Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why is homeostasis "natural"? Had Africa's climate been the same as it was one million years ago, then humans would not have evolved.
Apparently I need to define Homeostasis
Anarcho-Mercantilist: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.
Equilibrium of the population, this is also assuming that the previous species went extinct and did not differentiate further....
Anarcho-Mercantilist:If each and every ape had achieved homeostasis in the past, then there would be no pressure to select genes for intelligence and creativity
Apparently they had achieved such through evolving....
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The lack of homeostasis is no less "natural" than the fulfillment of homeostasis.
For living creatures, homeostasis is natural, to an extent the same is for societies, ones that are not homeostatic, fail...
Anarcho-Mercantilist:"Nature" itself isn't "natural" in that regard. At least according to your usage of the term "natural."
As a closed system nature is homeostatic as well, any changes placed upon the environment force the environment to work in order to alleviate the stress that swings it out of homeostasis, the radical climate shifts were an attempt to gain homeostasis, what we have now is homeostatic environment (reasonably close to)....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
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.
And this makes modern welfare states immoral how?
Jacob Bloom:1. I just recognize the fact that without a means to punish transgressors, you have no law.
So without the threat of prison, you will not be able to control yourself....
Jacob Bloom:2. NirgrahamUK says natural law IS moral law, so which is it?
Hi, I am Harry, I thought I told you once I speak for myself....
Jacob Bloom:3. I don't understand how you can say one thing is correct and another thing incorrect without some means of enforcing your opinion?
I use reason....
Jacob Bloom: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.
Well you can't say "Hey Harry, this guy stole my property, pay for my protection" either....
Law does not stop crime, law defines crime...
Jacob Bloom: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.
Immoral people get punished for immoral ACTS...
It is your "reasoned" law system that punishes people based on morality, (cite : drug law, prohibition, prostitution laws, gambling laws, censorship laws, etc.)
Jacob Bloom: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.
Ahhh myth vs reality.....
Robin Hood returned to the poor what the rich (government figures BTW) stole from them (through taxation oddly enough), you are brighter than this argument... The morality of Robin Hood, in reality is that the STEALING BY THE GOVERNMENT IS MORALLY WRONG and needed to be restituted, no court would restitute against the government because they too were the government, seems your public system does not fare too well on objectivity...
Jacob Bloom:7. You claim you have an individual right to your property. Well...who enforces your rights?
I do, my agents do, my hiers do, I do not tell society to pay for it....
Jacob Bloom: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.
All government is....
Jacob Bloom: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.
No government judge has impartiality, to think that a man who has NO CHANCE of losing his profession to corruption will remain a saint is preposterous, but you contend that a man who will lose his profession if he acts without impartiality will automatically be corrupt, you are left with the burden of proof of the impartiality of the government judges....
Why would you not have the people seeking arbitration pay up front?
There is no historical example of what you proport, but rather the opposite, again that would require you to read on the subject of anarchism, and I know you do not want to do that....
Jacob Bloom:10. All things being relative, some things are more relative than others.
George Orwell:All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others. Animal Farm
Jacob Bloom:11. I know Sun Tzu very well. How are you going to move 300 million people into the appalachian mountains?
I do not need to move anyone, do you even have any idea what I am talking about? Probably not....
The federal government has a tax issue with a predominant amount of residents in the appalachian mountains, everytime that I have heard of them sending agents up there to arrest people, the agents mysteriously disappeared. The last time I heard about this being attempted was in the mid 70's if I recall correctly, and before that the early 50's, oddly enough these people are left to their devices, the cost is not worth the effort, as noted in Sun Tzu about siege and occupation....
Jacob Bloom: 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 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.
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.
And why does the location of my property denote that I have to pay for your protection? What right to "safety" do you have?
Harry Felker: So without the threat of prison, you will not be able to control yourself.... Hi, I am Harry, I thought I told you once I speak for myself.... I use reason.... Well you can't say "Hey Harry, this guy stole my property, pay for my protection" either.... Law does not stop crime, law defines crime... Immoral people get punished for immoral ACTS... It is your "reasoned" law system that punishes people based on morality, (cite : drug law, prohibition, prostitution laws, gambling laws, censorship laws, etc.) Ahhh myth vs reality..... Robin Hood returned to the poor what the rich (government figures BTW) stole from them (through taxation oddly enough), you are brighter than this argument... The morality of Robin Hood, in reality is that the STEALING BY THE GOVERNMENT IS MORALLY WRONG and needed to be restituted, no court would restitute against the government because they too were the government, seems your public system does not fare too well on objectivity... I do, my agents do, my hiers do, I do not tell society to pay for it.... All government is.... No government judge has impartiality, to think that a man who has NO CHANCE of losing his profession to corruption will remain a saint is preposterous, but you contend that a man who will lose his profession if he acts without impartiality will automatically be corrupt, you are left with the burden of proof of the impartiality of the government judges.... Why would you not have the people seeking arbitration pay up front? There is no historical example of what you proport, but rather the opposite, again that would require you to read on the subject of anarchism, and I know you do not want to do that.... George Orwell:All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others. Animal Farm I do not need to move anyone, do you even have any idea what I am talking about? Probably not.... The federal government has a tax issue with a predominant amount of residents in the appalachian mountains, everytime that I have heard of them sending agents up there to arrest people, the agents mysteriously disappeared. The last time I heard about this being attempted was in the mid 70's if I recall correctly, and before that the early 50's, oddly enough these people are left to their devices, the cost is not worth the effort, as noted in Sun Tzu about siege and occupation....
1. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not just thinking about myself here.
2. How do you enforce your reason?
3. Obviously I can.
4. Not always.
5. A lot of laws are nonsense, I won't argue you that.
6. No, you need to prove to me that private courts would work or I won't want to switch to that system.
7. What if one party can't afford to pay at all?
8. There is no example because no one does it. Ever. I think that's not just a coincidence.
9. Equality and the relativity of morality are not the same. Equality is quantitative. It can be measured.
10. So go live in the mountains where no army would dare tread. Understand though, if you take enough people up there and if there's enough concentrated wealth, the price of the war compared to the possible gain is no longer prohibitive.
Harry Felker: And why does the location of my property denote that I have to pay for your protection? What right to "safety" do you have?
What right do you have to your property if you can't protect it from being confiscated?
O, and about Robin Hood. He was subject to a monarchy. Which made it very difficult to get any form of due process.
That being said, the Robin Hood philosophy of "take from the rich and give to the poor" which Obama is clearly so fond of just doesn't work. Has nothing to do with morality. It doesn't work because the poor depend on the rich for employment but the rich don't need the poor. This is what Atlas Shrugged is all about. She tries to make it about morality, but it's clear to me that the argument is that it simply doesn't work because the whole system collapses if you punish men for ability and reward incompetence for too long.
I'm gonna go train now. Be back later.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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?
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.
laminustacitus: wilderness:Capitalism is not in a bubble void of nature. It is completely connected to nature. Why is capitalism connected to nature?
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?
Why do you think communism fails to exist in nature? I think it's due to its perversion of a way of living in that it doesn't produce anything, only hoards and owns, tries to centrally plan what can't be centrally planned, etc... thus it does fail.
wilderness:Why do you think communism fails to exist in nature? I think it's due to its perversion of a way of living in that it doesn't produce anything, only hoards and owns, tries to centrally plan what can't be centrally planned, etc... thus it does fail.
Why has capitalism yet to exist in nature if it is so natural?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: 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:It is a valued human universal standard.
Such laws are certainly not valued by criminals; ergo, it is not a "valued human universal standard".
Criminals pervert law.
laminustacitus: 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: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?
Figure it out for yourself. Seriously. Think for yourself and live life. Who am I to tell you how to live. Your assertions are getting grade school, sorry, but this whole post of yours is a failing on your part to think about this. So I need not beat a dead horse. I value my time more highly than this. Til next time.
laminustacitus: 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: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.
Doesn't get in the way, cause I make the assertion and live it. I assume I know human nature cause I'm human and I do what this human does and has learned. laminustacitus seriously
laminustacitus: 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"?
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"?
huh, socialism is not capitalism
and yes due to breaking natural law the parasitic socialism and fascism can only find ways to survive off the backs of capitalism aka the free market. basic 101 stuff here laminustacitus
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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.
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.
Well that's the point of law. Murderers are to pay with repercussions and thus justice. please anarcho...
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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.
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.
nature is here. the universe is nature. humans are natural. my potential dog "willy" is natural. It's not rocket science. look at my name and figure out what nature is and you'll find out what works in nature and what doesn't through trial and error. Communism can't exist without the free market and thus is not a system unto itself and communism in the end fails in practice.
laminustacitus: 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.
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.
And that is only natural for humans. It is the nature of humans to have culture. We can't live as humans without it. Anarcho ought to know this from evolutionary psychology.
laminustacitus: 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
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
human NATURE humans are of NATURE We don't live in a bubble we are beings of this earth.
laminustacitus: 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: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.
It is in man's/woman's nature to have culture. Without it we can't survive. We are cultural creatures. It is in our nature.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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."
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."
Without homeostasis you get sick and die. Cells lose their integrity. Homeostasis doesn't mean a neglect of creativity and diversity. If somebody has a unique idea or a unique creature through evolution finds ways of living that are on the outskirts of a population, then that creature has homeostasis and found a way to continue living.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: 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.
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?
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.
It not necessary. You're lack of understanding it's my fault.
Jacob Bloom: 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. 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.
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.
If we had the power natural law would be backed up by justice, men with guns if you like. Saying Keynesians is immoral is a very generalized statement. It would be much better to grapple with Keynesians with Austrian economics. Meet them on their turf, so to speak. It doesn't mean they will listen and they have no reason too as long as they are the legitimate intellectuals given a monopoly of force by the U.S. Empire. Natural rights are good guidelines on how a civilized society would flourish and conflict would be minimized. But justice is fading in this country and we have a lot of work ahead of us.
We have a tough road to haul.
laminustacitus: wilderness:Why do you think communism fails to exist in nature? I think it's due to its perversion of a way of living in that it doesn't produce anything, only hoards and owns, tries to centrally plan what can't be centrally planned, etc... thus it does fail. Why has capitalism yet to exist in nature if it is so natural?
I think the free market is the only market. All other ways, such as communism and socialism raid and distort the free market. When the free market does collapse you get the mass starvations due to lack of food such as happened in the Soviet Union and North Korea.
GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that you can't cross the is - ought gap, it's far wider than most people understand. Most people who try to either ascribe some nonsensical notion of "goodness" to objects and thus go against Misesian subjectivism, or, they lapse in subjectivism themselves. For example, Rothbardian-Randian ethics is essentially subjectivist, and thus uses the word "ought" in an idiosyncratic manner. Now, if you wish to advocate some sort of ethics, you have to start on the "ought" side of the gap, and the only way to do this is to take a starting point on faith alone. Religious people can coherently do this, thus allowing them to stay true to Misesian subjectivism and not fall into ethical subjectivism, since they can claim that good is that which is ordained by our Lord. On the other hand, what sense does it make for somebody who is not a theist to say that "nature" has made something "good".
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
scineram: 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. And this makes modern welfare states immoral how?
Does your brain work? We've pointed out like a trillion times already: Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics.
What is so hard to comprehend about that?
Natural law is the laws of nature i.e. physics; rabbits exist; hydrogen+oxygen=water.
Jacob Bloom: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
I should note that the people who refuse to comprehend simple logic (natural law) tend to be the most violent.
Look, if you can't choose, then you will die. Guaranteed. If all humans can't choose, then all humans will die. You would not be able to DO ANYTHING, because in order to do anything you must make a positive choice to do it. Nobody would pull a gun on anyone, because nobody could CHOOSE to pull a gun. Humans would die. It is a law of human nature that humans have free will and MUST choose. It is also a law of economics. It is the base from which all economics are derived, and it is called the ACTION AXIOM.
HUMANS ACT. <------ A law, by the way, of HUMAN NATURE.
another way of saying the same thing is that if they could not choose they would not be human
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: another way of saying the same thing is that if they could not choose they would not be human
Yes, but he didn't believe in human nature, so I had to posit the absence of some aspects of human nature in order to show the necessity of their pressence.
Conza88: The division of labor isn't natural? (The benefits from specialization are not inherent within nature?) Self ownership isn't natural?
The division of labor isn't natural? (The benefits from specialization are not inherent within nature?) Self ownership isn't natural?
Well, that all depends. Currently, labour is scarce in relation to land, when/ if that stops being so, then essentially the economy becomes a zero sum game.
wilderness: My hypothesis is following the NAP leads to a flourishing life and from my experience this experiment has been a success. I've been in rough conditions involving criminals so I know first-hand what it's like to watch a society collapse under the tyrannous void of reason and without very strong rational people to calm and lead in such situations these events would have become even more maddening and bloody. The latter is not flourishing. I demonstrate that reasoning a good way of living life is a scientific experiment that has proved valid for me. I am a fact that goodness in and of itself are my actions same as an apple falling is principled by gravity.
My hypothesis is following the NAP leads to a flourishing life and from my experience this experiment has been a success. I've been in rough conditions involving criminals so I know first-hand what it's like to watch a society collapse under the tyrannous void of reason and without very strong rational people to calm and lead in such situations these events would have become even more maddening and bloody. The latter is not flourishing.
I demonstrate that reasoning a good way of living life is a scientific experiment that has proved valid for me. I am a fact that goodness in and of itself are my actions same as an apple falling is principled by gravity.
This is all well and good, but you've yet to:
Harry, if you wish to be so condescending, then so be it. However, it makes far more sense for me to claim that things are good because God ordains them than it does for you to say they are good because nature has "made" it so. In fact, the latter notion is nonsensical.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law.
hashem: Jacob Bloom: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 I should note that the people who refuse to comprehend simple logic (natural law) tend to be the most violent. Look, if you can't choose, then you will die. Guaranteed. If all humans can't choose, then all humans will die. You would not be able to DO ANYTHING, because in order to do anything you must make a positive choice to do it. Nobody would pull a gun on anyone, because nobody could CHOOSE to pull a gun. Humans would die. It is a law of human nature that humans have free will and MUST choose. It is also a law of economics. It is the base from which all economics are derived, and it is called the ACTION AXIOM. HUMANS ACT. <------ A law, by the way, of HUMAN NATURE.
1. I'm only violent if I need to be. But I have known people who are violent because it's fun for them. They understand a very basic logic. If you can take it and keep it, it's yours.
2. You are getting actions confused with choices. Not all actions are totally voluntary choices. Some are forced. Which is really the whole argument of AE. AE then posits that actions made of individual volition are necessarily preferable to choices made out of coercion. They argue that actions forced by coercion eventually cause economies to collapse because producers don't produce the right things and consumers can't rightly get what they want.
You are basically arguing that it is human nature to act, not to choose. And then getting action confused with choice and then inserting free will as a rationalization for total personal responsibility. And then saying that free will is in human nature. I think free will exists at least in part but not totally. We are always restricted by external circumstances. I, for instance, am not free to fly like Superman. Despite the fact that I would really like to.
hashem: Does your brain work? We've pointed out like a trillion times already: Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. Natural law is NOT morals. Natural law is NOT ethics. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Natural law is the laws of nature i.e. physics; rabbits exist; hydrogen+oxygen=water.
Then how are governments able to break natural laws? Governments can't declare gravity illegal. Governments also cannot decide that hydrogen+oxygen no longer make water.
wilderness: laminustacitus: 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". Criminals pervert law.
Mayb they believe that they are doing what is right: revenge killing, for example.
wilderness: laminustacitus: 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? Figure it out for yourself. Seriously. Think for yourself and live life. Who am I to tell you how to live. Your assertions are getting grade school, sorry, but this whole post of yours is a failing on your part to think about this. So I need not beat a dead horse. I value my time more highly than this. Til next time.
If you speak of "logical ends", you must define what you mean by that since it implies that there are objective ends.
wilderness:Doesn't get in the way, cause I make the assertion and live it. I assume I know human nature cause I'm human and I do what this human does and has learned. laminustacitus seriously
Your statement implies utilitarianism, not natural law, seriously.
wilderness: laminustacitus: 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"? huh, socialism is not capitalism and yes due to breaking natural law the parasitic socialism and fascism can only find ways to survive off the backs of capitalism aka the free market. basic 101 stuff here laminustacitus
Non sequitur. If capitalism thrive in nature, then why is capitalism not thriving today?
like jon said, plants flourish in nature, well they do in temperate and tropic nature, arctic and desert not so much.
I do however think 'capitalism' flourishing is a little more metaphorical than substantially helpful.
GilesStratton: This is all well and good, but you've yet to: Define flourishing in a meaningful way, Prove that reason is essential to flourishing, Prove the flourishing is moral, Give me any reason to respect the flourishing of anybody else.
I have. There are sources to help clarify. But you don't try to understand and have your own way, so, why should I even try with you. See ya.
laminustacitus: wilderness: Criminals pervert law. Mayb they believe that they are doing what is right: revenge killing, for example.
wilderness: Criminals pervert law.
Of course criminals probably think and I've met some that do think murder is a must sometimes. it's the dog eat dog world. Non-criminals have established laws that draw the line and if justice is all well and good, then don't cross that line or else is declared by justice seekers. Do I have to think of everything for you laminustacitus. I feel like you are mining me for ideas. I think it's time you start to think for yourself.
laminustacitus: wilderness: huh, socialism is not capitalism and yes due to breaking natural law the parasitic socialism and fascism can only find ways to survive off the backs of capitalism aka the free market. basic 101 stuff here laminustacitus Non sequitur. If capitalism thrive in nature, then why is capitalism not thriving today?
wilderness: huh, socialism is not capitalism and yes due to breaking natural law the parasitic socialism and fascism can only find ways to survive off the backs of capitalism aka the free market. basic 101 stuff here laminustacitus
Predatory raiding. Don't you understand and haven't you read up on what socialism and communism is. laminustacitus, go think for yourself, I'm done with this mining activity by you.
Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon.
Good day.
nirgrahamUK: like jon said, plants flourish in nature, well they do in temperate and tropic nature, arctic and desert not so much. I do however think 'capitalism' flourishing is a little more metaphorical than substantially helpful.
All plants need a specific environment that they are adapted to, even in the desert, the metaphor holds no weight once analyzed,
so what specific poltical/ethical environment are men best adapted to ? its an interesting question.
laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK: like jon said, plants flourish in nature, well they do in temperate and tropic nature, arctic and desert not so much. I do however think 'capitalism' flourishing is a little more metaphorical than substantially helpful. All plants need a specific environment that they are adapted to, even in the desert, the metaphor holds no weight once analyzed,
Capitalism thrives except in a socialist to communist environment. These latter two whittle the free market down. Ever hear of bubbles? Don't you understand socialism yet? It holds much weight, but you've tried, tried hard to argue against something that obviously your recent misunderstanding about what "nature" is in a natural law thread puts you out of your element. Find another thread or learn. It would help you understand the discussion in this thread.
see ya.
wilderness:Of course criminals probably think and I've met some that do think murder is a must sometimes. it's the dog eat dog world. Non-criminals have established laws that draw the line and if justice is all well and good, then don't cross that line or else is declared by justice seekers.
Then why isn't the laws of the criminals natural law.
wilderness:Do I have to think of everything for you laminustacitus. I feel like you are mining me for ideas. I think it's time you start to think for yourself.
They are rhetorical questions used to show the holes in your ideas. I already know the answer before I ask them.
wilderness:Predatory raiding. Don't you understand and haven't you read up on what socialism and communism is.
That still does not answer my (rhetorical) question; judging by the systems thriving right now I'd say that interventionism seems to thrive in nature.
wilderness:laminustacitus, go think for yourself, I'm done with this mining activity by you.
Again, rhetorical questions I already know the answer to.
wilderness:Stop giving a healthy plant water and watch it wilt. No longer is that plant flourishing. No longer, by the way, would communism and socialism exist for they need a free market is raid upon.
More of a dodge, then an answer because it still does not answer the question of why capitalism has yet to flourish, though you did get to why other systems fail. I'll give you my answer for why capitalism is not flourishing: it is vulnerable to power-hungry maniacs with a lot of resources willing to use force to get their way.
the question is where do you flourish, as a man? in capitalism or interventionism?. by answering that you can determine whether capitalism is like the tropics and interventionism like the desert and you can then advocate that man should plant himself, where you think.
Jacob Bloom:You are getting actions confused with choices.
You're so lost I don't even feel like answering your worthless objections any more. They have all been covered in MES and TEoL. Again, EVERY OBJECTION ANY PUNY BRAIN IN THESE FORUMS CAN COME UP WITH HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. All actions are purposeful. They are chosen, whether under the threat of force or not.
Jacob Bloom:I think free will exists at least in part but not totally. We are always restricted by external circumstances.
Then you are wrong again, but I'm used to it. YOU are the one confused. Specifically, you are confusing will with power. Every human is free to will that he fly like superman, but that doesn't mean they have the power to do so. Again, another lame objection that's already been covered in The Ethics of Liberty, but you refuse to educate yourself so you will continue to bring up pointless objections which have already been refuted or preempted. Quit fighting it, go learn something. Go read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, and read The Ethics of Liberty. EVERY POSSIBLE OBJECTION YOUR BRAIN CAN IMAGINE HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED. If you REALLY WANT to know the answers, then go study and learn them. If you just want to argue and waste your brain cells, then keep asking questions which have already been answered in those books.
Jacob Bloom:Then how are governments able to break natural laws?
They don't break natural laws. That's why they are laws. What are you talking about?
You admit that they cannot break natural laws in the same post! ---> "Governments also cannot decide that hydrogen+oxygen no longer make water."
Seriously.
hashem: Why is everyone so focused on ethics here? I thought this was a topic on natural law.
Natural law doesn't necessarily need ethics to be understood, at least I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Law is anchored in morals and ethics. Justice is an ethical question. I understand there are different ways of understanding morals. Some people denote religion or something from it. I don't. When I look at morality I see good. I replace the word morality with good and I understand it the same way. This good is not completely defined. It is teleological. Thus why billions of people will uniquely define what is good their whole lives. Natural law, thus, natural rights are the only moral values (preferences) that I understand to conflate into interpersonal relations. There are numerous moral values that are individualized and no law or rights need to be established to minimize conflict in society. One person may not have the courage to withstand a constant bombardment while leading troops, say, during D-Day. Yet another person may have the creativity and business savvy open a store that is profitable. I think natural law can be valued or not due to criminals obviously don't value a harmonious society. And some people in this thread, "don't give a damn about liberty". This is why self-defense is a legitimate right in my eyes since it's obvious some people would walk all over other people and maximize conflict. They are irrational.
What do you think?
hashem: ROTHBARD PROVES NATURAL LAW; REFUTES HUME: Nature: "If apples and stones and roses...
Nature: "If apples and stones and roses...
A Natural Law Alternative to Rothbardian Ethics