Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I already told you that a free society by your definition is a pipe dream.

I already told you that your prediction of the future is totally irrelevant

Juan:

I already told you that your prediction of the future is totally irrelevant

Well it's good we reached this point then, because while you might find value in neurotically policing the forum against Calvinists or arguing forever in favour of theoretical utopias that defy the nature of man and the capacity to reason, I do not.

Ciao.

theoretical utopias that defy the nature of man and the capacity to reason,

Oh I'm so glad that a great thinker like you schooled me on the nature of man. Too bad you won't be enlightening me anymore. Well, I guess the natural elites can't waste their precious time with the unwashed masses. It's a pity but I realize it's the 'natural' god ordained order of society.

ps: I do realize that my position defies your capacity to reason....

Juan:

theoretical utopias that defy the nature of man and the capacity to reason,

Oh I'm so glad that a great thinker like you schooled me on the nature of man. Too bad you won't be enlightening me anymore. Well, I guess the natural elites can't waste their precious time with the unwashed masses.

Every single time that there has been hope for a libertarian society in the world, the "unwashed masses" have been seduced by thugs and tyrants to overthrow it. I don't see how you can possibly see much hope in the masses an their ability to critically reason, every single time one Caesar has been deposed they proceed to raise another one.

 

I don't see how you can possibly see much hope in the masses

If you believe 'the masses' are hopeless, then you should reconsider libertarianism, because libertarianism is only possible IF the masses act in a way consistent with individuals rights. So let's forget for a sec whether this is utopian or not. The point is that for the system to work people must have a given set of beliefs, if they don't it won't work.

Basically, if the masses are morally and/or intellectually flawed (as some of the enlightened people on this board seem to believe) then libertarianism is not possible.

Juan:

Give me a break. Here's an alternate explanation : They were just a bunch disgusting, hypocritical politicians who knew pretty well what they were doing and didn't give a damn.

Not sure whether this description fits all of them. Some certainly acted as mercantilist agents, others probably did believe in genuine individual liberty.

But it wasn't just politicians who supported slavery at the time. I'm quite sure that even among the general population who did not have that big a stake in upholding slavery, a good number found nothing wrong with rights for "freemen" only.

It's an objvective fact that revealed religions are baseless and that parents manipulate and coerce their children.

It is an objective fact that the feeling of "love" is just a weird accumulation of chemical elements, hormones and genetic preferences. It's a real shame that so many people waste their children's time making them read poems and stories about this boring baloney and indoctrinating them with a false sense of desire for this confusing state of mind.

It is an objective fact that cartoons do not represent reality. It's a real shame that so many people let their kids be indoctrinated by this disturbing amalgamation of violence, sex and fantasy.

It is an objective fact that parents are nothing more than means to an end for a child to enter the world. How outrageous that by raising them in a loving and caring fashion, they create emotional bindings that may influence a child's behavior and even fundamental decisions regarding its future.

So, you are another moral relativist, although you use a fancier name for it.

Your presumptions of objectivity already begin to crumble when the nature and origin of rights is defined:

Who actually has rights? Humans? Why only humans? Because humans are rational animals and thus able to recognize the nature of rights? What about mentally handicapped humans who cannot do so?

What if animals are capable of recognizing rights, but unable to communicate with us? Do Chinese people have no rights just because I don't speak Chinese? But animals kill each other for some base motives all the time you say? I don't know, but all those human wars raging at the moment, in addition to those that have already been fought, do not really testify to the rationality of man.

 

Your fallacious point is based on pretending that disagreement means knowledge is impossible. But it doesn't.

I'm eager to study your objective philosophy. I'll begin with how you solve the miracle of the origins of rights above.

 

Because there's never been such a thing as mass murder for alleged ideological reasons.

The existence of a monopoly on violence facilitates such endeavors quite enormously. I'd be surprised if you could name me one example of mass genocide in the history of man that did not involve the use of the state.

Fortunately, the last time I checked, both of us advocated the abolition of this monopoly. Right?

 

Sounds like a slogan for arm manufactures.

Here, let me give you another one:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

That was Thomas Paine for you. I know, I know, quite the 18st century gun lobbyist, but still.

Juan:

I don't see how you can possibly see much hope in the masses

If you believe 'the masses' are hopeless, then you should reconsider libertarianism, because libertarianism is only possible IF the masses act in a way consistent with individuals rights. So let's forget for a sec whether this is utopian or not. The point is that for the system to work people must have a given set of beliefs, if they don't it won't work.

Basically, if the masses are morally and/or intellectually flawed (as some of the enlightened people on this board seem to believe) then libertarianism is not possible.

If the masses act in a way consistent with individual rights, then libertarianism shall be established. Now believing that libertarianism is right and believing that we will win are too entirely different beliefs. Personally, I believe libertarianism can win, but even if I was pessimistic about that point I'd still be a libertarian.

Juan:

Juan:

Liberty Student also seems to believe that systematic un-libertarianism is possible in a libertarian society, which strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

LibertyStudent:

There will never be a libertarian society by your definition.

Juan:

A free-society, by definition, lacks institutionalized aggression.

LibertyStudent:

Right. And it is utopian, and unlikely.

Nerditarian:

This is where LS comes in. Your misinterpreting LS, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me that LS is pointing out that violence would be possible in a libertarian society. But the economics of capitalism make systemic violence all but impossible. I think his point is that one person could still punch another for no apparent reason with no force of nature stopping him.

LibertyStudent:

This ^^^

It seems clear to me that LS has his definitions/logic messed up but then you indeed put words in his mouth and he changed his tune (in his last post). Sorry.

I don't think that I put words in LS' mouth. I was acting in good faith. If I was wrong about what he meant and then he changed his tune, I don't know what to do about that. Just doing my best.

Juan:

Nerditarian, I appreciate your post but I feel a bit disappointed because I'm not sure my point is really being addressed. Libertarianism is a moral system, not an economic one. Libertarianism relies on individual moral judgement, not in community rules, authority, revealed religion, masses led by 'natural elites' or similar conservative fantasies.

Natural elites in the sense Mencken used it? Would men gain influence by serving consumer tastes that would allow him to be vaguely elite? Why not? I don't see why it's conservative. Libertarianism does rely on individual moral judgment. True enough. But are you contending that individuals would never come together to create rules or would never rely on each other? That sounds Stirnerite to me. I would disagree. But if that's not what you mean I don't understand your point. If people come together to share their hypothesis about the afterlife or to make rules as part of contractual usage of tennis courts or whatever fine. I don't care. None of my business. Now it's your hypothesis that religion is a crackpot idea and therefore sharing your crackpot idea with your children is child abuse. I'm not sure if I agree with your premise, but assuming I did, let's make analogy. Now everyone, or almost everyone, on here believes that as US Presidents, sorry to be americentric, Lincoln and FDR were horrible. But most others believe otherwise. It is, as we see it, an obvious fact that FDR did not fix the depression or perform any of the other miracles accredited to him. Should we have the right to aggress against the vast majority of people who believe in the Civic Religion of FDR/Lincoln because we disagree with their views, which are in fact baseless? Would are aggression be proper retaliation for them abusing their children by feeding them bull?

Sphairon:

Not sure whether this description fits all of them. Some certainly acted as mercantilist agents, others probably did believe in genuine individual liberty.

Yeah. Great heroes like, say, jefferson believed in liberty...for whites only. Now, the fact that X is an hypocritical criminal who babbles about "inalienable rights" and then violates them doesn't mean that such rights don't exist.

But it wasn't just politicians who supported slavery at the time.

So. What. You named the 'founding fathers' and got your answer. There were more people who liked slavery. So. What. A lot of people believed the earth was flat. Maybe the earth was really flat because some people sucked at natural science ?

It is an objective fact that the feeling of "love" is just a weird accumulation of chemical elements, hormones and genetic preferences.

Blah Blah blah. Prove that revealed religions are not a bunch of lies, otherwise remain silent.

Who actually has rights? Humans? Why only humans? Because humans are rational animals and thus able to recognize the nature of rights? What about mentally handicapped humans who cannot do so?

There are lots of refutations of moral relativism. I suggest you do some googling.

What if animals are capable of recognizing rights, but unable to communicate with us?

What if pigs fly but we never saw a flying pig ?

I'm eager to study your objective philosophy.

Fine. Do it. I'm eager to get rid of your self-refuting relativism.

I'd be surprised if you could name me one example of mass genocide in the history of man that did not involve the use of the state.

Your point ? If there's no moral compass and (some) people fund PDAs based on their amoral whims then we'll be dealing with 'private' states.

That was Thomas Paine for you. I know, I know, quite the 18st century gun lobbyist, but still.

I love Thomas Paine. Do you know what "The Age of Reason" is ? Btw, that american thing about people being armed was meant to check goverment. You tell me how well that worked ?

Nerditarian:

I don't think that I put words in LS' mouth. I was acting in good faith.

You have been acting in good faith but I doubt LS has.

If I was wrong about what he meant and then he changed his tune, I don't know what to do about that. Just doing my best.

Yes and I appreciate it. That line wasn't directed against you =]

Natural elites in the sense Mencken used it? Would men gain influence by serving consumer tastes that would allow him to be vaguely elite? Why not?

I don't know how Mencken used the term. But when I say 'natural elites' I'm not referring to successful entrepreneurs. I'm referring to political 'natural' elites. People who think they have figured out the mysteries of the universe because they read the 'answers' in some 'holy' book.

If people come together to share their hypothesis about the afterlife...

Great -- that's interesting. But what has that got to do with organized revealed religion ? Answer : nothing.

Now it's your hypothesis that religion is a crackpot idea and therefore sharing your crackpot idea with your children is child abuse.

I said revealed religion is a crackpot idea and I'll add that a lot of times it's a totalitarian political tool too. And yes, lying to rational beings is ab-use.

Now everyone, or almost everyone, on here believes that as US Presidents, sorry to be americentric, Lincoln and FDR were horrible. But most others believe otherwise. It is, as we see it, an obvious fact that FDR did not fix the depression or perform any of the other miracles accredited to him. Should we have the right to aggress against the vast majority of people who believe in the Civic Religion of FDR/Lincoln because we disagree with their views, which are in fact baseless?

I fail to see the relevance of your analogy. Did I advocate the use of force against 'believers' ? Of course not. And please notice that it's rather common for 'believers' to use force against dissenters.

Would aggression be proper retaliation for them abusing their children by feeding them bull?

Did I ever say it was ? Did I ever advocate coercion against people who brainwash 'their' children ? I'm just talking to the wise grown ups here, who believe they have everything figured out...

Juan, I find this all quite amusing. You claim that in order to keep a "free society" alive, people need to accept a "moral compass" - your moral compass, if I may add -, otherwise we'd be dealing with 'private states' and anarchic havoc? On the other hand, you're accusing LibertyStudent of being elitist for his entrepreneurial approach to liberty, even though he's advocating a purely bottom-up, grassroots strategy: showing people the quality of an idea by satisfying their demands with it.

It all reminds me of communists who claim that their idea is "objectively" and "scientifically" good, but not enforceable due to the failure of mankind to "really embrace it". How pharisaic is that?

You didn't refute my point about the nature of rights either. "Go read my stuff" is a bad excuse for "I cling to my philosophy, but don't have an answer to your request right now".

Finally, if a libertarian society lacks aggression per definition, then it's a pipe dream, period. You're advocating the elusive city upon a hill that will never exist and only serves to make you feel right. Even worse, you attack anyone who wants to work within the real-world framework of imperfect human nature for refusing to believe in your "objective" code of law.

Is "liberty in our lifetime" a goal for you? If yes, stop the ivory tower thing and show Joe Sixpack the benefits of freedom without forcing him to read Rothbard's collected essays.

This is off the current topic, but

I just read:

Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State, and

The Private Production of Defence

And thought they were excellent, except the unnecessary extreme racist comments.

My guess is you've never actually read anything that is actually extremely racist...

You claim that in order to keep a "free society" alive, people need to accept a "moral compass" - your moral compass, if I may add

Yeah. People need to respect individual rights. Are you saying that's something I came up with ? My arbitrary deluded preference which I want to force upon others ? Come on.

You didn't refute my point about the nature of rights either.

The only point you made is that some people failed to understand the nature of rights, or rather were hypocrites who practiced "do as I say don't do as I do". Gotta love libertarian slaveholders...

Finally, if a libertarian society lacks aggression per definition, then it's a pipe dream, period.

I said lacks institutionalized/systematic aggression. I repeated it a few times, but that won't stop dishonest people from pretending I said something I didn't say. It's called, I think, strawman. One of LS favorite words, go figure...

ps : Have you looked up "The Age of Reason" by one Thomas Paine ? Also, did Paine believe in natural rights ?

Actually Juan, you did not say systemic.  Someone else did.  You said institutionalized.  There is a difference between systemic and institutionalized.

Of course, you'll continue to pretend they mean the same thing to score points.

Strawmen et tu?

LS:

Actually Juan, you did not say systemic. Someone else did. You said institutionalized. There is a difference between systemic and institutionalized.

Oh LS you are tedious. I didn't say systemic, I said systematic :

Please see my posts at

Jan 29 2009 3:23 PM (I used the word systematic)
Jan 29 2009 4:34 PM (I used the word institutionalized)

and I summarized (again) the exchange at Jan 30 2009 2:44 PM

And Nerditarian and Jon and even Giles did I acknowledge that if aggression is institutionalized/systematic in society X then society X is not a libertarian society. Which, frankly, is almost self-evident since it follows from the definition.

Of course, you'll continue to pretend they mean the same thing to score points.

Systematic : having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan.

Yes, I was using institutionalized and systematic to mean the same thing. Maybe you can complain about my usage of words not being optimal. I think that my point was clear enough though and you are just pretending I said something I didn't say.

I didn't say that a free society will lack random aggression. What it will lack is organized crime be it public or private. And you and other fellow conservatives regard that as a pipe dream because you seem to believe that the masses can't respect individual rights. Oh, and individual rights are just an arbitrary whim of mine, btw.

to everyone

can we just draw a line from

1) statist society

to

2)minarchy,

to

3)immature anarchy with occasional bouts of PDA recklessness

to

4)anarchy wherein institutions exhibit no systematic coercion

 

and just say that the 3 is more likely than 4 in the early days but its a question of maturity. and you are just arguing about how mature your 'realistic' libertyland happens to be.

 

i may have missed the point on this though.

 

edited on Juan's advice

and just say that the 2 is more likely than 3 in the early days

You prolly meant 3 is more likely than 2 ? Also you used '3' twice =]

nirgrahamUK:

1) statist society

to

2)minarchy,

to

3)immature anarchy with occasional bouts of PDA recklessness

to

4)anarchy wherein institutions exhibit no systematic coercion

2) is imposible and 3) is more likely than 4) in the early days. Is that what you meant ?

pretty much.

 

minarchy is no more impossible than a bigarchy (1).

conservative : You have surveyed the different industries which are still monopolized, privileged or regulated, and you have proved to us, more or less successfully, that the industries ought to be left free for the common good. So be it ! I do not wish to return to an exhausted topic. But is it possible to take away from the State and the communes the responsibility of general and local defense?

socialist .: And therefore the administration of justice?

c.: Yes, and the administration of justice. Is it possible that these industries, to use your own word, could be supplied other than in common, by the nation and the commune?

economist : I would perhaps make little of these two communisms if you would quite freely consent to give up all the others; if you would force the State to be from now on only a gendarme, a soldier and a judge. However, no! . . . because the communism of security is the keystone of the old edifice of servitude. Besides, I see no reason to grant you that one rather than the others. In fact, there are two choices: Either communism is better than liberty and, in this case, all industries should be organized in common, by the State or by the commune. Or liberty is preferable to communism and, in this case, all industry still organized in common should be made free, and indeed justice, police, as well as education, religion, transportation, the making of tobacco, etc.

s.: That is logical.

c.: But is it possible?

http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/Molinari/Thesis.html

Juan:

Yeah. People need to respect individual rights. Are you saying that's something I came up with ? My arbitrary deluded preference which I want to force upon others ? Come on.

People need to respect individual rights. I agree. I don't agree that "human rights derived from self-ownership" is an objective philosophy. It depends on how you define self-ownership; if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights. If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights, after all, rationality is not a condition anymore then.

That's not a "what if pigs could fly?" question, but a test of consistency. Individual rights seemed like an objective philosophy in the 18st century when people didn't know about evolution and thought man was a particular being outside of the animal kingdom with unique godly abilities such as free will or reason. Is this view still correct today? If not, we need to rethink our "objective" philosophy or must face the fact that while we advocate an economically sound and, in a speciesist setting, somewhat objective system of ethics, it fails on a wider scale.

Juan:

The only point you made is that some people failed to understand the nature of rights, or rather were hypocrites who practiced "do as I say don't do as I do". Gotta love libertarian slaveholders...

Much rather, my point was that until you show me the fundamental difference between a slaveholder and a cattle rancher based on your assumptions about self-ownership and subsequent natural rights, you are not objective.

Juan:

I said lacks institutionalized/systematic aggression.

Is gang criminality systematic aggression? Are notorious thieves and rapists systematic aggressors? If yes, we'll probably not get to see your libertarian society. If not, where's the difference to an aggressive PDA?

Juan:

ps : Have you looked up "The Age of Reason" by one Thomas Paine ? Also, did Paine believe in natural rights ?

Thomas Paine questioned the inerrancy of the Bible. That's a good point. He also argued for a creator-God. That proves my point above about "objective" natural rights philosophy resting, at least in 18st century terms, largely on the idea of a created man with godly abilities.

And yes, Paine was also with the natural rights crowd. So am I. But I don't claim to be objective, I merely claim to advocate an efficient and pretty coherent system of justice for human beings. There's a difference.

Sphairon:

And yes, Paine was also with the natural rights crowd. So am I. But I don't claim to be objective, I merely claim to advocate an efficient and pretty coherent system of justice for human beings. There's a difference.

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct, yet by doing that you have nothing to support the "natural" (which implies the fact that natural rights are objective) portion of it that should be built upon natural, objective laws. Surely you can build a utilitarian system of rights based on what is the most efficient manner to organize human society, but to call them "natural rights" is deception.

 

Juan:

And you and other fellow conservatives

I like when you call me a conservative.  It's like you're talking dirty to me.

nirgrahamUK:

and just say that the 3 is more likely than 4 in the early days but its a question of maturity. and you are just arguing about how mature your 'realistic' libertyland happens to be.

Sounds reasonable.

Sphairon:

People need to respect individual rights. I agree.

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights.

Not relevant. And yes they do have rights.

If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights,

Animal rights are not relevant either.

Individual rights seemed like an objective philosophy in the 18st century when people didn't know about evolution and thought man was a particular being outside of the animal kingdom with unique godly abilities such as free will or reason.

Are you saying that humans don't have free-will and reason ? They do, just like they did in the 18th century -- you don't have an argument.

Btw, ever heard of Herbert Spencer ? He was a deist, an evolutionist, and a staunch advocate of natural rights go figure. Anyway natural rights need not be justifed by appeals to theism or even deism.

Much rather, my point was that until you show me the fundamental difference between a slaveholder and a cattle rancher based on your assumptions about self-ownership and subsequent natural rights, you are not objective.

You migh want to rephrase that because it sounds like total nonsense to me.

Is gang criminality systematic aggression?

Yes. That's why libertarians regard as self-evident that the state is just a gang of robbers and murderers.

Are notorious thieves and rapists systematic aggressors? If yes, we'll probably not get to see your libertarian society.

I wouldn't say that INDIVIDUAL criminals are an organization(gang) that institutionalizes crime. Sounds like you're stretching the definition in order to misrepresent what I'm saying. No, systematic individual rapists are not instances of institutionalized aggresion and anyway I don't think they would be at all common in a society were security is provided by the market.

Thomas Paine questioned the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Age of Reason was a frontal attack on revealed religion. It deals among other things with the clear and constant collaboration of church and state to crush liberty.

He also argued for a creator-God.

He didn't 'argue' for it. He was a deist.

That proves my point above about "objective" natural rights philosophy resting, at least in 18st century terms, largely on the idea of a created man with godly abilities.

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

LS:

I like when you call me a conservative. It's like you're talking dirty to me.

You are the prototypical center-libertarian.

laminustacitus:

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct,

So, you can logically show why A has political authority over B ? I mean, can you show that A has legitimate authority not because A has a gun, but because A somehow has the 'right' to give orders. If you can't show that some people are natural slaves while some other people are natural masters (or elites) then it seems that the default position - no authority - is the correct and natural one.

Juan:

He also argued for a creator-God.

He didn't 'argue' for it. He was a deist.

Actually, to the contrary, that is one of the defining properties of Age of Enlightenment era deism: the fact that it argued for a creator deity that set into action the laws of the universes.

Juan:

laminustacitus:

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct,

So, you can logically show why A has political authority over B ? I mean, can you show that A has legitimate authority not because A has a gun, but because A somehow has the 'right' to give orders. If you can't show that some people are natural slaves while some other people are natural masters (or elites) then it seems that the default position - no authority - is the correct and natural one.

I was critiquing Sphairon's vision of natural rights as more or less being utilitalarianism disguised as natural rights, I didn't make any propositions about what these "natural rights" would be.

Sphairon:

People need to respect individual rights. I agree. I don't agree that "human rights derived from self-ownership" is an objective philosophy. It depends on how you define self-ownership; if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights. If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights, after all, rationality is not a condition anymore then.

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

I honestly don't understand your argument against cultural conservatism, sin qua non. Maybe cultural conservatives do tend to have a statist mentality but then again so do atheists who revile religion. I was just involved in a debate on religion actually. Of all the anti-religionists only one spoke from a rationalist perspective. All others were Marxists ranting. That's not to say that your  a Marxist. Just that your argument against cultural conservatism can be turned against cultural leftism as easy as 1,2,3. Also, you haven't proven revealed religion to be fraud. Again, there are plenty of reasons to be nonreligious. But to have that kind of disdain needs more justification than you have been given in order to avoid the realm of emotivism.

Juan:

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

That's where PDAs come into the picture.

See, rights are non-material. They are ideas. Ideas need enforcement by material means. The fact that you find it ethically correct to claim this or that right must ultimately rest on your superior or at least sufficiently deterring firepower, or else you risk an attack by those who dislike your way of life and are not afraid to use "the political means".

That's the danger of a stateless society. If you now claim that economic incentives (as advocated by Giles, LS or me) will not be adequate to foster a society based on private property rights and instead, we need massive reeducation and ideology checks, you're bound to go the way of the commies who thought that their socialist "close to utopia" state would eventually turn into full-blown communism by popular demand. Didn't work out so well, did it?

Ah, but there is hope. Markets tend to produce goods with increasing quality for decreasing prices. Thus, effective personal means of self-defense would soon be cheaply available for everyone. That, in turn, would increase risk and costs for rogue PDAs and other predators. Read Thomas Paine's quote about the balance of (fire)power. That, and not the ideological revolution, is what will keep criminals of all stripes at bay.

not relevant, not relevant

I don't have to tell you that this is not exactly convincing to me?

 

Are you saying that humans don't have free-will and reason ?

As for free will, the burden of proof is on you. Free will is a transcendental concept that is supposed to work in an environment of chemical and physical processes. After all your rants on revealed religion, it won't be difficult for you to recognize this as a religious assumption and dismiss it accordingly, right?

As for reason, people may be capable of employing reason, but the question is if they are willing to. Think armed paramilitary police kicking in doors of pot users. Think Abu Ghraib. Think Hiroshima. If everyone were following reason all the time, we'd be surrounded by lots of Kant look-alikes pondering about whether spitting on the street is compatible with the categorical imperative. Liberty must be appealing on more levels than the mental one.

Anyway natural rights need not be justifed by appeals to theism or even deism.

I know there are different approaches to this problem. But since they do all - to my knowledge - employ the man/animal dichotomy, I'm skeptical as to whether any of them can really be called objective.

You migh want to rephrase that because it sounds like total nonsense to me.

We say: a slaveholder acts in an immoral fashion because he's forcing people against their will to work for him. This is incompatible with the concept of self-ownership.

We say: a cattle rancher does not act in an immoral fashion by forcing cattle to die for his profits against their will. Though it is unquestionable that a single cow owns itself just as much as a single man owns himself, we have no problem with enslaving cows, do we?

Of course, if we took this approach to its logical end, we'd be in for a lot of practical trouble. On the other hand, we can't say we are "objective" if we ignore this modification of self-ownership.

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

I'm more of the suburban kind anyway. A single-family house, two or three kids, a Labrador and an SUV. Or does that count as cultural conservatism already?

laminustacitus:

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct, yet by doing that you have nothing to support the "natural" (which implies the fact that natural rights are objective) portion of it that should be built upon natural, objective laws. Surely you can build a utilitarian system of rights based on what is the most efficient manner to organize human society, but to call them "natural rights" is deception.

I was unclear. I'm a supporter of self-ownership, natural rights, private property and non-aggression. I just don't think it's an "objectively good" philosophy. It's a great intra-human social model that enables us to conquer and subjugate the rest of the planet, possibly even other planets in the near future, without too much hassle about distribution and entitlements, but that which we subjugate is not outside of our ethical sphere. We merely choose to ignore it for our own convenience, just as slaveholders chose to ignore the actual ethical status of their slaves for their own convenience.

And that's why we're not objective.

Nerditarian:

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

I don't understand, I'm sorry. What precisely do you mean?

Sphairon:

Nerditarian:

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

I don't understand, I'm sorry. What precisely do you mean?

That should've been a question. Do you believe that Hoppe's argumentation ethics provide a justification for Natural Rights?

liberty student:

We have to be very careful not to be too self-righteous when it comes to rights, there is no telling what future developments and revelations might come down the pike, making us look anachonristic and conflicted to future generations.  The *NOW* is not the forever.

Even if so that is not a reason to belive the future generations will be right and we will be wrong. We need to trust our judgement. 

I wouldn`t subscribe to such evolutionary morality. Morality just gets assaulted from different angles in different eras, but the correct understanding is always very basic and always present. I am sure we could agree on a lot with say Spartacus or some of the leaders of peasant revolts.

Political system of some era does not need to reflect the moral outlook of that era particularly closely (since statist order is artificial rather than natural). For example serfdom endured albeit it was resented to no end and perceived as violent and exploitative by mayority of the population (the serfs).

Juan:

Sphairon:

Some Founding Fathers didn't realize that "conceived in liberty" and "owning huge amounts of slaves" won't add up.?

Give me a break. Here's an alternate explanation : They were just a bunch disgusting, hypocritical politicians who knew pretty well what they were doing and didn't give a damn. They didn't show that rights are not objective. They showed that they, so called 'founding fathers', had a sick moral double standard.

That is my opinion as well.

Nerditarian:

I honestly don't understand your argument against cultural conservatism, sin qua non. Maybe cultural conservatives do tend to have a statist mentality but then again so do atheists who revile religion.

Maybe. That doesn't mean that cultural conservatives are any good no ? (Some) are totalitarians like their lefty cousins.

I was just involved in a debate on religion actually. Of all the anti-religionists only one spoke from a rationalist perspective. All others were Marxists ranting. That's not to say that your a Marxist.

Good, cos I'm not. Besides, I'm only whining about *revealed* religion. Can't stress it well enough it seems.

Just that your argument against cultural conservatism can be turned against cultural leftism as easy as 1,2,3.

Well yes. Both right wing conservatives and lefties want uniformity and want to stomp out dissent.

Also, you haven't proven revealed religion to be fraud.

What do you mean ? That I've not proven that it's a pack of lies ? Or that I've not proven that the people who so self-assuredly parrot these lies are fraudsters (as opposed to 'honestly' mistaken) ?

But to have that kind of disdain needs more justification than you have been given in order to avoid the realm of emotivism.

Well, I've nothing against people interested in the supernatural. But what has that got to do with persons who mix revealed religion and politics ? When X says, for instance, that prostitutes will burn in hell, what X is doing in my opinion is trying to justify his personal views by claiming that GOD is behind him. I find such a tactic to be worthy of disdain, sorry.

Sphairon:

People need to respect individual rights. I agree.

Juan:

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

^^^ that was SARCASM on my part.

S:

That's where PDAs come into the picture.

PDAs are irrelevant here. We're talking about the justification for individual rights, which happens to be a moral problem. But you don't believe in objective ethics so your claim "people need to respect individual rights" is nonsense, as per your own relativism/subjectivism.

See, rights are non-material. They are ideas.

Really ? Well, that's news to me. (this is sarcasm, again).

Ideas need enforcement by material means.

Your first mistake. Logic is non material, too. It's just ideas. It doesn't need to be 'enforced' though.

The fact that you find it ethically correct to claim this or that right must ultimately rest on your superior or at least sufficiently deterring firepower,

Your second mistake. My ideas about right and wrong have nothing to do with my being able to defend them. What you're describing on the other hand is usually known as "Macht ist Recht".

If you now claim that economic incentives (as advocated by Giles, LS or me) will not be adequate to foster a society based on private property rights.

That's obviously the case and I explained it at length.

we need massive reeducation and ideology checks, you're bound to go the way of the commies who thought that their socialist "close to utopia" state would eventually turn into full-blown communism by popular demand. Didn't work out so well, did it?

Misrepresentation.

Ah, but there is hope. Markets tend to produce goods with increasing quality for decreasing prices. Thus, effective personal means of self-defense would soon be cheaply available for everyone.

Problem is, effective means of personal offense will be available too. And offense is materially cheaper than defense. It's way easier to blow up a whole city than to defend it. You see, arms are material things, but we're dealing with the non-material ideas of right and wrong which dictate how material means will be used.

S:

J:

not relevant, not relevant

I don't have to tell you that this is not exactly convincing to me?

Your problem. I explained that the alleged inability of some people to grasp a concept doesn't mean that the concept is not objective. If Tom believes 2+2=5 and that blacks are not human, them Tom is objectively wrong.

As for free will, the burden of proof is on you. Free will is a transcendental concept that is supposed to work in an environment of chemical and physical processes.

Why is the burden on me ? Why don't you prove determinism ? You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well. As for religion, you really need to learn basic terminology. My 'rants' are directed against revealed religion. You can look *revealed* religion in the dictionary, or better, read "The Age of reason".

In other words, free will is a philosophical concept, not one based on fraudulent 'revelations'.

I know there are different approaches to this problem. But since they do all - to my knowledge - employ the man/animal dichotomy, I'm skeptical as to whether any of them can really be called objective.

We're discussing human rights, not animal rights. That's why I said your objection is irrelevant.

We say: a slaveholder acts in an immoral fashion because he's forcing people against their will to work for him. This is incompatible with the concept of self-ownership.

We say: a cattle rancher does not act in an immoral fashion by forcing cattle to die for his profits against their will. Though it is unquestionable that a single cow owns itself just as much as a single man owns himself, we have no problem with enslaving cows, do we?

We don't. Because cows are not human. Next ?

It's a great intra-human social model that enables us to conquer and subjugate the rest of the planet, possibly even other planets in the near future, without too much hassle about distribution and entitlements, but that which we subjugate is not outside of our ethical sphere. We merely choose to ignore it for our own convenience, just as slaveholders chose to ignore the actual ethical status of their slaves for their own convenience.

Let me guess. Your favorite color is green.

Juan:

Maybe. That doesn't mean that cultural conservatives are any good no ? (Some) are totalitarians like their lefty cousins.

Doesn't mean there's any reason to work against cultural conservatives sin qua non. Keep in mind that libertarians are an exceedingly infinitesimal portion of the population, and among our number are people from all sections of the spectrum. I don't know a percentage breakdown for every section of the population.

Juan:

Well yes. Both right wing conservatives and lefties want uniformity and want to stomp out dissent.

So do most moderates, I forgot them before but I'd hate to leave them out.

Juan:

What do you mean ? That I've not proven that it's a pack of lies ? Or that I've not proven that the people who so self-assuredly parrot these lies are fraudsters (as opposed to 'honestly' mistaken) ?

Child abuse is kind of a big deal. You need to prove that it is a pack of lies. Not that it's unlikely, not that it's improbable or anything else. That it is a lie. To do that you'd have to see the afterlife and know-not think, not feel, not strongly and passionately believe- but know that Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or what have you is false. If not you'd have to deduct this knowledge axiomatically, which I don't think you've done or that anyone has done. Of course, this is impossible. AND THEN upon completion of this fact finding expedition you'd have to prove that every individual knew this was a falsehood when they were preaching it. But since you were the one who discovered scientific rationalist complete points against their beliefs they would have had no way of knowing. This is not to say that sometimes religious people aren't bad guys. But most drug dealers are bad guys and I still believe in drug legalization. Why? Because drugs sin qua non is different from drugs under the umbrella of state prohibition. Religion is different in an important sense in a society with religious freedom: the Catholics and Lutherans on my local main street tend not to kill each other over transubstantiation.

Juan:

Well, I've nothing against people interested in the supernatural. But what has that got to do with persons who mix revealed religion and politics ? When X says, for instance, that prostitutes will burn in hell, what X is doing in my opinion is trying to justify his personal views by claiming that GOD is behind him. I find such a tactic to be worthy of disdain, sorry.

Not all people who believe prostitutes will burn in hell are for the prohibition of prostitution. There are tons of hardcore right-libertarians who don't believe in prostitution but they don't believe in prohibition either. They might believe that in a "Free Market in Societies". so to speak, conservative ones would "out compete" liberal ones. Nothing unlibertarian about that. Sorry for the long, long post.

Juan:

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

It is also a common delusion here that cultural conservatism is somehow contradictory to libertarianism. That is to say, a libertarian can very well be culturally conservative. There's absolutely no grounds, what-so-ever, to say otherwise. It would be as wrong to say that cultural liberalism - especially if defined as nihilism as some people seem to be doing - is somehow integral to libertarianism. Of course, if the cultural institutions conservatives are trying to uphold are physically oppressive, and there's no exit possible, then that's another issue all-together, but has nothing to do with the approval/disapproval of cultural conservatism.

Also, I think it is note-worthy that even the, so called, cultural liberals are, in fact, conservatives. Culturally conservative person just wishes to keep the existing cultural institutions in place - it makes no assumption of what those institutions might be. It would be equally conservative to approve (just to use as an example) of homosexuality, if it was the existing cultural norm, as it would be to disapprove of homosexuality, if it was the existing norm.

I'm not saying that all libertarians should be conservatives; I'm saying that it's a non-issue.