." Rather, the point is to explain how it is that we even have a structure of production in the first place. The (normative) public policy recommendations can be made as a completely separate issue from the (purely positive) description of the state of affairs as they are.
Objective ethics (in sense of trying to objectively universalize ethics) is collectivizm.
Rothbard's and Hoppe's views on the objectivity of ethics are regrettable.
Clayton -
I can take that statement back. I should stipulate that it was only meant to pertain to political philosophy, for which I trust MNR more than anyone else. But, yes, I regret the way I phrased that statement. I do care what you think; I merely disagree.
It would seem as though according to your method his reasoning would be perfectly acceptable, he just happens to adopt the wrong self evident truth that doesn't need to be proved....
I would agree with that. Though I would say he has adopted something that is self-evidently false, since the NAA is self-evidently true.
I believe that there is Good and Evil, and that Evil is not an option: Good must be imposed upon everyone. I believe that things can be categorized into Black and White, and that this is the case with aggressive and non-aggressive actions. We, as Libertarians, must strive to abolish the Evil in the world, meaning those hegemonic actions which benefit one at the expense of another. In short, we must strive to fight against aggression, and establish a system wherein every man has a right to his own. Criminals must indeed always be punished by the strict hand of Rothbardian Law. You do not have a choice to hurt others, for hurting others is Wrong. Good and Evil amounts to a basic duality in the nature of Man, and we must extol Virtue and condemn Vice. We must choose one or the other in this duality of Good and Evil, and Libertarianism is all about choosing the former.
RothbardsDisciple:I believe that there is Good and Evil, and that Evil is not an option: Good must be imposed upon everyone. I believe that things can be categorized into Black and White, and that this is the case with aggressive and non-aggressive actions. We, as Libertarians, must strive to abolish the Evil in the world, meaning those hegemonic actions which benefit one at the expense of another. In short, we must strive to fight against aggression, and establish a system wherein every man has a right to his own. Criminals must indeed always be punished by the strict hand of Rothbardian Law. You do not have a choice to hurt others, for hurting others is Wrong. Good and Evil amounts to a basic duality in the nature of Man, and we must extol Virtue and condemn Vice. We must choose one or the other in this duality of Good and Evil, and Libertarianism is all about choosing the former.
Good lord, a neocon could have written that. I think you might want to rethink all those "musts" since libertarianism is NOT about imposing things on people.
Rothbardian Libertarianism is about imposing non-aggression upon people. You do not have a choice whether to aggress.
Libertarianism is the movement for the radical abolition of Aggression, otherwise known as Evil. While Evil may not ever be entirely abolished, we must always fight against it.
boniek: These are Rothbard's subjective preferences - he prefers consistent ethics and having structure of production. I think it is safe to say if I subjectively prefer abundance to famine then in order to achieve that I should follow the only objectively correct way - ancap. If I prefer that but follow statist or ansyn dogma then who is to stop me? Is it "wrong" to do that? Abundance may not be may ultimate goal at all! In sense of my goal (abudance) it is wrong, but not "morally" but logically. If some ethics is true way to achieve something then it is objective as in - if you follow this you will get there for sure. Still I'm the one making choice, so all ethics are subjective - I can choose knowingly or unknowingly objectively wrong ethics to reach my goal.
These are Rothbard's subjective preferences - he prefers consistent ethics and having structure of production. I think it is safe to say if I subjectively prefer abundance to famine then in order to achieve that I should follow the only objectively correct way - ancap. If I prefer that but follow statist or ansyn dogma then who is to stop me? Is it "wrong" to do that? Abundance may not be may ultimate goal at all! In sense of my goal (abudance) it is wrong, but not "morally" but logically. If some ethics is true way to achieve something then it is objective as in - if you follow this you will get there for sure. Still I'm the one making choice, so all ethics are subjective - I can choose knowingly or unknowingly objectively wrong ethics to reach my goal.
"I can take that statement back."
Thank you.
"I would agree with that. Though I would say he has adopted something that is self-evidently false, since the NAA is self-evidently true."
If something is self-evident then how is it that someone can even concieve of a world in which it is not the case? You still haven't answered the question as to why he's wrong beyond giving the same non-answer that you've been giving.
"I believe that there is Good and Evil"
And what do these words mean? What does it imply if one is good, what does it imply if one is evil? What should be done, why "should" anyone do anything?
"and that Evil is not an option: Good must be imposed upon "
OR WHAT? Or it's evil? What does this mean??
"I believe that things can be categorized into Black and White,"
A fool's errand with human affairs.
"We, as Libertarians, must strive to abolish the Evil in the world,"
Why? Because otherwise we are evil? Why does it matter? I think you might find yourself avoiding this question because you'll find but two answers, appeals to the values of others, which is not a true morality, or worse, appeals to your own.
"In short, we must strive to fight against aggression, and establish a system wherein every man has a right to his own."
I "must" do nothing but that which I wish to do. I really don't give a damn what you think I must or must not do.
"You do not have a choice to hurt others, for hurting others is Wrong."
I do have a choice, and hurting others is not wrong accept insofar as I consider it to be.
"Good and Evil amounts to a basic duality in the nature of Man"
To the free spirit, who has broken free of the mental shakles of moralities and governments, all that is good is that which he wills, all that is evil is that which hampers his will. This is the ultimate way of things.
"and we must extol Virtue and condemn Vice."
Or?
"We must choose one or the other in this duality of Good and Evil, and Libertarianism is all about choosing the former."
As is every other ideology ever.
The worst part about this deeply flawed paragraph is that you didn't adress my question. I don't care if you respond to this. ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTION, DON'T DODGE AROUND IT:
"Now what are the chances that this ECONOMIST who ALREADY believed that a free market economy was optimal and was obviously looking to expand his arguments in favor of the market would suddenly stumble upon an AXIOM, something that need not be justified, something that is SELF EVIDENT, which happened to justify EVERYTHING HE ALREADY BELIEVED? What are the chances that an economist would discover an axiom and the on "'true' 'morality'" (whatever the hell that actually means)??? Not the thousands of philosophers who went before Rothbard, or who have come since, who would appear to have less of a reason for biased opinions from the get go, no, it was a single free market economist who discovered something that was, once again, SELF EVIDENT, and furthermore something which, to my knowledge 99% of all philosophers since have disagreed upon."
"Libertarianism is the movement for the radical abolition of Aggression, otherwise known as Evil. While Evil may not ever be entirely abolished, we must always fight against it."
If agression=evil then I think that you'll find that most of the libertarians around here don't believe or care about agression, or that most of these libertarians are not libertarians at all. Most of us care deeply about agression, not so much about the mythical unicorn of vice evil
RD, read some Nietzche, or Stirner. You don't have to agree with them, but it would probably be valuable to you. And you should drop this whole radical imposition of non-agression thing you're going on about. The "imposition of non-agression" is so riddled with contradicition it deconstructs itself.
Birthday Pony:RD, read some Nietzche, or Stirner. You don't have to agree with them, but it would probably be valuable to you. And you should drop this whole radical imposition of non-agression thing you're going on about. The "imposition of non-agression" is so riddled with contradicition it deconstructs itself.
The irony is almost palpable.
I would've figured my posts weren't worthy of a response from an intellectual superior such as yourself, JJ. I'm flattered you even noticed me.
Good must be imposed upon everyone
I would like to see a cite of Rothbard on this. I've read the first few chapters of EoL and Rothbard's tone is nowhere close to this dogmatic, even when he asserts that morality is objective and cites an example of eating a poisonous mushroom as an "objectively wrong" act.
Also, please thoroughly define the words "good" and "impose".
tunk: But how this proves that "all ethics are subjective" is beyond me. I did not write this to prove anything. I'm just sharing my understanding of the subject and await criticism to see how it stands up to that. Thanks for replying :) tunk: You have not accounted for the possibility that there could be one goal which all human beings necessarily hold and aim at by virtue of being human -- Rothbard's position and mine and the classical Aristotelian one -- for which certain means can be universally perscribed; these would be the commandments of personal morality. I can at any time say and do contrary to the public consensus (or even my own) thus breaking objectivity of such goal. Subjective consensus is not the same as objectively true goal. I think there is necessarily no such thing as objective goal as goals are chosen by indviduals. tunk: Of course nothing is "to stop" you from failing to do what is right, just like nothing is "to stop" you from training from the race, but that doesn't even come close to proving that right and wrong do not exist. Why do you expect ethical laws to work the way the law of gravitation works? I do think that right and wrong objectively exist - as our subjective feelings. tunk: If you believe that "all ethics are subjective", then you are essentially saying that no goals are ultimately better than any others; If I believe that "all ethics are subjective", then that sentence does not make sense. Ultimately better according to whom? tunk: all values are equal. By what objective standard? I say no such thing because I don't know if such standard is even possible to exist. tunk: But as soon as you say this you run into a problem. Namely, by arguing with me you have clearly valued arguing with me higher than you have not arguing with me. You had a standard for decision-making determined by your values. But how did you make this decision if no values are superior to any others? You could respond to this by saying your choice of values was merely subjective, not objective, and the result of your whim. But by what standard did you make that decision? And by what standard did you adopt that standard? Why do you do what you do? And why do you do that? This is the regress problem that Aristotle identified centuries ago. Ultimately, there must be some self-justifying end-in-itself at which you aim that allows you to decide that holding any values and acting to gain anything is preferable to not. (It cannot merely be your "passions", as Hume suggested, because choosing to follow your passions is itself a choice that demands higher order justification.) This end-in-itself is not and cannot be subjectively adopted (since that would beg the question). It must be objectively determined for you, perhaps by God, perhaps by your nature, and beyond your choice. What is it? Well, that question has been answered elsewhere. The point is that moral subjectivism is existentially self-refuting, much like epistemological skepticism is logically self-refuting. Yes, values are subjective, decision-making standard is too. I see no problem in this. Please explain or point to further sources. tunk: Objective ethics (in sense of trying to objectively universalize ethics) is collectivizm. Funny then, how moral nihilists like yourself have good company among the cultural left, potheads, hipsters, hippies, and Parisian Marxist sociologist crackpots. And yes, I suppose it is quite "unfortunate" that some of us are able to objectively condemn slavery and the Holocaust as definite moral wrongs, whereas everybody else would have to appeal to what, 1930s German tort law?
tunk: You have not accounted for the possibility that there could be one goal which all human beings necessarily hold and aim at by virtue of being human -- Rothbard's position and mine and the classical Aristotelian one -- for which certain means can be universally perscribed; these would be the commandments of personal morality.
tunk: Of course nothing is "to stop" you from failing to do what is right, just like nothing is "to stop" you from training from the race, but that doesn't even come close to proving that right and wrong do not exist. Why do you expect ethical laws to work the way the law of gravitation works?
tunk: If you believe that "all ethics are subjective", then you are essentially saying that no goals are ultimately better than any others;
tunk: all values are equal.
tunk: But as soon as you say this you run into a problem. Namely, by arguing with me you have clearly valued arguing with me higher than you have not arguing with me. You had a standard for decision-making determined by your values. But how did you make this decision if no values are superior to any others? You could respond to this by saying your choice of values was merely subjective, not objective, and the result of your whim. But by what standard did you make that decision? And by what standard did you adopt that standard? Why do you do what you do? And why do you do that? This is the regress problem that Aristotle identified centuries ago. Ultimately, there must be some self-justifying end-in-itself at which you aim that allows you to decide that holding any values and acting to gain anything is preferable to not. (It cannot merely be your "passions", as Hume suggested, because choosing to follow your passions is itself a choice that demands higher order justification.) This end-in-itself is not and cannot be subjectively adopted (since that would beg the question). It must be objectively determined for you, perhaps by God, perhaps by your nature, and beyond your choice. What is it? Well, that question has been answered elsewhere. The point is that moral subjectivism is existentially self-refuting, much like epistemological skepticism is logically self-refuting.
tunk: Objective ethics (in sense of trying to objectively universalize ethics) is collectivizm. Funny then, how moral nihilists like yourself have good company among the cultural left, potheads, hipsters, hippies, and Parisian Marxist sociologist crackpots. And yes, I suppose it is quite "unfortunate" that some of us are able to objectively condemn slavery and the Holocaust as definite moral wrongs, whereas everybody else would have to appeal to what, 1930s German tort law?
I don't see how I'm moral nihilist or how is this revelant to this discussion. I have my values (and yes I abhor slavery and any murder no matter the scale - thus I'm ancap). I just don't see how my morality universally bounds everyone. I'm not moral collectivist. Thanks for taking your time to reply to my ramblings :)
OK, throwing my hat in the ring (can't resist all the Stirner references!)
tunk:Of course it's true that only if you aim at goal X can the means to X be perscribed for you... But how this proves that "all ethics are subjective" is beyond me. You have not accounted for the possibility that there could be one goal which all human beings necessarily hold and aim at by virtue of being human -- Rothbard's position and mine and the classical Aristotelian one -- for which certain means can be universally perscribed; these would be the commandments of personal morality.
The "higher calling" argument, although interesting, is based completely on faith of one form or another. That's like me saying,
"You have not accounted for the possibility that apples are better than oranges."
There is no way to argue for or against this poistion. Not that there's anything "wrong" with that.
tunk:Of course nothing is "to stop" you from failing to do what is right, just like nothing is "to stop" you from training from the race, but that doesn't even come close to proving that right and wrong do not exist. Why do you expect ethical laws to work the way the law of gravitation works?
This is shifting the goalposts on what a "law" is. The laws of physics are unbreakable. If they are broken, the law is no longer considered a "law". That is a completely different use of the word "law" as the "laws of virtue". As you said, those laws are always optional, unless you self-enforce them. This is why some on this forum (myself included) consider them subjective to the individual.
tunk:If you believe that "all ethics are subjective", then you are essentially saying that no goals are ultimately better than any others; all values are equal. But as soon as you say this you run into a problem. Namely, by arguing with me you have clearly valued arguing with me higher than you have not arguing with me. You had a standard for decision-making determined by your values. But how did you make this decision if no values are superior to any others?
I think there is some conflation going on here between "intersubjective goals" ("objective goals", as per how the word "objective" has been used on this thread so far), and "individual goals". Morality is inherently a social construct, just as Crusoe has no need for property (rightful possession), he has no need for morals (rightful conduct), unless he fears some sort of otherworldly reprocussion. That is not to say that Crusoe will not desire some change in the status quo, in which case he must make a judgment on the best course of action to achieve that goal, and act.
tunk:You could respond to this by saying your choice of values was merely subjective, not objective, and the result of your whim. But by what standard did you make that decision? And by what standard did you adopt that standard? Why do you do what you do? And why do you do that? This is the regress problem that Aristotle identified centuries ago. Ultimately, there must be some self-justifying end-in-itself at which you aim that allows you to decide that holding any values and acting to gain anything is preferable to not. (It cannot merely be your "passions", as Hume suggested, because choosing to follow your passions is itself a choice that demands higher order justification.)
All too true. Once there is no justification to be found, you have entered the "dark night of the soul", or an "Existential Crisis". This is Camus' ultimate question of philosophy,
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer [the questions of suicide].” - Camus
Death, (as a secular 20th century philosopher understood it) is the end of choice, the end of the struggle of decision. Of course, my opinion and his tend to diverge rather acutely afterwards. Whereas I find the answer in the illusory nature of the "self", and stirve toward union with the Tao, Camus proposes we live life for "life's sake", in which challenge and struggle become ends in and of themselves.
tunk:The point is that moral subjectivism is existentially self-refuting, much like epistemological skepticism is logically self-refuting.
Whoa, how did we get here?
tunk:And yes, I suppose it is quite "unfortunate" that some of us are able to objectively condemn slavery and the Holocaust as definite moral wrongs, whereas everybody else would have to appeal to what, 1930s German tort law?
LOL, please look into "karma yoga". The world is how you make it. If meditated upon for long enough, most of the activities you attempt to prove as wrong, can be understood to act against our personal desires in the long term. They do not need to be "always wrong" in order to be "wrong" relative to one's goals most of the time. If what you think is true, and these actions are "wrong", then they won't happen very often if ignorance is removed from the equation.
tunk:Funny then, how moral nihilists like yourself have good company among the cultural left, potheads, hipsters, hippies, and Parisian Marxist sociologist crackpots.
You've entered the no spin zone! Mr. O'Reilly, what an honor...
Well put.
It is easy for the best and brightest to get caught up in these types of storms. It is always good to as yourself from time to time - "what am I doing", "why am I doing it", and "what lead me here in the 1st place". What goals are you trying to accomplish in studying Rothbard, and what would lead you to make a sentence like that?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Centinel,
As it stands today, might does make right. That may help to explain why those who are not interested in weilding "might/right" over others would find it hard to make it in a society in which this meme, the meme of "the state", has infected the majority of people. This might also explain why pacifists have never made a very good show of it either. Once again, you are equating "conquest" and "superiority",
Centinel:Disease was a symptom of a backward culture, not the cause of it or some lucky phenonmena that a vastly superior European culture capitalized on.
which is a premise that I, for one, disagree with in both instances.
Perhaps democracy is the breed of big lie that has the greatest capability to seize men's minds. Congragulations to the most virulent form of subjegation! Hurray, "Higer Order Direct Democracy, a Fully owned Subsidiary of the Federal Reserve Bank of the U.N., blah blah..." is the best at being the worst!
If so, so what?
"might does make right"
Are you actually sticking to this stament as inherently true Jackson? Or are you simply stating that this is how the current system operates?
"It is easy for the best and brightest to get caught up in these types of storms. It is always good to as yourself from time to time - "what am I doing", "why am I doing it", and "what lead me here in the 1st place". What goals are you trying to accomplish in studying Rothbard, and what would lead you to make a sentence like that?"
The key to all happiness, the key to all 'truth', the key to all things worth achieving in this human life we lead, is a continual questioning of one's values and actions, of one's means and ends, a perfection of the eternal praxeological motive.
This is true of belief as well as physical action. No one but the most ignorant and adacious of thinkers would dare to admitt to themselves that they are close minded to the ideas of others or, more importantly, to the possibility of their own falibility in their field of interest, however this is what happens to far too many.
Everyone needs to get kicked in the teeth intellectually a few times to really learn the magnitude and the immutability of their own ignorance.
"Science and our organized body of knowledge teach only what is, not what ought to be."
Seems like there's people who want to claim what's ought as what is, and those who profess that there's only what is, and that's that. I side with what is, and what ought to be is mere speculation.
is/ought is solvable by replacing it with if/then :) checkmate, subjectivists.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Neodoxy,
I'm saying that is how the current system operates. Of course, I can't envision an alternative, but that may be my limitation.
The more power one wields relative to others, the more economical it becomes to subjegate those weaker individuals. That is why I am such an ardent proponent of decentralization, and dispersion of power to as many individuals as possible, so my relative power increases.
tunk:So I'm reading Ethics of Liberty, and Rothbard makes a distinction between freedom of choice and power or abundance of choice. If man is stranded on a deserted island, he has a completely unrestricted freedom of choice. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much of an abundance of choice: he can either gather the material resources he needs to survive, or he can starve. Rothbard later goes on to say that coercion is bad because it restricts your freedom of choice. But I don't see how this is true. Suppose I put a gun to Jim's head and demand he fork over his wallet. He certainly does have freedom of choice: he can give up the goods, or get shot in the face. All I've done is restrict his abundance of choice. Am I missing something here? Why exactly is coercion bad?
Rothbard later goes on to say that coercion is bad because it restricts your freedom of choice. But I don't see how this is true. Suppose I put a gun to Jim's head and demand he fork over his wallet. He certainly does have freedom of choice: he can give up the goods, or get shot in the face. All I've done is restrict his abundance of choice.
Am I missing something here? Why exactly is coercion bad?
I define "coercion" as "the threat of violence". Note that violence is typically considered to be either aggressive or defensive. So I'd say that aggressive coercion - that is, the threat of aggressive violence - is wrong, but not coercion in general.
I disagree that putting a gun to Jim's head either restricts his freedom of choice or his abundance of choice. Technically, the choice to get shot in the face isn't Jim's choice - rather, it's yours. After all, you're the one with the gun. Indeed, to speak of a passive or receptive choice is what I'd call a category error.
Coercion doesn't concern choices per se - it concerns results or consequences. Whereas aggression literally imposes new results or consequences, coercion merely threatens such. In other words, and as Clayton stated, coercion is unilateral imposition of risk.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
MaikU:is/ought is solvable by replacing it with if/then :) checkmate, subjectivists.
If you kill a complete stranger, then he is dead. Where does right and wrong figure into that? ;)
Jackson LaRose:The more power one wields relative to others, the more economical it becomes to subjegate those weaker individuals.
Can you please provide your definition of "power"?
Centinel:Morality is subjective. And my subjective value judgment is that coercion to promote life, liberty and private property is moral. And allowing statists to use coercion to undermine societal life, liberty and private property when you possess the means to check this transgression is immoral.
And my subjective value judgment is that coercion to promote life, liberty and private property is moral.
And allowing statists to use coercion to undermine societal life, liberty and private property when you possess the means to check this transgression is immoral.
We've been through this before. You still haven't provided your definition of "coercion", so how does any of us know exactly what you're talking about?
RothbardsDisciple:Because I am sure you have researched the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" in the OED and really know what they mean? I can explain this to you if you want. In short, "objectivity" does not imply "universality": saying that morality is objective is not saying that there is one true morality (which I also believe). I think Rothbardian ethics are both objective and universally true, but the two words I have used mean very different things.
"Objective" is one of those words that, despite whatever the OED or any other dictionary says, is used in at least a few different ways. One of the ways in which it's used is in the sense of "empirical" - that is, something is "objective" in this sense if it can be observed in the external world. As far as anyone can tell, moral values are absolutely, categorically not "objective" in this sense.
Another sense in which "objective" is used is in the sense of "absolute" - that is, something is "objective" in this sense if it falls into one and only one of two or more categories. Morality can be "objective" in this sense if a given thing (action, event, condition, etc.) is definitely either "right" or "wrong". I think this is what Rothbard refers to when he talks about "objective morality", but I could be wrong.
A third sense in which "objective" is used is in the sense of "universal" - that is, something is "objective" in this sense if it applies to all objects of a certain type. Morality can be "objective" in this sense if it's presumed to apply to all people. However, it's equally "objective" in this sense if it applies to only one person. Only the type of object has changed.
Autolykos,
Why, soytenly!
Power - Any means to competitive advantage; the ability to realize one's desired ends.
Those appear to be two different definitions. Which one are you using?
Not in a world of scarcity!
Please do explain in more detail. I see no reason why I must tease out explanations from you bit by bit.
Sorry, I did not intend to be obtuse.
In a world of scarcity, resources must be competed for, if those resources are required to achieve one's desired end.
If I want some of your stuff, I have to be able to "outcompete" you for that stuff. Otherwise, you just wouldn't listen to me. If I have the ability to outcompete you (power), than I can successfully appropriate your claimed items.
This is the case no matter if the exchange is symbiotic (mutual benefit) or parasitic (benefit at the expense of another), or somewhere in between.
Jackson LaRose:Sorry, I did not intend to be obtuse.
You weren't being obtuse - you were being cryptic. My question is, why?
Jackson LaRose:In a world of scarcity, resources must be competed for, if those resources are required to achieve one's desired end. If I want some of your stuff, I have to be able to "outcompete" you for that stuff. Otherwise, you just wouldn't listen to me. If I have the ability to outcompete you (power), than I can successfully appropriate your claimed items. This is the case no matter if the exchange is symbiotic (mutual benefit) or parasitic (benefit at the expense of another), or somewhere in between.
How does a certain amount of money or other wealth necessarily constitute the ability to "outcompete" anyone?
Centinel:except your implication that the state is the source of all coercion or at least the origin of all destruction sources of coercion or that all coercion is destructive is wrong.
That was not the intent of that quote. I would posit that the state is by definition a coercive institution. Clearly though, individuals can coerce other individuals, without institutionalizing it.
What I meant is that in a society where "might makes right", and some forms of violence are considered legitimate, it stands to reason why concepts which reject these positions would naturally be difficult to implement.
Centinel:Coercion is simply a means to an end.
Granted.
Centinel:The state is simply a means to an end.
Also granted.
Centinel:When that end is life, liberty and private property then the means used to achieve these ends is justified provided that the net costs in life, liberty and private property protections are not less than otherwise would have been the case had coercion not been utilized.
I would argue that the desired ends of those who command the state are not life, liberty, and private property. Even if I grant you that position, from a utilitarian standpoint, the threat posed by the state towards all of the purported ends it claims to strive towards are much greater than any individual.
Life - Total deaths in American combat, total executions since 1976 vs. Rampage Killers
Liberty - Prisoners per capita vs. Kidnappings per year
Private property - Eminent Domain vs. Squatting, also some personal ones here and here
The lip service they pay to the Enlightenment ideals upon which this nation was purportedly founded is only so much propoganda. Marketing for the Big Lie, if you will.
Centinel:Perhaps we should work to reduce the ability of the state to engage in economic coercion rather than promote systems that have been tried and failed (anarchism).
Any decentralization is good, and I would say that "Anarchism" is just the logical conclusion of decentralization. At what point to put on the brakes (if at all) is anyone's guess. If one's true aim is to maximize "life, liberty, and private property", then advocating an institution that must assume, by definition, that all people and materials within a deliniated geographic area are under its rightful subjegation seems counter-productive at the most fundamental level.
Centinel:In fact, anarchism is the fastest path to absolutism yet known to man since self-serving private actors quickly exploit the void filled by institutions that formerly decentralized, balanced, limited and made transparent the instruments of coercion.
As has been stated previously, the state is a means to an end. It is a tool, like a gun. It is one of the most powerful tools of control ever implemented. Private actors, without this tool at their disposal, would have a much tougher time exploiting the weak, since their power would be so greatly diminished.
I would also argue that the state does not decentralize power, it concentrates it, it does not balance (redistribute?) power, it allows the powerful to become more so, It does not limit power, it allows individuals to control far more than they could just as individuals, and it's mechanations are far from transparent (see classified information).
Autolykos:you were being cryptic.
That was not my intent.
Autolykos:How does a certain amount of money or other wealth necessarily constitute the ability to "outcompete" anyone?
You set up a straw man. My question is, why?