General

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Conza88 — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:10:10 GMT

"Your parts had far more to do with the original thread concerning the free-market, than it did with the later tangential thread created that focused on human action, morality & ethics."

You're talking about my parts that were left there? They're all about strategy too. Though I understand the link you've made with socialism / free market.

But the ones that were brought here - were about the same thing & within the same discussion. The transition seems to go - free market / socialism -> digression about strategy, with socialism being part of the example -> human action, morality, natural law

"because the point where the thread deviates from the OP is fairly seamless & probably would involve gutting the original thread down to less than a page :\ "

Yeah I'd agree with that. I understand it resembled a cluster truck, but it probably would have been more accurate to gut to less than a page.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:03:10 GMT

cret:

Another thread discusses this same subject.

Was just about to suggest that, really didn't feel like splitting this thread again lol...

Re: A problem with the free-market?

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:59:03 GMT

cret:
did mises write anything ?? anythign that was in agreement with earlier natural rights theorists...locke, i assume???

rahter than wrining about nautral rights did he write in favor of exising theories on natural rights???

I have asked the same question. And I'm pretty much at the point to say two things: (1) No, I don't think he ever argued about the natural rights of life, liberty, and private property and only argued against other forms of natural law/rights (Marxist, Hobbes). (2) My "No" is stipulated upon that nobody has provided and I can't find it if it does exist anywhere.

Another thread discusses this same subject.

Re: A problem with the free-market? 344

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:50:51 GMT

Justin,

Your mention of ceteris paribus is spot on. Newton's first law of motion is maintained by ceteris paribus. When investigating human society it is sometimes misconceptualized that the logical deductions that follow from what 'ought' to be, such people confuse the issue. Human society is an open-ended system. What the law is, therefore, what is logically deducted from the law is maintained ceteris paribus.

So there are two ways of going about this.

1 - An ought is derived from an is. Read here. What is invalid are presupposed premises that are only 'is statements'. In terms of obligations, promises, law, ethics, etc.... the ought is within the 'is statement'. It is not present because it is incomplete.

Cohen: Intro. to Logic:
A syllogism that is incompletely stated, in which one of the premises or the conclusion is tacitly present but not expressed, is called an enthymeme.

That article I linked mentions this as well. That is one way an ought is derived from an is. Again, it is because the law is in any one society, therefore, what is logically deducted from the law is maintained ceteris paribus. In other words, the axioms of life, liberty, and private property are and logically the ought in that they are maintained (the ought implied in the meaning of the term "law") such an ought is logically derived ceteris paribus.

2 - Hoppe found the is/ought to be an invalid statement to begin with. He never even needed to bridge it. Because during an argument it is already presupposed by those in the discussion, meaning, in order to even have a discussion to begin with, then private property is used and the discussion thereby affirms by all parties in the discussion that they are demonstrating the existence of private property. His method is "is-ness".

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:36:08 GMT

cret:

did mises write anything ?? anythign that was in agreement with earlier natural rights theorists...locke, i assume???

rahter than wrining about nautral rights did he write in favor of exising theories on natural rights???

Cret, on the off chance that you aren't some sort of robot or spammer, please try to reduce multi-posting when you could easily have them in one or fewer posts.

Not really something you need to do, but it would be nice.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:26:49 GMT

Conza:

lol.. which ever mod tried to do the thread split - butchered it.

There are some real bad cherry pickings here.

My parts at the start don't even have anything to do with this thread; they're predominately about strategy... and were responding to other posts that were left out.

Furthermore, the responses that elaborated my position are also oddly left out.

..... eh?

Yes, because obviously everyone is out to get you & silence the truth.

Splitting the thread involved determining a cut off point with the discussion. No one else did it probably because the thread was a mess of semi-related posts that easily could've stayed in the OP.

Your parts had far more to do with the original thread concerning the free-market, than it did with the later tangential thread created that focused on human action, morality & ethics. Notice how your posts did not get deleted, moved to graveyard, etc.

There was no personal cherry picking involved, but if you can figure out a perfect way to spit a thread without resorting to at least a superficial level of cherry-picking regarding what is off and/or on-topic, by all means, let me know.

They simply remained in what I thought was the relevant thread. You could easily bump that thread or add on accordingly to get your prevous posts more regonition, if it bothers you that much.

I intend on going over it again to ensure relevant posts (no this doesn't mean all posts are relevant, otherwise the split is pointless) were not ignored.

I guess this is the thanks I get for actually trying to be an active mod, for once.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

cret — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:21:32 GMT

did mises write anything ?? anythign that was in agreement with earlier natural rights theorists...locke, i assume???

rahter than wrining about nautral rights did he write in favor of exising theories on natural rights???

Re: A problem with the free-market? 1

cret — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:16:10 GMT

did mises anywhere write the he favored natual rights sytem? in the vein of locke, etc???

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Conza88 — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:07:33 GMT

lol.. which ever mod tried to do the thread split - butchered it.

There are some real bad cherry pickings here.

My parts at the start don't even have anything to do with this thread; they're predominately about strategy... and were responding to other posts that were left out.

Furthermore, the responses that elaborated my position are also oddly left out.

..... eh?

Re: A problem with the free-market? 344

Justin Spahr-Summers — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:29:31 GMT

It seems to me calling what you're talking about morals or an ethical code is just confusing. What you're talking about is what Mises, in Liberalism, called "reasonable action", and its discovery is a matter for economics and the technical arts and sciences. There's really no need to subsume all forms of what Mises elsewhere called "suitability analysis" into one massive category called "ethics", especially when most people think of something altogether different when they encounter that word.

I think the confusion stems, in part, from my incomplete examples. It's all very much a work-in-progress, but my unabashed hope is that such deduction can be applied far enough as to create an ethical framework within which value judgments from an objective standard are possible. (As a sidenote, I realize that I'm biased, but I'm trying to stay strictly within the realm of logic.)

I believe that Rand had an amazing premise, which is that ethics can be objective and can be derived from the realm of reason. I don't think the flaws in her argument (such as those presented in O'Neil's paper) are necessarily insurmountable... I just think that the discourse needs to start again from the very beginning.

Re: A problem with the free-market? 344

Daniel James Sanchez — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:20:44 GMT

Hi Justin,

It seems to me calling what you're talking about morals or an ethical code is just confusing. What you're talking about is what Mises, in Liberalism, called "reasonable action", and its discovery is a matter for economics and the technical arts and sciences. There's really no need to subsume all forms of what Mises elsewhere called "suitability analysis" into one massive category called "ethics", especially when most people think of something altogether different when they encounter that word.

Re: A problem with the free-market? 344

Justin Spahr-Summers — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:00:07 GMT

Man, it sucks that morality threads always seem to pop up when I'm in the middle of reformulating my thoughts on the matter. So, first off, bear with me, incomplete theories ahead.

Finally consider this point as eloquently stated by Justin Summers. I recently had a verbal discussion with Justin (I hope Justin won’t be upset by me sharing our thoughts) regarding this specific topic. He brought up and interesting thought I hadn’t yet considered.

There are things in life that you can simply deny, and you can deny them based on whatever subjective valuation you attribute it to(Like eating is evil for example), but there are things in life which you cannot defy(Like never eating forever). Another example would be, I think gravity is evil, but I cannot defy gravity. This statement is particularly interesting to me. I wonder if you would considered it. In short there are things in life you can deny(by some valuation) but some of those things cannot be defied.

When I brought up this point with filc, I was referencing O'Neil's paper, "Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem", which is very eloquent. More than eloquent, I freely admit that it demolishes Rand's argument, and I'm indebted to Adam Knott for pointing it out to me. Specifically, the paper explains in clear terms, "[if a moral law] cannot be disobeyed, then the term 'ought' seems inappropriate;" otherwise, subjectivity dominates, because moral laws can be completely disregarded at the subjective desire of the actor.

Now, my recent work has been in theorizing about possible objective laws that don't neatly fall into either of these categories. I find it quite possible that a moral law could exist such that it can be denied, but not defied. Here's a very rough example:

All humans want X.
The objectively most expedient means to attain X is Y.
Ceteris paribus, no men want less expedient means.
Therefore, all men ought to employ Y toward their attainment of X.

In so reasoning, morality becomes framed in terms of rationality (as Rand would define it, not Mises). To be rational (again, using Rand's definition) is to choose the course of action that maximizes one's self-interest. To be moral is to choose the most effective course of action - given one's knowledge - freely chosen on account of that standard.

To reframe this example in terms of concretes, take food. Food is an objective human necessity. As filc showed, you can certainly deny that you need food, but very quickly your body will prove you otherwise through the sensation of pain. You cannot defy your own anatomy. Given this, all men want to eat, even if on a purely physical and instinctual level. The rational course of action would be the one that most quickly satisfies one's hunger. The moral course of action would be to realize the aforementioned rational course and freely choose to pursue it. One is still free to not choose as such (and there are certainly nonsensical people who might do so), but one's nature as a human being will not allow them to deny reality for long.

So, from these, man's objective needs, it seems like we should be able to deduce an objective ethical code.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

filc — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:56:50 GMT

filc:
Can you command gravity?

MMMark:
In the sense of causing it to change its nature, no.

Precisely.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:31:50 GMT

Mon. 10/04/26 18:30 EDT
.post #83

filc:
Can you command gravity?

In the sense of causing it to change its nature, no.

But in the sense of predicting, utilizing or overcoming its effects to some degree, yes.

It is this latter sense, I believe, that Bacon had in mind when he used the word "command"; he used it metaphorically.

Edit:

To put an libertarian spin on it,

You can't fight Mother Nature, but you can contract with her.

Re: A problem with the free-market? 1

filc — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:23:33 GMT

MMMark:
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed?

Can you command gravity?