Liberterianism makes you stupid

Vichy:

Do you agree with Ludwig von Mises that the purpose of human action is always to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs?

Yes, but what is 'satisfactory' is not any specific emotional state, nor some specific end sought after, it is tautological - the satisfaction of a particular end that is actually held by a particular person at a particular time in particular circumstances.  It is impermissible to try to fight amongst the ends an individual has at one time or another, or to claim as invalid whatever ends he actually holds.  This is as fallacious as comparing my utility to yours.

You're absolutely right.  But I'm not talking merely about what is "satisfactory," I'm talking about what is "more satisfactory" vs. "less satisfactory."  In other words, the focus is not so much on the "satisfaction" as it is on the "valuation" of one satisfying end over another satisfying end.  Humans do not act merely to achieve any satisfactory state of affairs.  They act in order to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs, i.e. they forgo lesser-valued ends in order to achieve their highest-valued attainable end.  Correct?

You're absolutely right.  But I'm not talking merely about what is "satisfactory," I'm talking about what is "more satisfactory" vs. "less satisfactory."

Yes, but you can not compare states of satisfaction from one moment to another - only expectations of satisfaction right now.  Perhaps this will make it clearer: There is nothing wrong with acting in an inconsistent and self-defeating manner.  Even the idea that actions should be coherent beyond the moment's passion are concealed value judgements.

And, anyways, no one can actually do anything but what - they actually do.

This is completely wrong. Those who suffer from Asperger's (and the various syndromes that make up the autistic spectrum) are not sociopaths, which is what you refer to when you say "lack of effective empathy". Asperger's consists of three major components: extreme discomfort when forced into new social settings, inability to read "normal" body language, and obsession with a particular branch of knowledge. The branch of knowledge is usually mathematically related, but not always. Back when Asperger presented his findings, a large number of the individuals he identified were obsessed with trains and engines. People who suffer from Asperger's are not cold, unfeeling bastards. Most people who suffer from Asperger's are tormented by it; they want to make friends, talk to people, and generally interact with the social world, but it is their extreme reactions to unfamiliar social situations and their inability to communicate non-verbally effectively that keep them from it. This gives them the appearance of being cold, aloof, and non-caring, but it is not who they really are. Not only that, but your description of a laser and flashlight being only a matter of "energy concentration" is completely off. Lasers are a complex system in which quantum mechanics is used explicitly to create monochromatic light by manipulating the transitions of bosons between energy states. Technically, it's not truly monochromatic, as the Heisenburg uncertainty principles forbides this, but it's incredibly close to monochromatic light. They are a modern triumph of engineering, as it is a classic example of a simple, back of an envelope, idea being surprisingly difficult to implement. Flashlights just use the fact that hot thing makes bright shiny spot, and certain hot things make bright shiny spot better. As my description suggests, they are incredibly crude and inefficient devices and are in no way similiar to lasers. Their wavelength spectrum is incredibly broad. Energy concentration has nothing to do with it. It is true that lasers are able to focus energy better than flashlights, but saying that a laser is just a really focused flashlight is garbage, pure and simple. Please stop talking as though you know what you're talking about in subjects that you obviously have no training or experience in.

Vichy:

That's exactly what amoralism implies. It's only 'unhinged' because your psychological machinery has a hell of a time believing that 'morality' is literally false,

Uh oh. You see, you haven't got an argument so you resort to ... 'psychologizing'. If I recall correctly you previously objected to it ?

Vichy:

You're absolutely right.  But I'm not talking merely about what is "satisfactory," I'm talking about what is "more satisfactory" vs. "less satisfactory."

Yes, but you can not compare states of satisfaction from one moment to another - only expectations of satisfaction right now.  Perhaps this will make it clearer: There is nothing wrong with acting in an inconsistent and self-defeating manner.  Even the idea that actions should be coherent beyond the moment's passion are concealed value judgements.

And, anyways, no one can actually do anything but what - they actually do.

Definitely.  Actions are undertaken with the expectation of substituting a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs.  That's a good observation.  Thus, could it not be said that a higher desired end of every action, ulterior to all other intermediate desired ends pursued in every action, is: the desire to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (and that such an end is expected to be achieved via the undertaking of the action)?

I never said I was typical or explary of Asperger's - only that it had some influence.  The fact that I am on the right side of the bell curve, iconoclastic and interested in philosophy help, too.  Many Asperger's types are obsessed with morality (since they take it so friggin' literally).

Not only that, but your description of a laser and flashlight being only a matter of "energy concentration" is completely off. Lasers are a complex system in which quantum mechanics is used explicitly to create monochromatic light by manipulating the transitions of bosons between energy states.

Jesus Christ, I know.  I just didn't feel the need to put for that sort of effort, as it was irrelevant to my point.

Uh oh. You see, you haven't got an argument so you resort to ... 'psychologizing'. If I recall correctly you previously objected to it ?

I never indicated he was wrong because of this, it was a causal explanation.  In fact, he and I do agree largely on matters of substance.

Thus, could it not be said that a higher desired end of every action, ulterior to all other intermediate desired ends pursued in every action, is: the desire to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (and that such an end is expected to be achieved via the undertaking of the action)?

Sure, but as humans are all physically unique entities, and because no entity is 'required' to have some value or another - we can easily envisage intelligent killer robots who find satisfaction only in conquering the Earth - and because actual humans vary so greatly as to what actually will satisfy them - it is simply impossible to construct a unified value system like this.

Vichy:

Thus, could it not be said that a higher desired end of every action, ulterior to all other intermediate desired ends pursued in every action, is: the desire to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (and that such an end is expected to be achieved via the undertaking of the action)?

Sure, but as humans are all physically unique entities, and because no entity is 'required' to have some value or another - we can easily envisage intelligent killer robots who find satisfaction only in conquering the Earth - and because actual humans vary so greatly as to what actually will satisfy them - it is simply impossible to construct a unified value system like this.

But would you not say it is still true that an ulterior desired end of every action (apart from the countless, disparate intermediate ends that may be factored in to any given action) is to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale?  And would you not say it is still true that this is necessarily the case for every purposeful actor, including intelligent killer robots*?

 

*Concerning which, I wonder whether these robots could properly be said to have wills of their own, or whether they would be direct or indirect extensions of the wills of their human maker(s)?

But would you not say it is still true that an ulterior desired end of every action (apart from the countless, disparate intermediate ends that may be factored in to any given action) is to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale?  And would you not say it is still true that this is necessarily the case for every purposeful actor, including intelligent killer robots*?

Sure, but the issue is that we can not actually compare states or kinds of satisfaction.  And there are many kinds of satisfaction, and they can not be compared.  And there is no continuity in value-scale, it is constantly shifting.  It is just as sensible for a person to want nothing but chocolate milk as it is for him to instead prefer a house, job, rec. room etc.

*Concerning which, I wonder whether these robots could properly be said to have wills of their own, or whether they would be direct or indirect extensions of the wills of their human maker(s)?

I fail to see the importance, insofar as you actually can construct a recursive (self aware) patterning system with methods of action selection; human beings are nothing but (accidental) robots.  We have no more freedom than a rock, and our will is nothing but the pursuit of values; and our values are recognized by feelings, and our feelings are physical agitation with altered cognition.

Vichy:

In fact, he and I do agree largely on matters of substance.

Such as not knowing what moral intuitionism is ?

Vichy:

But would you not say it is still true that an ulterior desired end of every action (apart from the countless, disparate intermediate ends that may be factored in to any given action) is to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale?  And would you not say it is still true that this is necessarily the case for every purposeful actor, including intelligent killer robots*?

Sure, but the issue is that we can not actually compare states or kinds of satisfaction.  And there are many kinds of satisfaction, and they can not be compared.  And there is no continuity in value-scale, it is constantly shifting.  It is just as sensible for a person to want nothing but chocolate milk as it is for him to instead prefer a house, job, rec. room etc.

 

But perhaps there is another issue at hand, here.  If an ulterior motive of every single purposeful action is to attain the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (whether that "next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale" was in a lower position even a nano-second earlier is irrelevant), then could it not be said that the one, single, even more ulterior desired end toward which all acting humans strive over the course of their entire existences is to achieve, to as close an extent as possible, all their desired ends?

Vichy:

 

*Concerning which, I wonder whether these robots could properly be said to have wills of their own, or whether they would be direct or indirect extensions of the wills of their human maker(s)?

I fail to see the importance, insofar as you actually can construct a recursive (self aware) patterning system with methods of action selection; human beings are nothing but (accidental) robots.  We have no more freedom than a rock, and our will is nothing but the pursuit of values; and our values are recognized by feelings, and our feelings are physical agitation with altered cognition.

It wasn't important.  I was just chewing over a digression.  :)

Vichy:

But would you not say it is still true that an ulterior desired end of every action (apart from the countless, disparate intermediate ends that may be factored in to any given action) is to achieve the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale?  And would you not say it is still true that this is necessarily the case for every purposeful actor, including intelligent killer robots*?

Sure, but the issue is that we can not actually compare states or kinds of satisfaction.  And there are many kinds of satisfaction, and they can not be compared.  And there is no continuity in value-scale, it is constantly shifting.  It is just as sensible for a person to want nothing but chocolate milk as it is for him to instead prefer a house, job, rec. room etc.

*Concerning which, I wonder whether these robots could properly be said to have wills of their own, or whether they would be direct or indirect extensions of the wills of their human maker(s)?

I fail to see the importance, insofar as you actually can construct a recursive (self aware) patterning system with methods of action selection; human beings are nothing but (accidental) robots.  We have no more freedom than a rock, and our will is nothing but the pursuit of values; and our values are recognized by feelings, and our feelings are physical agitation with altered cognition.

 

Just out of my own curiosity Vichilicious, what is your goal? Is it to sell your ideas (which I so far tend to agree with)? If that is the case, I have yet to see anyone market anything close to my boy Stirner or Nietzsche with much success (maybe Nazi Germany, which certainly wouldn't help any future marketing campaigns). I honestly don't think it is that marketable to begin with because, and perhaps rightfully so, people have a big "who cares" attitude or fear towards it. So far, all I have seen from Nietzsche people is some dude who looks somewhat like a hipster clenching his skinny little fist in the air shaking it about with his self actualized superior self, and if I'm really lucky, he'll sound like some character out of Xenosaga. And while he has achieved his enlightened state the rest of the world just doesn't care.  Point being, if the stuff isn’t digestible to people, perhaps it may be better to use a more practical approach.  And if it simply can not be taken by enough people what is the point of caring about this line of impractical thinking other than the strictly academic, aren’t you just wasting time?

Also, and perhaps I read your posts wrong  (or time has decayed my memory), you seem to have some sort of elitist fetish: meaning that you feel as if the masses are pathetic or what have you (which quit frankly, i don't give a damn if you thought the opposite), I’m just wondering (if it is true) if you find these thoughts objective and you consider these thoughts to be spook free for your head?

 

Vichy:

We have no more freedom than a rock,

Well...some people are thick as a brick. I wouldn't deny that....

But perhaps there is another issue at hand, here.  If an ulterior motive of every single purposeful action is to attain the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (whether that "next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale" was in a lower position even a nano-second earlier is irrelevant), then could it not be said that the one, single, even more ulterior desired end toward which all acting humans strive over the course of their entire existences is to achieve, to as close an extent as possible, all their desired ends?

No, this is a false generalization.  What all actions have in common is that they are motivated by some value; a teleological entity seeking satisfaction is tautological - it does not indicate that there is a 'satisfaction' which it is seeking, only that being motivated towards ends is called 'seeking satisfaction'.  "That cup is empty" does not mean, "there is emptiness in that cup."

Just out of my own curiosity Vichilicious, what is your goal?

I like understanding how things work, which requires me to deal with other people who tend - unfortunately - to be strongly wedded to their ideology.  I am not engaged in 'activism', I seek no converts.  But perhaps the substance of my immediate goal was best summarized by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God - simply replace 'theism' with morality:

It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism; such efforts are usually futile. It is my purpose,
however, to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this
irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful. In
other words, I have attempted to remove the veneer of intellectual and moral respectability that
often enshrouds the notion of a god. If a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his
prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity.

It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism; such efforts are usually futile. It is my purpose, however, to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful.

You wouldn't be suggesting that a belief in morality is 'harmful' since the term harmful is clearly meaningless in your system ?

As to mr smith, whoever he is, he seems to be a moralist concerned with minimizing harm. How boring and stupid. Isn't smith a crank ? Atheists hold an unpopular view and are rather passionate in defending it. Cranks.

Vichy:

But perhaps there is another issue at hand, here.  If an ulterior motive of every single purposeful action is to attain the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (whether that "next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale" was in a lower position even a nano-second earlier is irrelevant), then could it not be said that the one, single, even more ulterior desired end toward which all acting humans strive over the course of their entire existences is to achieve, to as close an extent as possible, all their desired ends?

No, this is a false generalization.  What all actions have in common is that they are motivated by some value; a teleological entity seeking satisfaction is tautological - it does not indicate that there is a 'satisfaction' which it is seeking, only that being motivated towards ends is called 'seeking satisfaction'.  "That cup is empty" does not mean, "there is emptiness in that cup."

Once again, action is not so much about "seeking 'satisfaction'" in and of itself, as it is about seeking to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less.  I.e. it is a choice based on a valuation of one thing over another.  That valuation (the expectation of more rather than less satisfaction) is the key here--not the actual satisfaction per se.  Thus, I may have, as a desired end, say, to drink a Starbucks coffee.  However, this desired end (drinking a Starbucks coffee) is always, necessarily, also an intermediate end, because it is only a means to an even more ulterior desired end--substituting what I expect will be a more satisfactory state of affairs for what I expect would be a less satisfactory state.  And yet, even this ulterior desired end is, in itself, still only an intermediate end, because the only reason that I, with each action, seek to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state, is because I desire, over the course of my existence, to attain the most satisfactory state of affairs possible in the long-run.  If a genie popped out of a lamp and gave us a choice between attaining, in the longest-possible-run, a more satisfactory state of affairs or a less, we will always pick the more satisfactory state.  Even if we answered the genie by saying "give me the less satisfactory state of affairs," we would only be doing so because we believed that saying that would result in a more satisfactory state of affairs.  The most ulterior desired end of an acting human's existence, therefore, is the most satisfactory state of affairs possible in the long-run, and every other desired end is merely an intermediate end--an end in itself, yes, but also a means to achieve this most ulterior desired end.  Do you see where I'm coming from?

You wouldn't be suggesting that a belief in morality is 'harmful' since the term harmful is clearly meaningless in your system ?

Of course that would be the part where the translation could be unclear, I think moral beliefs are often consequentially harmful (that is, if people didn't hold them they would more serve their own interests), but that's rather beside the point.  The point was that I'm not concerned with converting people, I'm more interested in figuring out what is right - or wrong - in various beliefs people have.

As to mr smith, whoever he is, he seems to be a moralist concerned with minimizing harm. How boring and stupid. Isn't smith a crank ? Atheists hold an unpopular view and are rather passionate in defending it. Cranks.

Mr. Smith is not a crank, as far as I can tell, because he does not blindly stick to his guns, come what may.  Smith is not a moralist, in any meaningful sense for as LA Rollins pointed out in The Myth of Natural Rights, Smith posits 'rationality as instrumental for the pursuit of happiness' as his view of 'ethics', and does not claim 'happiness' is intrinsically valuable.  Thus Smith is, strictly speaking, outside my bounds of critique.  Smith is a voluntaryist libertarian, and you'll find a couple articles by him in the Mises archive.

Once again, action is not so much about "seeking 'satisfaction'" in and of itself, as it is about seeking to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less.

Here is the problem: What is 'more satisfactory' depends on actual values that exist at a specific point and dominate a person's actions.  There can be no 'ulterior end', because what people are responding to is a variety of cues that happen to motivate them.  It's a mechanical process, there is no Deus Ex Machina behind it all.  It is just logically incoherent to say someone ever 'acted wrongly', though you can say he acted inexpediantly according to your technical judgement.

Vichy:

The point was that I'm not concerned with converting people, I'm more interested in figuring out what is right - or wrong - in various beliefs people have.

Pattern recognition.

FYI, did you know that both you and your ex-roommate write your profile bios in the 3rd person?

Vichy:

But perhaps there is another issue at hand, here.  If an ulterior motive of every single purposeful action is to attain the next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale (whether that "next highest attainable desired end on one's value scale" was in a lower position even a nano-second earlier is irrelevant), then could it not be said that the one, single, even more ulterior desired end toward which all acting humans strive over the course of their entire existences is to achieve, to as close an extent as possible, all their desired ends?

No, this is a false generalization.  What all actions have in common is that they are motivated by some value; a teleological entity seeking satisfaction is tautological - it does not indicate that there is a 'satisfaction' which it is seeking, only that being motivated towards ends is called 'seeking satisfaction'.  "That cup is empty" does not mean, "there is emptiness in that cup."

Just out of my own curiosity Vichilicious, what is your goal?

I like understanding how things work, which requires me to deal with other people who tend - unfortunately - to be strongly wedded to their ideology.  I am not engaged in 'activism', I seek no converts.  But perhaps the substance of my immediate goal was best summarized by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God - simply replace 'theism' with morality:

It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism; such efforts are usually futile. It is my purpose,
however, to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this
irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful. In
other words, I have attempted to remove the veneer of intellectual and moral respectability that
often enshrouds the notion of a god. If a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his
prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity.

 

Fair enough, but let's be honest, it doesn't take much to be nihilistic.  Fuck, I was Stirnirish at age 14 without ever having touched a philosophy book.  It doesn't take much to think about the concepts.  Unless it is soley for the fact you have spent much more time being involved in academic type studies (until very recent I had little time or use for it), my impression is you have a significantly higher IQ (I was measured mid 130's at age 12) and a naturaly much more focused mind for reading (I have a low attention span for it, and usualy a hyper active type of mindset) I just wonder how you can spend so much time on something so fairly obvious even to me (I am honestly not being condecending)?  And you are just here (on this earth) to observe, report, ponder? That is it?  To be honest, a stupid hick just wanting to spread his genes as rapidly as plausible makes far more sense to me.

Also, you put up "thou shalt not kill", because enough people value that notion to where it serves a practicle useful purpose in people living their lives, if it didn't we would have evolved in a completly different.  That is an idea you can market, because it gernerally works (not that you can't market some awful ideas) to peoples advantage.  Markting "all things are nothing to me", kind of well....who cares?.

Vichy:

There can be no 'ulterior end'

Crackbabies... it looks like my last post didn't go through.  Let me try it again:

Suppose that there is a couple who is going to Europe for a vacation.  Their desired end is to go to Europe.  Also suppose they decide to take a cruise ship to Europe.  However, the couple enjoys the cruise so much that it becomes an end in itself, even though the cruise is also a means to a more ulterior end (getting to Europe).  Correct?

Vichy:

Of course that would be the part where the translation could be unclear, I think moral beliefs are often consequentially harmful (that is, if people didn't hold them they would more serve their own interests), but that's rather beside the point.

I don't think it's beside the point at all. You are saying you have a recipe that would let the stupid masses carry their affairs in a more successful way. That clearly contradicts a few of the points you were trying to make. In other words, you are just a moralist who believes that the masses should adopt system X. For you X = amoralism.

The point was that I'm not concerned with converting people, I'm more interested in figuring out what is right - or wrong - in various beliefs people have.

I thought you were an egoist who is only concerned with herself ? Meaning : whatever beliefs people have they are nothing to you ? Further, all your observations about individuals not being really individual (there's no individual consciousness), humans just being machines and the like render your 'investigation' about the beliefs of people meaningless.

Smith is not a moralist, in any meaningful sense for as LA Rollins pointed out in The Myth of Natural Rights,

Babbling much ? Smith is concerned with the harm caused by religion ? If he were not a moralist he would only be concerned with him-self. He can't be whining about the harm that religion causes to him because he knows it's a scam. And why should he worry about other people being scammed ? It's none of his business.

Here is the problem :

Vichy:

Here is the problem: What is 'more satisfactory' depends on actual values that exist at a specific point and dominate a person's actions.

The problem is, you're saying that no analysis of action is possible even when considering one individual and then you make a ridiculous generalization like this one :

Vichy:

I think moral beliefs are often consequentially harmful (that is, if people didn't hold them they would more serve their own interests),

I just wonder how you can spend so much time on something so fairly obvious even to me (I am honestly not being condecending)?  And you are just here (on this earth) to observe, report, ponder? That is it?  To be honest, a stupid hick just wanting to spread his genes as rapidly as plausible makes far more sense to me.

Well, the basic point may be obvious but so is materialism.  Nonetheless I have at least 8 books on the subject.  I suppose, first of all - it's interesting to me. Second of all, it's a constant war to seperate what is sensible (such as economics) from all the ideological pap that it's buried under.

In regards to the second point - maybe if you're a stupid hick.  But I'm not.  While I certainly don't advocate 'the examined life' as somehow a wonderful thing, examination and systematizing is something I enjoy doing.  And, given my generally low interest in romantic relationships, children and social status most of the things that motivate most people - IE, dumb animal drives - are greatly mitigated.

Also, you put up "thou shalt not kill", because enough people value that notion to where it serves a practicle useful purpose in people living their lives, if it didn't we would have evolved in a completly different.  That is an idea you can market, because it gernerally works (not that you can't market some awful ideas) to peoples advantage.  Markting "all things are nothing to me", kind of well....who cares?.

Apparently somebody, because there are several pages of responses attempting to refute the obvious.  Sort of like when people defend free will - it's not a rational position, but they certainly do care.

Suppose that there is a couple who is going to Europe for a vacation.  Their desired end is to go to Europe.  Also suppose they decide to take a cruise ship to Europe.  However, the couple enjoys the cruise so much that it becomes an end in itself, even though the cruise is also a means to a more ulterior end (getting to Europe).

Yes, but looking for an 'ultimate end' is ontologically nonsensical and psychologically false.  Dominant values and ideas about achieving them are what cause people to act, human beings are not aiming at some mysterious ultimate end.  Value and action are self-contained and immediate; there is no continuity or comparison possible.  No structure of values or actions, nor any organizing principle, is more 'valuable' than any other - though it may be more highly valued, in a specific case.

You are saying you have a recipe that would let the stupid masses carry their affairs in a more successful way.

No, I'm saying people form fallacious beliefs that cause them to act in ways they otherwise would not.  As I indeed said earlier, you can not externally criticize this - people can only act on actual values and beliefs they hold.

The fact that you apparently can not differentiate between consequential reasoning/logical justification and moral claims/ethical justification astounds me.

Vichy:

No structure of values or actions, nor any organizing principle, is more 'valuable' than any other - though it may be more highly valued, in a specific case.

Of course, no principle for action is more "valuable" than any other unless an individual actually values it higher than another.  However, regardless of individual valuations, some means are objectively more appropriate than others to employ in the pursuit of a given end, no?

However, regardless of individual valuations, some means are objectively more appropriate than others to employ in the pursuit of a given end, no?

Yes, but that's not how doxastic logic and motivation work.  Basically, it's this: An individual can only conceivably act on information which has been, consciously or unconsciously, accepted.  And this individual can only act in accordance with actually felt values which are associated with the utilization of this information.  Therefor, to say an individual would act differently if he had different information and had made different inferences is basically tautological - but, in a technical sense, this is a different person we're talking about.

Because of the limited rationality of a person, what you and I know - that price controls will increase scarcity, for example - is of no meaning to the individual who does not share this knowledge.  If he believes price controls would work for a desired end - lowering scarcity - and he did not use price controls he would be acting irrationally.  And, as Mises says, an 'irrational' action is not an action at all.

It is non-controversial to say that some people choose ineffective means to reach certain ends.  But the point is, those people choose those means precisely because they don't know any better - it was the best method they knew of.  Trying to tack the tack of objective mistakes falls to the same critique that Rothbard gives to the doctrine of 'efficiency'.  For all action is inefficient.  If it weren't, we would have perfect knowledge and thus would be making no choices at all.

Richard Joyce, in the Myth of Morality, deals with this in the following manner:

Hampton’s challenge amounts to this: “You claim that Jim has a reason
to φ if a fully informed, correctly deliberating counterpart of him would
want him to φ – so is that reason internal or external?” We are not asking
after Jim’s reason for φing – for that is an internal reason – rather,we are asking
after a conditional reason: Jim’s reason for φing-if-a-fully-informed-andcorrectly-
deliberating-counterpart-of-him-would-want-him-to-φ. And
the worry is that this is not an internal reason, for Jim cannot escape
it by altering his desires.

Vichy:

No, I'm saying people form fallacious beliefs that cause them to act in ways they otherwise would not.

But according to you that's materially determined. So it is pretty stupid to comment on it.

As I indeed said earlier, you can not externally criticize this - people can only act on actual values and beliefs they hold.

Oh, you just said it again. Stones just fall. What's the point of your descriptions of falling stones ? Who cares ?

I think moral beliefs are often consequentially harmful (that is, if people didn't hold them they would more serve their own interests),

So.What.

Vichy,

I'm getting tired of having to wade through all these other conversations going on simultaneously in the same thread.  Is it all right with you if we move this dialogue to your blog post (Summum Bonum)?

Freiheit:

Vichy,

I'm getting tired of having to wade through all these other conversations going on simultaneously in the same thread.  Is it all right with you if we move this dialogue to your blog post (Summum Bonum)?

Absolutely.  Let us seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Vichy:

I just wonder how you can spend so much time on something so fairly obvious even to me (I am honestly not being condecending)?  And you are just here (on this earth) to observe, report, ponder? That is it?  To be honest, a stupid hick just wanting to spread his genes as rapidly as plausible makes far more sense to me.

Well, the basic point may be obvious but so is materialism.  Nonetheless I have at least 8 books on the subject.  I suppose, first of all - it's interesting to me. Second of all, it's a constant war to seperate what is sensible (such as economics) from all the ideological pap that it's buried under.

In regards to the second point - maybe if you're a stupid hick.  But I'm not.  While I certainly don't advocate 'the examined life' as somehow a wonderful thing, examination and systematizing is something I enjoy doing.  And, given my generally low interest in romantic relationships, children and social status most of the things that motivate most people - IE, dumb animal drives - are greatly mitigated.

Also, you put up "thou shalt not kill", because enough people value that notion to where it serves a practicle useful purpose in people living their lives, if it didn't we would have evolved in a completly different.  That is an idea you can market, because it gernerally works (not that you can't market some awful ideas) to

"Dumb animal drive":  believe me, I can empathise with you on no real desire for kids (I just don't get it) or social status, but please tell me you use the word "dumb animal drive in jest/half heartedly?  Do you at least have a respect for how every species operates and survives as a species?  Even if not, the word dumb (and you can not be using it in the literal sense) has a subjective meaning. 

And I know you say you do like this just for the sake of liking it and may not care about the consequences of the thought, but what the hell I'll ask anyway.  Is there a correlation between high IQ people having a lower desire to reproduce than lower IQ people?  If not do lower IQ people produce at a significantly faster rate than higher IQ people?  If that is the case does that just not further marginilze purley academic thought to the realm of "doesn't really matter on this planet"?  I use IQ because high IQ's tend to measure the personality type you seem to be in (from my very amature observations).

"Dumb animal drive":  believe me, I can empathise with you on no real desire for kids (I just don't get it) or social status, but please tell me you use the word "dumb animal drive in jest/half heartedly?

I mean 'dumb animal drive' in a literal sense, it's an extremely primal urge and most people have no idea why they are doing what they are doing - that is, there isn't much cognitive connection going on when women dress up and men act tough.  Even if they realise the connection, the certainly aren't usually thinking about it.  Unconscious might perhaps be a better term, but it does typically proceed unreflectively.

Do you at least have a respect for how every species operates and survives as a species?

I have 'respect' for nothing, and I don't have any particular attachment to humans-as-a-species.  Most of them are only worthwhile in a system they hate and don't understand (that is, capitalism).  They're ignorant, conceited, parochial, herdish, submissive, violent, short-sighted, tunnel-vision twits.  The fact that they are the only intelligent species occupying the planet with me may be an important one, but it's not necessarily a pleasant one.

Is there a correlation between high IQ people having a lower desire to reproduce than lower IQ people?  If not do lower IQ people produce at a significantly faster rate than higher IQ people?

There is a strong correlation between IQ, system-building/system-examining interests, 'male' brain types and Asperger's syndrome.  All show increased interest in system functions, decreased empathy, lowered social concerns.  Likewise, Aspies tend to be above average in intelligence, and there are significantly more males on the high-end of the Bell Curve than women.  You could, as Danny Shahar did, say that I am, "A thousand miles beyond masculine."

As most mating-oriented behaviour is unreflective and based on social-empathic interests, naturally men, aspies and abstract-thinking types will tend to have a lower manifest interest in children and child rearing.

Vichy:

"Dumb animal drive":  believe me, I can empathise with you on no real desire for kids (I just don't get it) or social status, but please tell me you use the word "dumb animal drive in jest/half heartedly?

I mean 'dumb animal drive' in a literal sense, it's an extremely primal urge and most people have no idea why they are doing what they are doing - that is, there isn't much cognitive connection going on when women dress up and men act tough.  Even if they realise the connection, the certainly aren't usually thinking about it.  Unconscious might perhaps be a better term, but it does typically proceed unreflectively.

Do you at least have a respect for how every species operates and survives as a species?

I have 'respect' for nothing, and I don't have any particular attachment to humans-as-a-species.  Most of them are only worthwhile in a system they hate and don't understand (that is, capitalism).  They're ignorant, conceited, parochial, herdish, submissive, violent, short-sighted, tunnel-vision twits.  The fact that they are the only intelligent species occupying the planet with me may be an important one, but it's not necessarily a pleasant one.

 

"Dumb" as in not able to speak, perhaps you meant it in a more poetic sense.  Other than that calling humans "worthwhile",  "ignorant", "submissive", etc is completley subjectional or just a spook in your head if you think otherwise. 

What is completely and totally objective however, is that they are worthwhile when I take money from them in Euchre or Pinochle, then it absolutely completely rationally sets the world in order, no argument

.

P.S. I read somwhere ( I think) that Max Stirner did some translations of Adam Smith, Say, and Bastiat.  Do you know anything about this?  Did he do a preface or anything that you know of?  Also is there any legit biography of him that you know of, or at least a response to the gibberish that Marx put out about him?

P.P.S: The only reason why you or your egoism can exist is because of animal instinct and breeding.  It is the only reason for life as we know it, it is the very structure and essence for the reason why sexual species exist.

The only writings we still have from Stirner, to my knowledge, are The Ego and Its Own and a couple of articles.  They are all on non-serviam, along with several authors who were influenced by Stirner, and discussions of other philosophers compared to Stirner.  You'll find all the books etc. in the Egoism section.  SE Parker is great.  If you click on the 'magazine' section you can read their egoism magazine, which has several things along these lines.

There is an egoist reply/review of The German Ideology, but I am not sure where to find it - perhaps it is on non-serviam.

LSR (La Mettrie, Stirner & Reich) has some interesting stuff on Stirner, and discussions about ideas relating to his.  Not all of it is in English, but what's there is well worth reading - especially Max Stirner - A Durable Dissident

There is only one biography of Max Stirner I know of, which is by John Henry Mackay, and if you know where to find a copy you're one step ahead of me.

Further, if you want to send me your email address, I have some PDF articles dealing with Stirner you might find interesting.

That's a historical contingency, not a functional one.

I wanted to add two more links - Rudolf Steiner was influenced by Stirner, and mentions him in The Philosophy of Freedom and The Riddles of Philosophy.

Vichy:

That's a historical contingency, not a functional one.

I wanted to add two more links - Rudolf Steiner was influenced by Stirner, and mentions him in The Philosophy of Freedom and The Riddles of Philosophy.

 

I sent you my address by clicking on the "send email" button on your page, hopefully that works.  If not, let me know.

Vichy:

That's a historical contingency, not a functional one.

I wanted to add two more links - Rudolf Steiner was influenced by Stirner, and mentions him in The Philosophy of Freedom and The Riddles of Philosophy.

 

sexual beings reproducing sexualy is compleley functional.

Vichy:

Just out of my own curiosity Vichilicious, what is your goal?

I like understanding how things work, which requires me to deal with other people who tend - unfortunately - to be strongly wedded to their ideology.  

    So?  It's not like you aren't strongly wedded to your ideology.  Simply my moral perspective on events.

sicsempertyrannis:

'Knowledgeable' in what, exactly?  College professors are (supposed to be) knowledgeable, yet a huge percentage in the US are marxist or marxist leaning.

Knowledgeable in objective political knowledge (e.g. How many Representatives in the U.S., name the Supreme Court Justices, etc.), Althaus then asked them about their political preferences (e.g. should taxes be higher or lower, should banks be bailed out, etc), and the pattern is very strong, higher knowledge -> more libertarian.

 

Vichy:

I have 'respect' for nothing...

    That much is obvious and it's amazing that some people think that's an intellectual pattern for all your posts can be condensed down into you repeating this over and over again.  Nothing much of quality, pre-conceptions and poor labeling at times, befalling to name calling, whining until somebody gives you attention, lots of lying for you switch positions from post to post, and I can see some others here thrive on such bruteness, but oh well...  

But according to you that's materially determined. So it is pretty stupid to comment on it.

Agreed.

    That much is obvious and it's amazing that some people think that's an intellectual pattern for all your posts can be condensed down into you repeating this over and over again.  Nothing much of quality, pre-conceptions and poor labeling at times, befalling to name calling, whining until somebody gives you attention, lots of lying for you switch positions from post to post, and I can see some others here thrive on such bruteness, but oh well... 

Ditto.