wilderness:If I touch a hot stove, and learn it burns, then I don't do it again. If I act nicely to my neighbors, then I find out we chat and trade more (it happens where I live, it's a fact).
What you are speaking of is different from proclaiming that we can deduce all ethics from natural law. What you speak of is discovering what means best suit your ends, which I am not speaking out against.
wilderness: laminustacitus: wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life. And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life? trial and error and a good upbringing has done me well so far
laminustacitus: wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life. And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life?
wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life.
And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life?
trial and error and a good upbringing has done me well so far
Again, that was not what I am speaking against.
Proclaiming that trial, and error can yield the most advantageous means towards the ends one pursues is different from natural law. For instance, by the process of trial, and error you are not discovering absolute truth, rather you are discovering the most suitable methods, but by natural law you are deducing absolute truths. In fact, the former need not claim any objectivity whatsoever, while the latter is objective per se. If I am mistaken, do correct me.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: wilderness: But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least. And trying to deduce ethics from natural phenomena proclaiming that your reason can actually understand nature's true nature is not hubristic?
wilderness: But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least.
But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least.
And trying to deduce ethics from natural phenomena proclaiming that your reason can actually understand nature's true nature is not hubristic?
wilderness: If I touch a hot stove, and learn it burns, then I don't do it again. If I act nicely to my neighbors, then I find out we chat and trade more (it happens where I live, it's a fact).
If I touch a hot stove, and learn it burns, then I don't do it again. If I act nicely to my neighbors, then I find out we chat and trade more (it happens where I live, it's a fact).
Also, my point was for me to state before I act, that this is God's will without letting time decide if it was God's will or not is not humble, imo.
wilderness:Yes there are laws. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not commit fraud.
Why are those "laws"?
wilderness:Capitalism is not in a bubble void of nature. It is completely connected to nature.
Why is capitalism connected to nature?
laminustacitus: wilderness:If I touch a hot stove, and learn it burns, then I don't do it again. If I act nicely to my neighbors, then I find out we chat and trade more (it happens where I live, it's a fact). What you are speaking of is different from proclaiming that we can deduce all ethics from natural law. What you speak of is discovering what means best suit your ends, which I am not speaking out against.
If I deduce laws through my actions or learn of such laws from others and live them, then I would become another validation of such laws.
laminustacitus: wilderness: laminustacitus: wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life. And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life? trial and error and a good upbringing has done me well so far Again, that was not what I am speaking against. Proclaiming that trial, and error can yield the most advantageous means towards the ends one pursues is different from natural law. For instance, by the process of trial, and error you are not discovering absolute truth, rather you are discovering the most suitable methods, but by natural law you are deducing absolute truths. In fact, the former need not claim any objectivity whatsoever, while the latter is objective per se. If I am mistaken, do correct me.
By induction and thus trial and error in living my life I can deduce laws based on what I learned or experienced. If I learned them, for me, it would be to take the next step and live them. That would satisfy me as to know if such laws were true or not.
laminustacitus: wilderness:Yes there are laws. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not commit fraud. Why are those "laws"?
It is a valued human universal standard. People that reject such laws are destructive to human nature taken to the logical end.
laminustacitus: wilderness:Capitalism is not in a bubble void of nature. It is completely connected to nature. Why is capitalism connected to nature?
It is on earth. In nature. And capitalism is in accord with the natural laws that I've been professing and thus capitalism harmonizes with these standards of meeting people's desires as well as sustaining such desires in a society thus in liberty such a society will flourish. Capitalism doesn't decay in nature, capitalism thrives in nature. Of course natural laws are good guidelines for capitalism to keep in accord with nature and thus keep on thriving.
Hashem, I realise that you treat the writings of Rothbard as some kind of holy text, but I can assure you they aren't. And I am here to debate people, not the words of dead men.
hashem:You are to prove your objection.
Knowledge is constructed by human beings. Firstly it must be percieved; human perception is flawed. Then it must be analysed; human analysis is flawed. Then it must be articulated; human articulation is flawed. As such it is increadibly difficult to posit 'laws' about anything unless that law is extremely basic. For example we may suggest with grim certainty that if a human being is depreived oxygen for a suitably lengthy period it will perish. However complex phenomenon, such as human behaviour increases the probability that our flaws (as outlined above) will lead to our conclusions to become less and less reliable. For example modern historians, in the wake of revelations from the social sciences, now do not believe it is possible to posit absolute historical 'truths' (contrary to the beliefs of 19th century positivist/empiricist historians) of any certainty, and this is because historians now reject the thesis that the past is 100% knowable. We can be assured that historical conclusions are correct beyond reasonable, but not all, doubt. As a result historians do not deal with laws. So, given that we can not form 'laws' when it comes to our own recorded past, what makes you suppose that we can posit laws about the infinately more complex issue of 'natural law' as it applies to human society and human behavior?
So you cite Rothbard, but I raise you the entire volume of post-modern scholarship, and the scholarship it has influenced (which is pretty much the majority of the global faculty of social sciences), from its embryonic form in the 1960s to its modern advocates.
Get reading.
wilderness: laminustacitus: wilderness:Capitalism is not in a bubble void of nature. It is completely connected to nature. Why is capitalism connected to nature? It is on earth. In nature. And capitalism is in accord with the natural laws that I've been professing and thus capitalism harmonizes with these standards of meeting people's desires as well as sustaining such desires in a society thus in liberty such a society will flourish. Capitalism doesn't decay in nature, capitalism thrives in nature. Of course natural laws are good guidelines for capitalism to keep in accord with nature and thus keep on thriving.
Is it that capitalism meets people's desires such as "selfishness", "independence", and "subjective valuation"?
Why isn't communism "natural"? Because it fails to achieve eudaimonia such as wealth and productivity?
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
wilderness:It is a valued human universal standard.
Such laws are certainly not valued by criminals; ergo, it is not a "valued human universal standard".
wilderness:People that reject such laws are destructive to human nature taken to the logical end.
You make a utilitarian argument, and then throw in "logical ends" to make it a natural law assertion. Mind telling me what ends I should "logically" pursue?
wilderness:It is on earth. In nature. And capitalism is in accord with the natural laws that I've been professing and thus capitalism harmonizes with these standards of meeting people's desires as well as sustaining such desires in a society thus in liberty such a society will flourish.
You assume you know human nature, and then make a utilitarian argument in support of capitalism; the assertion becomes far more powerful once you drop the natural law, it only gets in the way.
wilderness:Capitalism doesn't decay in nature, capitalism thrives in nature.
Well, I do not see capitalism thriving in nature today. Is that because people do not live according the rules you declare to be "natural law"?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why isn't communism "natural"? Because it fails to achieve eudaimonia such as wealth and productivity?
It requires theft... Theft is not naturally conducive to civil society...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why isn't communism "natural"? Because it fails to achieve eudaimonia such as wealth and productivity? It requires theft... Theft is not naturally conducive to civil society...
Why must a civil society be "natural"?
Um, why shouldn't it?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Um, why shouldn't it?
Because nature is harsh, and a zero-sum game. It is only once man conquers, and orders it can he flourish, and a civil societ emerge.
Iaminustacitus is correct that wilderness offers quasi-utilitarian arguments for capitalism. Wilderness forgets to at least mention that every law can potentially increase the well-being of some at the expense of others. For example, laws against murder decrease the well-being of would-be murderers but increase the well-being of the would-be victims of murder.
Wilderness, your statement "capitalism connects with nature" seems very ambiguous. Could you clarify that for me? What do you mean by the transitive verb "connects" and what do you mean by "nature"?
At least clearify your words for us before you go on. That would greatly reduce unnecessary confusion.
Why regard the word "natural" or "nature" in such a way? If a creature is capable of the above surely it is not because it isn't part of its nature...
laminustacitus:Why must a civil society be "natural"?
You are asking the wrong question, the questions should be; (1)why must a natural society be civil and (2)why are uncivil societies unnatural?
Jon Irenicus:Why regard the word "natural" or "nature" in such a way?
Because "nature", and "natural" are intrinsically linked, they cannot exist, or have any substantial meaning without each other.
Jon Irenicus:If a creature is capable of the above surely it is not because it isn't part of its nature...
Or it is because of a choice in which man decides to abandon his insticts in favor of civil society's manners, and laws.
No, I mean why regard man's potential to be civilised as somehow apart from the word "nature", as if being civilised is not a trait realised because of that nature. If anything using nature in this way is anachronistic and sets up a false dichotomy.
laminustacitus:Because nature is harsh, and a zero-sum game. It is only once man conquers, and orders it can he flourish, and a civil societ emerge.
So man can only create a civil society out of uncivilized action, (conquer and oppress)?
Nature is harsh and a zero-sum game, and that is precisely why a natural society must be civil....
Harry Felker:Natural societies are civil because it is the most advantageous for all parties involved, when one party gains tremendous advantage and abuses such, a natural society seeks equilibrium, as equilibrium is natural (homeostasis is a good example), this does not mean egalitarianism is natural, what this means is that the natural society will alleviate the stress (the abuse).
Again, they are a creation of man rather than nature - man must decide not to kill, rape, and steal, even though his instincts might tell them so, in favor of the manners, and laws of civil society. You are taking "natural" not as a word that has anything to do with nature, but instead as propoganda's synonym for "good".
Harry Felker:Uncivilized societies are unnatural, because it has the preconceived notion that human nature is to oppress others and to prevent such they need to be oppressed, much like it is postulated in communism that it is human nature to steal, so to alleviate the theft, theft is required....
The preconceived notion that human nature is to oppress others is not only supported by evolution, but also experience with people.
Jon Irenicus:No, I mean why regard man's potential to be civilised as somehow apart from the word "nature", as if being civilised is not a trait realised because of that nature.
Because man's instincts are to kill, rape, and steal. He must decide to forgoe these instinct in favor of civil society through his choice, man must be educated, and socialized if he is ever to be civil, it is not the result of his nature.
Jon Irenicus:If anything using nature in this way is anachronistic and sets up a false dichotomy.
How is it anachronistic, and how does it set up a false dichotomy?
laminustacitus:Again, they are a creation of man rather than nature - man must decide not to kill, rape, and steal, even though his instincts might tell them so, in favor of the manners, and laws of civil society.
So you think it is man's instict to kill, rape and steal....
Do not put the magnifying glass on yourself, the sun is up....
laminustacitus:The preconceived notion that human nature is to oppress others is not only supported by evolution, but also experience with people.
Napoleon, I did not recognize you....
It has not been my experience with people, cooperation, sure, oppression, not so much....
Harry Felker:So man can only create a civil society out of uncivilized action, (conquer and oppress)?
He creates a civil society through his choice, he decides to.
Harry Felker:Nature is harsh and a zero-sum game, and that is precisely why a natural society must be civil....
Nature is natural, whatever is natural is in accord with nature, you have contradicted yourself by redefining "natural" as a propoganda tool.
Harry Felker: So you think it is man's instict to kill, rape and steal.... Do not put the magnifying glass on yourself, the sun is up....
Have you ever seen psychological case studies where infants are not socialized? Untamed human nature can be brutal.
So it's not in his nature that he can choose to overcome/control certain other elements in his nature. Do you not see why this is abject nonsense? You're using the word "nature" to connote "instincts", another term of dubious utility.
Because as I said above the word is overly restrictive, overlooks the fact that man's desire for happiness, prosperity, peace, civilisation &c. is itself part of his "nature", i.e. the sort of being he is (I do not know why the word "nature" needs to mean "jungle" and does not account for the fact that choosing to be civilised and enacting the choice is something made feasible by the fact that man is the sort of creature he is, i.e. his nature.) If you want to restrict the word "nature" to "jungle" be my guest, but it has nothing to do with how natural law ethicists use the term, and they have no reason to forfeit use of the word for some imagined dichotomy between "nature" and "civilised man".
Channelling Hobbes? Too bad civilisational tendencies as part of man's nature qua social animal is also supported by evolution...
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:Why must a civil society be "natural"? You are asking the wrong question, the questions should be; (1)why must a natural society be civil and (2)why are uncivil societies unnatural? Natural societies are civil because it is the most advantageous for all parties involved, when one party gains tremendous advantage and abuses such, a natural society seeks equilibrium, as equilibrium is natural (homeostasis is a good example), this does not mean egalitarianism is natural, what this means is that the natural society will alleviate the stress (the abuse).
Why is homeostasis "natural"? Had Africa's climate been the same as it was one million years ago, then humans would not have evolved. The deforestation of Africa pressured apes to evolve intelligence as a trait. In order for that to happen, the well-being of the unintelligent ones must have been sacrificed. Only the intelligent apes had satisfied their well-being, in order to pass on their genes.
If each and every ape had achieved homeostasis in the past, then there would be no pressure to select genes for intelligence and creativity. The lack of homeostasis is no less "natural" than the fulfillment of homeostasis. "Nature" itself isn't "natural" in that regard. At least according to your usage of the term "natural."
Harry Felker: And I am sure Big Brother loves you too... Natural Law is not "moral" Law, it is the most morally correct law, but it does not legislate morality, like abortion laws do, whixh are a correct example of moral law... In all truth, Moral Law has little to do with being morally correct and more to do with attacking personal freedom.... When someone steals your property the effect is not observable? And natural law is reason, anything else is arbitrary and controlling, are you saying totalitarianism is the only reasonable legal system? Socialism is undesirable because it STEALS FROM A TO BENEFIT B, it is also why it is unsustainable, and ineffective, so the moral objection (Violation of Natural Law - Property Rights), which is observable, is the root of the socialism issue, wow that sounded reasonable too... who could have imagined that.... I own my property has what to do with deities? Then what happened to America? Communism was not based on religion at all, and we see how reasonable that turned out... Wrong, in a free market system reputation is everything, since the judge will not have a monopoly on the position, he will stand the potential to lose business when he is corrupt.... There is a vested interest in earning a living in a profession, so long as you can reason this to be true, you can kiss your arguments goodbye, they do not hold water, I would refer you to the Rothbard piece about courts, but I do not want you to read something you apparently do not want to... Would not want people to think you are an anarchist.... What is really funny is you attack the tactic of "It's all relative." and come up with this one, so is it all relative? I am going to refer you to the reason the United States had not been invaded since 1812.... It was not the military that won this war, but the militias, and it was not the military that kept other nations from the United States as occupational territory, but the armed citizenry and the cost that such an attempt would toll on the occupying force, the same holds true for the federal government and dealing with independent people in the appalachian mountains. Reading some Sun Tzu would serve you well on this topic.... I do find it humorous that you think defending from statism requires statism....
And I am sure Big Brother loves you too...
Natural Law is not "moral" Law, it is the most morally correct law, but it does not legislate morality, like abortion laws do, whixh are a correct example of moral law...
In all truth, Moral Law has little to do with being morally correct and more to do with attacking personal freedom....
When someone steals your property the effect is not observable?
And natural law is reason, anything else is arbitrary and controlling, are you saying totalitarianism is the only reasonable legal system?
Socialism is undesirable because it STEALS FROM A TO BENEFIT B, it is also why it is unsustainable, and ineffective, so the moral objection (Violation of Natural Law - Property Rights), which is observable, is the root of the socialism issue, wow that sounded reasonable too... who could have imagined that....
I own my property has what to do with deities?
Then what happened to America? Communism was not based on religion at all, and we see how reasonable that turned out...
Wrong, in a free market system reputation is everything, since the judge will not have a monopoly on the position, he will stand the potential to lose business when he is corrupt....
There is a vested interest in earning a living in a profession, so long as you can reason this to be true, you can kiss your arguments goodbye, they do not hold water, I would refer you to the Rothbard piece about courts, but I do not want you to read something you apparently do not want to...
Would not want people to think you are an anarchist....
What is really funny is you attack the tactic of "It's all relative." and come up with this one, so is it all relative?
I am going to refer you to the reason the United States had not been invaded since 1812....
It was not the military that won this war, but the militias, and it was not the military that kept other nations from the United States as occupational territory, but the armed citizenry and the cost that such an attempt would toll on the occupying force, the same holds true for the federal government and dealing with independent people in the appalachian mountains. Reading some Sun Tzu would serve you well on this topic....
I do find it humorous that you think defending from statism requires statism....
1. I just recognize the fact that without a means to punish transgressors, you have no law.
2. NirgrahamUK says natural law IS moral law, so which is it?
3. I don't understand how you can say one thing is correct and another thing incorrect without some means of enforcing your opinion?
4. Yes, someone steals my property, the effect is observable. But I can't just say to him "you are a bad man!" and make him stop and bring it back. Moral law doesn't work in this instance. And it didn't prevent him from stealing from me in the first place.
5. Natural law is not reason because it doesn't seem to remember that immoral people don't get punished just for being immoral. There is no cause and effect in morality.
6. Yes, but why doesn't the Robin Hood strategy work? Because it's immoral? No. Because it deincentivizes production and puts such a burden on the productice classes that they eventually give up. OR it becomes a totalitarian regime because central planning is a part of socialism and so one group inevitably gets vested with WAY too much power and they abuse it. This is obviously undesirable. Nothing to do with morality.
7. You claim you have an individual right to your property. Well...who enforces your rights?
8. Communism is its own religion. People believe in it even though it obviously isn't real. It draws all its power from an altruist-collectivist philosophy and then asks its practitioners to...worship the collective as it would itself. It's very similar to religion if you ask me.
9. No private judge will ever be able to attain any shred of impartiality. ALL (every single one of your private courts) will ultimately fall to the same problem which is: he who pays gets favorable treatment. So maybe we force both people to consent to paying an equal amount to receive arbitration? Well...how are you going to force them to pay? Eventually, people will decide there is no use in turning to the law to settle their disputes and will revert to a sort of Wild Wild West ethic and then you've got your lawlessness anarchists are so sure they'd never be responsible for.
10. All things being relative, some things are more relative than others.
11. I know Sun Tzu very well. How are you going to move 300 million people into the appalachian mountains?
Harry Felker: I think Jacob's Issue is he needs someone with a big stick to make sure he does not violate other people's property rights, free market court and contractual restitution does not come into view as effective to him.... And because he needs it, he feels everyone should have to be subject to it.... Just an observation... not an attack
I think Jacob's Issue is he needs someone with a big stick to make sure he does not violate other people's property rights, free market court and contractual restitution does not come into view as effective to him....
And because he needs it, he feels everyone should have to be subject to it....
Just an observation... not an attack
No, I'm a pretty mild mannered guy. But I DO need protection from people who are not so mild mannered as I am. What you guys are proposing wouldn't make me feel safe AT ALL. So I'm not ok with it. You guys can have your own little self protected colony, but I'm not going to be a part of it, nor will I personally sanction it. That's all.
Jon Irenicus:So it's not in his nature that he can choose to overcome/control certain other elements in his nature. Do you not see why this is abject nonsense? You're using the word "nature" to connote "instincts".
So mind telling me why unsocialized infants become sheer animals? If it were in their nature to become civilized, why do we need socialization, and civilization to instill us with the values of civil society?
Jon Irenicus:...I do not know why the word "nature" needs to mean "jungle"...
Because nature is a jungle.
Why is it that you guys don't apply your theory of Efficient Markets to your idea of human nature? Humans are self optimizing. Right? Well, doesn't that just mean they do whatever they think they need to do to get what they want?
Socialisation again is only possible if the creature in question is capable of it, a parameter set by its nature. Many plants will die without sunlight. That doesn't mean it's not in their nature to be beings that generate nutrition via photosynthesis... maybe you should pick up a book on evolution, nature/nurture &c. and not natural law ethicists? As for the "nature is a jungle" assertion, well fine, you believe that then.
laminustacitus: Jon Irenicus:So it's not in his nature that he can choose to overcome/control certain other elements in his nature. Do you not see why this is abject nonsense? You're using the word "nature" to connote "instincts". So mind telling me why unsocialized infants become sheer animals? If it were in their nature to become civilized, why do we need socialization, and civilization to instill us with the values of civil society?
I think Jon designated "human nature" as "human instincts" or "unlearned behavior." Previously, he defined "nature" as the fulfillment of homeostasis. I believe that Jon, and many others, have equiovocated multiple definitions of "nature" into one. That's why I suggest eliminating the words "nature" and "natural" from the vocabulary.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I think Jon designated "human nature" as "human instincts" or "unlearned behavior." Previously, he defined "nature" as the fulfillment of homeostasis. I believe that Jon, and many others, have equiovocated multiple definitions of "nature" into one. That's why I suggest eliminating the words "nature" and "natural" from the vocabulary.
Probably for it does sound impressive when you call things "natural".
LOL I did? Making things up now are we?
*Sigh* What's it got to do with it sounding "impressive", as opposed to retaining usage of the word as opposed to accepting modernist bullshit used to distinguish it from man's social aspects?
wilderness: Humans can and do back up moral laws and natural law now. Except the government picks and chooses when it wants to and when it doesn't want to. The government also declares arbitrary laws that are not universal and therefore automatically does harm to one party in favor of another party. Natural law has been explicit in most western countries but the governments of these countries have transgressed against their own laws. Look at the Constitution it's been violated by the government on numerous occasions for over a century. The Constitution was written by people who had a common understanding of natural law. When you learned law, such as John Dickinson did in England at the time (was part of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution conventions), you learned about the natural rights of a person. Jefferson wrote about them. Franklin studied them. Etc, etc... It was more commonly understood until the 1800's came along with logical positivism that rid "value", thus the individual from philosophy and thus you have Keynesian or utilitarianism that don't recognize the consumer or individual respectively. It doesn't fit their math models and such. They took subjectivity to the extreme and declared it false and thus individuals were thought to be able to observe the world without their thoughts. Keynesians say the "animal spirits" control human behavior cause they think they can predict and model human behavior in a Newtonian machine fashion.
Humans can and do back up moral laws and natural law now. Except the government picks and chooses when it wants to and when it doesn't want to. The government also declares arbitrary laws that are not universal and therefore automatically does harm to one party in favor of another party. Natural law has been explicit in most western countries but the governments of these countries have transgressed against their own laws. Look at the Constitution it's been violated by the government on numerous occasions for over a century. The Constitution was written by people who had a common understanding of natural law. When you learned law, such as John Dickinson did in England at the time (was part of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution conventions), you learned about the natural rights of a person. Jefferson wrote about them. Franklin studied them. Etc, etc... It was more commonly understood until the 1800's came along with logical positivism that rid "value", thus the individual from philosophy and thus you have Keynesian or utilitarianism that don't recognize the consumer or individual respectively. It doesn't fit their math models and such. They took subjectivity to the extreme and declared it false and thus individuals were thought to be able to observe the world without their thoughts. Keynesians say the "animal spirits" control human behavior cause they think they can predict and model human behavior in a Newtonian machine fashion.
Well said. My question to you is: what is the punishment for transgressing "natural laws?" Nothing, it seems to me. Telling a Keynesian that their policies are morally wrong is unconvincing. Telling them that they just don't work because you cannot create savings out of thin air might be more effective. That if production could be substituted by the printing of money then logically it would stand to reason that we should all stop working and just have the government print our money but that they can see that's obviously not going to work because they realize that the value of money, like all things is determined by its scarcity. Keynesians reason that they can manipulate the money supply and cause inflation as long as they can bring it back down again with the central bank's control on interest rates. What they forget is that you can only do just so much damage to the dollar before it collapses. Then the Keynesians will push for one world currency and hand over the keys to the world to the world central bank. They can see how this might lead to world totalitarianism, something not even the Keynesians want. So...I don't tell them they're immoral. I tell them what they are doing won't work the way they want to and will ultimately lead to something totally undesirable for us all.
The division of labor isn't natural? (The benefits from specialization are not inherent within nature?) Self ownership isn't natural?
laminustacitus:He creates a civil society through his choice, he decides to.
So is it not natural for man to create society? Is this society not usually more successful when based on voluntary cooperation as opposed to conquering others and oppression? Doesn't conquering and oppressing require much more resources to maintain than cooperation?
laminustacitus:Nature is natural, whatever is natural is in accord with nature, you have contradicted yourself by redefining "natural" as a propoganda tool.
I am sorry let me clarify...
Nature, the harsh thing, is the environment in which one lives, natural is what comes instinctual to what we are talking about (Humans in this case). Natural is not a propaganda tool, if it is very cold (Nature being harsh) and you have a bundle of sticks, is it more advantageous to cooperate with a person with a cabin to burn your sticks for warmth or to conquer the cabin? Do you think of assaulting the cabin first?
scineram:What is good or bad for humans depends on their wants.
You confuse objective good with subjective satisfaction.
hashem:The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive -- his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms-all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is, and how man may survive and flourish.
That is man's nature. To the extent that the fulfillment of those are blocked, that is bad for human beings.
Jacob Bloom:Well said. My question to you is: what is the punishment for transgressing "natural laws?" Nothing, it seems to me.
Consider breaking a natural law for humans:
One law of human nature is that he has free will and must choose. Now suppose the law was somehow broken (it can't be, that's why it's a law, but for the sake of argument suppose it was). Suddenly, no humans can choose. Humanity goes extinct over the course of about a week. Case closed.
hashem:One law of human nature is that he has free will and must choose. Now suppose the law was somehow broken (it can't be, that's why it's a law, but for the sake of argument suppose it was). Suddenly, no humans can choose. Humanity goes extinct over the course of about a week. Case closed.
Just because man cannot choose does not mean he will go extinct.
hashem: Jacob Bloom:Well said. My question to you is: what is the punishment for transgressing "natural laws?" Nothing, it seems to me. Consider breaking a natural law for humans: One law of human nature is that he has free will and must choose. Now suppose the law was somehow broken (it can't be, that's why it's a law, but for the sake of argument suppose it was). Suddenly, no humans can choose. Humanity goes extinct over the course of about a week. Case closed.
Will can be forced and coerced. Free will is not a law of human nature neither is the idea that all men must choose. I'll tell you how I break your law. I pull a gun on you, you tell me "I'm not going to give you anything" I say ok, and I hit you over the head with the butt of the gun you now might say "ok, it's yours." Now...Humanity doesn't go extinct, I just walk away and you go to the hospital. I have forced your choice you have been made to do something against your will in my example. This happens all the time. Free will and the ability to choose are civil rights but they are not laws (not like laws of gravity). Civil rights require someone on the other end saying "if you don't honor these rules, you will be punished severely."
The only law of human nature that I know of, by the way, is that people will do whatever they think is necessary. Incentives rule the game because they teach people what's necessary and what isn't. That's why I'm not hitting you over the head with a gun right now: I have no reason to and neither does anyone else. For now. You get rid of the police and the military and that will change. And then humanity goes extinct in a few years.