GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:Tradition qua traditon? Or tradition in the light of modern knowledge? Tradition in the sense of family and religious values. Amongst other things, such as "tribal" (for lack of a better word) values.
ryanpatgray:Tradition qua traditon? Or tradition in the light of modern knowledge?
Tradition in the sense of family and religious values. Amongst other things, such as "tribal" (for lack of a better word) values.
Define religious values. These mean different things to different people.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Juan: GS: J: Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY. If you don't think it is then I guess that's too bad for you, since this is the result of abolishing the state. Not your utopian visions of Aristotle running insurance companies or the production of defense being inspired by Rational Man or The Libertarian Idea. If you don't like this, stick to statism. Well, you are clueless about what libertarianism is. Or pretending to be.
GS: J: Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY. If you don't think it is then I guess that's too bad for you, since this is the result of abolishing the state. Not your utopian visions of Aristotle running insurance companies or the production of defense being inspired by Rational Man or The Libertarian Idea. If you don't like this, stick to statism.
J: Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY.
I don't care if you question my libertarian credentials for understanding the reality of the situation. I'm not saying this situation is ideal, I'm saying it's the way things are. Insurance companies have the intention of making money, they won't care about The Nicomachean Ethics, notice, I'm not saying that what the The Nicomachean Ethics says isn't true, or that various things are just, merely that once we've abolished the state the most you can do is appeal to people to follow the word of natural rights and to not lynch blacks or gays.
(That post is rather convoluted, so sorry, it's get the message across nonetheless though).
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:Tradition qua traditon? Or tradition in the light of modern knowledge? Tradition in the sense of family and religious values. Amongst other things, such as "tribal" (for lack of a better word) values. Define religious values. These mean different things to different people.
I'm guessing that you're asking me if I just mean Christianity, the answer is no.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:Tradition qua traditon? Or tradition in the light of modern knowledge? Tradition in the sense of family and religious values. Amongst other things, such as "tribal" (for lack of a better word) values. Define religious values. These mean different things to different people. I'm guessing that you're asking me if I just mean Christianity, the answer is no.
You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?
GS:Yes, just not necessarily the correct view of justice. Although this is quickly turning into an argument over semantics, if it does I'm not going to bother carrying on.
My point is that it is this view of justice that counts, not Aristotles.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
ryanpatgray:You were trying to use reason.
ryanpatgray:I do not judge an idea by its origin. To do so would be a genetic fallacy. I believe that philosophy will be more important because people can no longer defer to "the law" or "the courts" as being the final arbiter of justice. Toto will have revealed the Wizard as a mortal man
ryanpatgray:The state subsidizes philosophers for the same reason it subsidizes economists. The results are predictable in both cases. With few exceptions, philosophers and economists subsidized by the state justify the existence of the state.
ryanpatgray:You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?
People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn't there to understand?
Juan:Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY. Also, are you conceding that there is an (objective) ethical manner to do things ?
Again, I think it goes without saying that there will never be a perfectly free society unless the robots take over. Man isn't a creature who is always rational, always diligent, and always in control.
So semantically, you are correct. Absolutely. But within the context of what libertarian societies will look like, well, they won't always have positive outcomes, or the outcomes you and I desire. But that is the nature of freedom. It makes no provision for the general welfare. The only way to do that, is tyranny.
Juan: You're amazing
Thank you.
Juan:YOU twist the meaning of words and then complain about semantics. Justice is what it is, not what the market may demand. YOU are trying to redefine 'justice' as 'whatever the market demands'.
No, I'm not. You're misrepresenting me. I've said all along that Aristotle, or libertarianism or whatever else you or I think is just, may well be correct. What I've said is that the "justice" (or other people's conception of it) that matter is that that is supplied in the market place, not what may be logically correct.
You're twisting my words and being a pedant.
Juan:Pure subjectivism. Just the thing Liberty Student loves...or hates ?
Pure illiteracy.
GS:I'm not saying this situation is ideal, I'm saying it's the way things are. Insurance companies have the intention of making money, they won't care about The Nicomachean Ethics, notice, I'm not saying that what the The Nicomachean Ethics says isn't true, or that various things are just, merely that once we've abolished the state the most you can do is appeal to people to follow the word of natural rights and to not lynch blacks or gays. (That post is rather convoluted, so sorry, it's get the message across nonetheless though).
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:You were trying to use reason. And? People reason all the time, it doesn't mean they're being philosophers.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:I do not judge an idea by its origin. To do so would be a genetic fallacy. I believe that philosophy will be more important because people can no longer defer to "the law" or "the courts" as being the final arbiter of justice. Toto will have revealed the Wizard as a mortal man People can defer to the courts, only in a stateless society there will be more than one provider of them.
GilesStratton:you're correct, but you also avoided the issue: the effect that the subsidies have on the number of philosophers, I don't think I need to tell you the answer.
LS:But within the context of what libertarian societies will look like, well, they won't always have positive outcomes, or the outcomes you and I desire. But that is the nature of freedom.
Juan:However, I do know that revealed religion is just lies.
Know or believe? This is one of those occassions where a value/fact gap can't be crossed with the longest bridge. Can you prove it deductively? No one can, because praxeology only applies to human action not theology or the action of the divine. Can you falsify it empiricly? Not unless you've returned from the afterlife and knew that it was nonexistant or empty of a deity or whatnot. And people who claim to come back from the dead are usually unreliable witnesses.
You can falsify the Christian, for example, story of creation to some extent, perhaps but that a) assumes a fundementalist reading of Christian text b) still doesn't disprove the existence of God. So if you can't prove its false, your view of it as lies is as much a subjective preference as GilesStratton's unmainstream views on sexuality. Furthermore, assuming Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion was a lie that's not proof of any wrong doing on the parent's part from a libertarian standpoint. Assume someone sells you a good for $500. You pass this good on that you were told was valuable to your son or daughter. Then, you are informed by this Argentinian fellow that the good was a fraud or a lie or a counterfeit. Would you have commited any wrong against your child? Of Course not.
Juan:Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what's next ? Will PDA X defend the "right to stoning" of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ?
I can't answer for GS, but I can answer for myself. Hoppe Himself and many others have written on why the law between PDAs would be in general a libertarian law. If the PDA Y was protecting a homosexual, for example, PDA X would have no right to enforce this law. But if all the people who believe in laws like that signed a contract that as a condition of leasing their land or providing for the PDA that as a member of the GilesStratton PDA or GS Land that they would not participate in homosexual acts under the condition of exile, higher rates or even stoning, that would just be the conditions of the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. Would GilesStratton's PDA have the right to march down to SanFran and stone the Gay Pride Parade or whatever? No!
If GilesStratton believes his social ideas, agreed to by freely contracting parties are more competitive than Juan's social ideas agreed to by freely contracting parties that can be determined by the actual functions of the market and consumer's preferences. However, I think it's safe to assume that two PDA's/contractual land-usage societies/other form of voluntary societal organization could compete without one "winning", just as Coke and Pepsi compete without one winning, no? I see no reason why Giles will "defeat you economically" or vice versa. But until there's a market or some more convinving evidence than eachother's subjective preferences, your argument will be like Days of our Lives. No one "wins" and the action doesn't really change from thread to thread.
In addition, to return to something more closely related with Hoppe, what's everyone's thoughts on his Argumentation Ethics? Has anyone come up with extensions to other areas based on it besides Kinsella's estoppel. I tried to apply it to abortion, but that was an epic fail.
GS:You're misrepresenting me. I've said all along that Aristotle, or libertarianism or whatever else you or I think is just, may well be correct. What I've said is that the "justice" (or other people's conception of it) that matter is that that is supplied in the market place, not what may be logically correct.
Juan:Sorry, you're defining 'freedom' as 'whatever happens'. I'm defining freedom as in 'being free from force and fraud'.
The only way to absolutely insulate yourself from the force and fraud of others is tyranny. Man does not always act rationally or morally. Even if your intentions are the best, you cannot control or predict if someone will choose to steal rather than work. Sure, a libertarian society might incentivize better or even great behaviour, but the human experience is not without it's randomness, it's wild elements. Life is a series of leaps of faith, in love, in collaboration, in cooperation. Inputs do not always equal outputs.
Which is why the perfectly moral and righteous society you keep referring to might be best confined to robots and computers, which Asimov considered to be perfectly truthful to their programming.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn't there to understand?
GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.
ryanpatgray:It does not mean they become professional philosophers at some institute or other but they are using philosophy. Using philosophy does not necessarily mean you work for a university or institute or think tank.
I would disagree. But it seems that this is going off on a tangent, and a pointless one at that, so I don't see any point continuing with this.
ryanpatgray:The fact that there will be more than one provider of them means that people much choose which provider. They will have to use their brains rather than have this decided for them
And? It doesn't mean that the provider of courts and "justice" that they choose will be the one that is in line with what philosophy would dictate to be just. Like I said, people won't begin becoming philosophers (in the sense I was using it) once we abolish the state, if you want to make that case that it will be so, prove it.
They most definately won't become good philosophers.
ryanpatgray:My point is that people will be forced to ask themselves more questions about morality and the nature of the universe because they will not have a single arbitrary authority on high making judgments with a gavel.
Perhaps, but it doesn't mean they'll make what philosophy would dictate to be the right decision. More than likely they'll choose the provider of security that is most in line with the cultural preferences that he's developed as he matures.
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn't there to understand?This: GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.Which means that you mean people with contradictory systems are favored. Everything from Wicca to Buddhism to Christianity to Islam to traditional African faiths and Zoroastrianism.
I still don't get what the problem is.
GilesStratton:People can defer to the courts, only in a stateless society there will be more than one provider of them. Unless you're saying that the courts will be guided by philophy and therefore those that buy their services will be inspired by this philosophy. But that begs the question, since courts will provide the "justice" that their potential customers desire.
To clarify the point, if in San Francisco there were homosexuals who consented to the rules set up by the San Francisco PDAs and you lived in Utah where the Mormons are anti-homosexual(just an analogy) would it be exceptable for the Mormons to "demand justice" vis a vis their PDA's elimination of the San Francisco homosexuals? Of course we are assuming at this point that these PDAs/communities have not outcompeted eachother. Or are you simply stating that those who contractually agree to Mormon law would be able to be punished by any method they agreed to under Mormon law and that they would be estopped from saying otherwise? Do you think there is a right for said homosexual who may not have realized their previous homosexuality to flee to San Francisco?
I'm sorry if you've addressed these before, but if your answer is what I think it will be these could be deemed friendly inquiries. If not, well then I'd be helping Juan's argument.
GilesStratton, it seems we are simply using philsophy and phillosopher is different ways. Phillosophy to me does not imply you work for some university or institute.
Juan:Well, I'm not misinterpreting you on purpose. If what is supplied by the PDAs is not defense but aggression then it makes no sense to call that "justice".
You're correct, it may not be justice in the sense that is logically correct. But it is justice in the sense that many people may adhere to those ideas, they're just false.
I get the feeling we're talking past one another.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn't there to understand?This: GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.Which means that you mean people with contradictory systems are favored. Everything from Wicca to Buddhism to Christianity to Islam to traditional African faiths and Zoroastrianism. I still don't get what the problem is.
They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time.
Nerditarian:I'm sorry if you've addressed these before, but if your answer is what I think it will be these could be deemed friendly inquiries. If not, well then I'd be helping Juan's argument.
No problem, I haven't read your answer yet though. But I'll get to it once I'm done with hypothesis testing.
Wow, I agree with Juan for once. Maybe he is right and you should all read ATSOC...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton, it seems we are simply using philsophy and phillosopher is different ways. Phillosophy to me does not imply you work for some university or institute.
I don't believe that, nor do I believe that merely thinking is enough for one to be a philosopher.
Jon Irenicus: Wow, I agree with Juan for once. Maybe he is right and you should all read ATSOC...
Could you elaborate?
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray: GilesStratton, it seems we are simply using philsophy and phillosopher is different ways. Phillosophy to me does not imply you work for some university or institute. I don't believe that, nor do I believe that merely thinking is enough for one to be a philosopher.
In your view, what makes one a philosopher?
PDAs that defend the right to initiation of aggression are outlaws. There is nothing libertarian about them. They deserve as much scorn as the state.
Are you talking to me?
Jon Irenicus: Could you elaborate? PDAs that defend the right to initiation of aggression are outlaws. There is nothing libertarian about them. They deserve as much scorn as the state.
I wholeheartedly agree. The state is evil because of aggression - not vice versa.
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn't there to understand?This: GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.Which means that you mean people with contradictory systems are favored. Everything from Wicca to Buddhism to Christianity to Islam to traditional African faiths and Zoroastrianism. I still don't get what the problem is. They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time.
From what I know of Wicca it seems to be culturally leftist. I think he's refering to religiosity in aggregate with the other factors he mentioned, no?
Nerditarian: From what I know of Wicca it seems to be culturally leftist. I think he's referring to religiosity in aggregate with the other factors he mentioned, no?
I think the "all" implies I am not.
That's what I was trying to get Giles to say. Thank you.
I think it pretty much goes without saying that the initiation of aggression could not take place without 100 PDAs ganging up on one agressor. If PDA A attacks PDA X, not only will it be prohibitively costly but the 24 other letters have an incentive to help X, no? Or something of that sort. Which is both why there would be no reason to defend the right to initiate aggression or the for the state to be reestablished.
If someone agreed with their employer or landlord or even PDA in Utah that they would not do drugs or engage in homosexual activity under some specified penalty I think that would be a libertarian contract, no?? But if said PDA were to attack homosexuals and druggies in San Francisco that wouldn't be outcompeting another social preference, but rather that would be murdering them. Knowing Giles fandom of Hoppe he must be aware that such a position would be improbable and indefensible. I think Giles was defending the former not the later, but I haven't read every post with the utmost diligence so I could be wrong. Whether I am wrong or he is is entirely up tog Giles.
ryanpatgray: Nerditarian: From what I know of Wicca it seems to be culturally leftist. I think he's referring to religiosity in aggregate with the other factors he mentioned, no?The Wiccan Rede is very libertarian actually "An ye harm none, do as ye will." He did also mention time preference. We agree on time preference but I was trying to draw him out the essence of his meaning.
My error, I was only basing that on the inaccurate description I got from a classmate who claims to be wiccan. Apologies.
Nerditarian: ryanpatgray: Nerditarian: From what I know of Wicca it seems to be culturally leftist. I think he's referring to religiosity in aggregate with the other factors he mentioned, no?The Wiccan Rede is very libertarian actually "An ye harm none, do as ye will." He did also mention time preference. We agree on time preference but I was trying to draw him out the essence of his meaning. My error, I was only basing that on the inaccurate description I got from a classmate who claims to be wiccan. Apologies.
No problem :) There are a lot of leftists in the movement but not exclusively. There are even a few "cultural conseravtives" I have met. It also depends on the tradition.
Nerditarian:You can falsify the Christian, for example, story of creation to some extent, perhaps but that a) assumes a fundementalist reading of Christian text b) still doesn't disprove the existence of God.
So if you can't prove its false, your view of it as lies is as much a subjective preference as GilesStratton's unmainstream views on sexuality.
Furthermore, assuming Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion was a lie that's not proof of any wrong doing on the parent's part from a libertarian standpoint.
Assume someone sells you a good for $500. You pass this good on that you were told was valuable to your son or daughter. Then, you are informed by this Argentinian fellow that the good was a fraud or a lie or a counterfeit. Would you have commited any wrong against your child? Of Course not.
If the PDA Y was protecting a homosexual, for example, PDA X would have no right to enforce this law.
But if all the people who believe in laws like that signed a contract that as a condition of leasing their land or providing for the PDA that as a member of the GilesStratton PDA or GS Land that they would not participate in homosexual acts under the condition of exile, higher rates or even stoning, that would just be the conditions of the contract.
LS: J: Sorry, you're defining 'freedom' as 'whatever happens'. I'm defining freedom as in 'being free from force and fraud'. The only way to absolutely insulate yourself from the force and fraud of others is tyranny.
J: Sorry, you're defining 'freedom' as 'whatever happens'. I'm defining freedom as in 'being free from force and fraud'.
Man does not always act rationally or morally. Even if your intentions are the best, you cannot control or predict if someone will choose to steal rather than work. Sure, a libertarian society might incentivize better or even great behaviour, but the human experience is not without it's randomness, it's wild elements. Life is a series of leaps of faith, in love, in collaboration, in cooperation. Inputs do not always equal outputs.
Juan: Nerditarian:You can falsify the Christian, for example, story of creation to some extent, perhaps but that a) assumes a fundementalist reading of Christian text b) still doesn't disprove the existence of God. I was talking about revealed religions, not the existence of god. Religion A claims X (with no proof) and religion B claims Y (also no proof). I think I can safely assume they are both wrong. My point is, you, or Paul or Peter know as much about the supernatural as I do. I know nothing as so do you and them. So if you can't prove its false, your view of it as lies is as much a subjective preference as GilesStratton's unmainstream views on sexuality. I know that the supernatural things that christianity or other religions talk about are fairy tales. On the other hand, Giles' (or John Smith's) views on sexuality or whatever else he likes or dislikes are his real preferences. You're comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, assuming Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion was a lie that's not proof of any wrong doing on the parent's part from a libertarian standpoint. Well, if you believe that lying is the right thing to do, then there's nothing wrong. The thing is, you believe in X but you've no proof that X is true, except 'faith'. Since you have no proof that X is true, you should refrain from telling people, especially children, that X is true. Assume someone sells you a good for $500. You pass this good on that you were told was valuable to your son or daughter. Then, you are informed by this Argentinian fellow that the good was a fraud or a lie or a counterfeit. Would you have commited any wrong against your child? Of Course not. I don't think the analogy is relevant. --------------- If the PDA Y was protecting a homosexual, for example, PDA X would have no right to enforce this law. Oh, but customers of PDA X paid for it to be enforced...if PDA X is to satisfy its customers it should at least try do a little stonning... But if all the people who believe in laws like that signed a contract that as a condition of leasing their land or providing for the PDA that as a member of the GilesStratton PDA or GS Land that they would not participate in homosexual acts under the condition of exile, higher rates or even stoning, that would just be the conditions of the contract. That's a lot of assumptions. First, PDAs are not supposed to operate on a territorial basis, quite the opposite. PDAs are not owners of land either. Second, the idea that people will sign a contract allowing them to be executed for homosexual sex is ridiculous. Even if you signed such a contract, I'd argue that you can default any time you like. If GilesStratton believes his social ideas, agreed to by freely contracting parties are more competitive than Juan's social ideas agreed to by freely contracting parties that can be determined by the actual functions of the market and consumer's preferences. However, I think it's safe to assume that two PDA's/contractual land-usage societies/other form of voluntary societal organization could compete without one "winning", just as Coke and Pepsi compete without one winning, no? I see no reason why Giles will "defeat you economically" or vice versa. But until there's a market or some more convinving evidence than eachother's subjective preferences, your argument will be like Days of our Lives. No one "wins" and the action doesn't really change from thread to thread. Whether people can be stoned to death or not, is not a matter of 'preferences' or competing social ideas. It's a matter of individual rights.
But rationalism, praxeology or any other belief cannot constrain the supernatural. For example, in my high school philosophy class, when discussing God we saw stories of people who had near death experiences and claimed to see God. According to the research my teacher had done no neurologist had proven that these stories were false and just in their heads. In fact, there appeared to be little-to-no writing on it by neurologists who tended to deal with the effects not the causes, their own religion not withstanding. Every person claimed to see the God of their religion. Now, is it not possible that there is an afterlife where whatever the good spirit wanted is true. Perhaps. Afterlives aren't bound by reason, or reason as we know it. We cannot know until we go. Your guess is as good as mine. And Jesus of Nazareth's experiences or Moses' or Muhamed or Buddha or whoever's religion could get it right. They may in fact point to nonfalsifiable proofs for the existance of God and miracles XYZ or historical example ABC. And then you would point to nonfalsifiable disproofs of God DEF and problems with the reliability of miracles XYZ. And so on. Back to square one. Religion is in this sense a voluntary belief or preference for the afterlife. Nonfalsifiable and impossible for the libertarian to oppose sine qua non.
You have a point about the stoning. That is an extreme example. but the voiding of the other half of the agreement is acceptable. Assuming that GS' feudal estates are economically viable, and I'm not saying they are, if individual A agreed to live on his land under the condition of no homosexual acts or drugs and they catch him shooting heroin with his boyfriend the landlord would be in their rights to kick them out. Sure. And a PDA would be in their right to enforce this. I didn't mean to say they were territorial let's say mormons in Utah belong to pro-religous PDAS X Y and Z (to simplify). Now if these PDAs were to create religous contracts with these Utahan Mormons they could not enforce the same terms on San Franciscans who did not agree to them and are represented by PDAs A B and C. In addition, X Y and Z would not profit by attacking other PDAs. As has been pointed out a million times, PDAs profit by avoiding conflict not starting it, much unlike the state. Now I'm only using three PDAs apiece for simplicity's sake. There could be a hundred. Theoretically one PDA could have some citizens agree to Catholic Canon Law, some to the Book of Mormon's Law, some to Muslim Law, some to common law, some to basic libertarian coverage, some to whatever. Now a Catholic and a Mormon would be incentivized to deal with eachother on a libertarian basis. Now, I'm just using religous law as an example. There are a million and one examples one could come up with.
Juan: I don't see why/don't see what you mean.
Not all men follow the same laws, all of the time, even if the laws are righteous and rational.
Juan:Well, yes. But we are talking about the institutional framework so to speak. Even in an ideal society somebody might shoot you for some weird reason, but that's different than a PDA that shoots redheads...
I'm not talking about PDAs. I rarely do.
Juan:You just keep on repeating that ordinary respect for individual rights is 'utopian'.
Not at all. Without making a lot of value assertions, I have think respecting individual rights is desirable. But if you expect that there will be no conflict, then you are being utopian.
Juan:I'll just repeat that if you think libertarianism is utopian then maybe you should devote yourself to a different philosophy.
And if you think man is capable of forsaking violence, and greed, jealousy and anger, hatred and selfishness when the state is removed, then it is you who is the utopian, not I. The human condition is a struggle over what makes us imperfect not a cakewalk to sainthood when the state is removed.