General

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Conza88 — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 04:24:18 GMT

Pretty sure I understand what you are trying to get across, though I don't think it's logically consistent. Nor am I a fan of the presentation.

Can I get your thoughts on this?

"...The view just canvassed confines ethics to rules that apply to everyone. Questions about the good life have no objective answers: here mere preferences reign supreme. In brief, the right is prior to the good:

"The general tendency has been to consider the good as essentially privatized and the right as universalized. The good. . .has come to be regarded as the object of one's own interest, the object of one's desires, or those things one regards as beneficial. It is said to stand in contrast to what one may do with any right. What one may do by right is what is allowed to, or demanded of, or required by, all agents equally and universally. . .there is an inevitable tendency in the distinction between the good and the right to deprecate the moral nature of the good to the enhancement of the right. In other words, what is impartial and universal tends to take precedence over goods, which are, almost by definition now, partial and particular."(pp.22, 26)

They defend instead an Aristotelian view. The good for a person does not consist of his whims and desires, whatever they may be---far from it. Rather, each person has a natural end or function: his leading a flourishing life. This view, which they term perfectionism, "holds that eudaimonia [happiness or flourishing] is the ultimate good or value and that virtue ought to characterize how human beings conduct their lives."(p.111)

Does not a problem at once threaten them? They deny that the good life reduces without remainder to preferences: the good is objective. Yet they are also favor a political system in which people are free to act as they please, so long as they do not initiate or threaten force or fraud. But are there not many actions that fall within these bounds that an objective ethics would condemn? Suppose that I spend most of my days drinking myself into a stupor. I threaten no one with force, but surely I am not living in accord with my Aristotelian natural end. I am doing what is objectively wrong: how then can I have a right to do it?

Many supporters of natural law view matters exactly as these questions suggest. There can be no right to violate the demands of morality. Thus, Heinrich Rommen, a distinguished historian of natural law, remarked that rights are: "the sphere of right that is 'given' with the nature of a person."(p.64) Your rights are defined by your duties, and there cannot be a "right" to do what is wrong.

The authors answer with their key thesis: The mandates of personal ethics do not directly determine the nature of political arrangements. Liberalism is not "a 'normative political philosophy' in the usual sense. It is rather a political philosophy of metanorms. It seeks not to guide individual conduct in moral activity, but rather to regulate conduct so that conditions might be obtained where moral action can take place. To contrast liberalism directly with alternative ethical systems or values is, therefore, something of a category mistake."(p.34)

The combination of an objective personal ethics with a political system of freedom is, then, logically consistent. But why should we adopt it? Why not, rather, enact a political system whose metanorms require that people conform to their objective end?

The authors' version of ethics excludes this suggestion. They embrace "individualistic perfectionism." There is no fixed pattern to which every individual, in his pursuit of eudaimonia, must conform. Rather, "the generic goods and virtues that constitute human flourishing only become actual, determinate, and valuable realities when they are given particular form by the choices of flesh-and-blood persons. The importance or value of these goods and virtues is rooted in factors that are unique to each person, for it is not the universal as such that is valuable. . . Human flourishing is not simply achieved and enjoyed by individuals, but it is individualized."(pp.132-33)

Saying roughly the same thing, no? Just presented differently.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Conza88 — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 04:10:27 GMT

Yes, you're missing the entire point basically.

I've actually read the whole thing. The chapters where you are generally explaining the fundamentals of libertarianism are all pretty good - not so much chapter 4 or 7. And yet all you've done is proceeded to tell me I have missed the entire point, yet don't say what. What point am I missing?

"You yourself have been quite helpful in proving my point up to now."

I have? How so?

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

NietzscheanMan — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:40:38 GMT

However I think that the will to power thesis is B.S and the thing I least liked about Nietzche is exactly how easy it is to get totally different things from him. [...] From Nietzche I further understood morality, gained apreciation for a hate of the mob, and derived further the glory of individuality and personalized ethics. However I have experienced someone who derived from his work the doctrine of social cooperation, and another person (who I have to say appeared insane) who wanted to revert back to the middle ages in order to put "the sheep" back in their place and create an age of the ubermensch [...] So considering how vauge a lot of Nietzche's stuff is I really do believe that his work could be used to justify anything.

I understand what you mean; many people have indeed taken him to have said many different things (I've had a lot of discussions on the matter as you probably can imagine, so I've had my share of insanity coming my way as well, I feel your pain in that regard :). Personally though, I think he can only be used to "justify anything" when taken out of context.

Perhaps I can entice you to read those chapters 4 and 7? Will to power is present among the other concepts (death of god, passive and active nihilim, master and slave morality, the origin of socialism and statism, etc) and explained in the way I interpret it and think it is to be interpreted. I wonder if it could change your mind or conversely make you think I am one of the crazies too. Do be sure to let me know if you ever do.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

William — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:15:15 GMT

my comment on Nietzscheman's page earlier @ lilburne's request:

There are a small number of people here who it is kind of hopeless to get into a civil conversation with, just don't worry too much about them. Anyway, hopefully I'll have read that thesis within the next few days, it looks kind of up my alley.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

The Late Andrew Ryan — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:05:06 GMT

"I hope you'll enjoy reading Nietzsche as much as I have and often still do. In my experience people either love or hate his work. Those who hate it usually draw odd conclusions from it though in my opinion, but to each his own."

I like Nietzche in the way that I interpreted his work (I've only read beyond good and evil and Zarathustara) I liked his general idea of "promoting your own virtues" and the beyond good and evil thesis was magnificent, as is god is dead. I also generally like his idea of different moralities and his general work of characterizing general perspectives and memes is suprisingly impressive. However I think that the will to power thesis is B.S and the thing I least liked about Nietzche is exactly how easy it is to get totally different things from him.

From Nietzche I further understood morality, gained apreciation for a hate of the mob, and derived further the glory of individuality and personalized ethics. However I have experienced someone who derived from his work the doctrine of social cooperation, and another person (who I have to say appeared insane) who wanted to revert back to the middle ages in order to put "the sheep" back in their place and create an age of the ubermensch, and who also got the idea that the weak were just that, weak in every way who deserved to be slaughtered and that because "in nature strong forces overcome weak forces" that somehow there was no morality but at the same time because of this principle that strong forces dominating weak forces was good and moral and therefore it is how the world should be run...

So considering how vauge a lot of Nietzche's stuff is I really do believe that his work could be used to justify anything.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

NietzscheanMan — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:52:18 GMT

I hope you'll enjoy reading Nietzsche as much as I have and often still do. In my experience people either love or hate his work. Those who hate it usually draw odd conclusions from it though in my opinion, but to each his own.

His work is mostly present in (and makes up the bulk of) Chapters 4 and 7 (I refer to those 2 chapters whenever he makes a chance appearance elsewhere). Do feel free to let me know what your opinion on those chapters are if you ever come around to reading them, I'd be very interested to hear your remarks (and in that regard also whether you had been getting the same message from twilight of the idols up to now, or whether you were expecting something different based on what you have read in twilight).

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Nitroadict — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:40:57 GMT

Downloaded the pdf yesterday evening... I'll post when I get at least half way. Definitley came at the right time; I've gotten halfway into my first of N's reads (twilight of the idols), and have regretted not reading him sooner.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Daniel James Sanchez — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:46:15 GMT

NietzcheanMan, I am SO sorry all your hard work has met such a boorish reception here.

Dondolee, can you PLEASE copy and paste whatever you wrote on his site over here?

I promise both of you, I will delete any uncivil interjections from Conza88 henceforth. Please continue your conversation here.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

NietzscheanMan — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:04:09 GMT

Yes, you're missing the entire point basically.

I wonder why. Perhaps it's because first you don't read anything and jump to conclusions based on nothing at all, then you read 1 thing, take it out of context and break out the unwarranted attitude in the process. And yet you don't appear to see the idiocy of talking to me about straw men arguments in the same post :) If you like quotes (I don't in discussions, but I'll make an exception especially for you), here's one: "When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding". Take that as you will.

(Quote button does not seem to work here, my apologies for the inconvenience)

"Conza88 wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 19 2010 7:45 PM:

Also where does libertarianism make this claim?

"i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally".

It does not, as pointed out in the quote I used. Which is essentially Libertarianism 101. Or better yet, can you point out where someone has done so?"

You yourself have been quite helpful in proving my point up to now.

""Conza88 wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 19 2010 7:45 PM:

you clearly don't make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.. how can you even content to understand what libertarianism is - if you blur that line? Or again, as I asked previously and you completely ignored - is there something I am missing here?"

Yes, you're missing quite a lot.

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I'm a bit boggled by your tone. Who are you exactly to react the way you do; i.e. who made you Mises Incarnate and the judge, jury and executioner? Did you put on your fool's crown yourself when you turned into "the nut" nobody really argues with anymore but nods at so you stop yelling in their ear? Perhaps stop and wonder whether they really agree or just take the short route to ignoring you by throwing you a bone. I've been here for a few hours but that's the vibe I'm getting from you :) I could be wrong, of course, in which case I present you with my most humble and sincere apologies. You are obviously a gentleman and a scholar.

So basicly, cut the attitude and we'll talk like we're positioned higher on the evolutionary ladder as compared to monkeys, or you are kindly invited to just stay out of this thread with your ridiculous chest beating, I have no use for it. Having said that, I've been down this road before and have no illusions about it being any different next time, so I suggest the latter and we'll both be on our merry way :)

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Conza88 — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:45:32 GMT

"The word "superficially" is there for a reason."

Funny, I noticed that - and it doesn't seem to change anything that was said.

"It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended)"

Any argumentation to back up your assertion of a "straightforward fact"?

Also where does libertarianism make this claim?

"i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally".

It does not, as pointed out in the quote I used. Which is essentially Libertarianism 101. Or better yet, can you point out where someone has done so? Or maybe help me understand by elaborating? How are you even defining morality? To me it seems you clearly don't make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.. how can you even content to understand what libertarianism is - if you blur that line? Or again, as I asked previously and you completely ignored - is there something I am missing here?

Rightio, I bothered to read it all.

You do realise the concept of god is completely irrelevent to political philosophy. Right? lol. Any reason why any discussion of natural law is pretty much non existent? What Mises means by the laws of nature, is v. different to that of Rothbard's. And yet you lump them in all together.

Why did you decide to transform the quotes of Mises from "Liberalism" straight into "Libertarianism"? And yet fail to note it.

You essentially set up a quote from a utilitarian [Mises], an oppontent of objective ethics - and then assign him under the same umbrella as the followers of an axiomatic-deductive objective ethics... lol!

"The economic aspect of libertarianism is value free..." ? there is no such thing..

Anyway, I'm done with this.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

William — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:30:06 GMT

I commented on your "home page"

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

NietzscheanMan — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:23:20 GMT

A little aggressive are we, komissar?

I don't know who you are but I don't need your attitude. Especially not when it is about "what happens fairly often here" and "does not relate to me per se". So pretty please, before you get your panties in a twist read what is said instead of jumping to hissyfit conclusions (which are unfound even based on the excerpt).

The word "superficially" is there for a reason. Relax with the inquisitional attitude or save it for somebody who sees tantrums as sound argumentation (hint: not me).

Having said that, if you want to just vent and flail your arms around I don't mind either; all I do is kindly request that you do it in a different thread.

On a last note, and that's the last word I want to spend on this, I hope you haven't turned too many interested people away from anarcho-capitalism who thought they could find out more about it here, only to find the Guiding Light of Libertarianism lunging out at them with holy dogma.

"And as such", you're for all intents and purposes an asset to socialism and "a waste of time. Congratulations. "

Get a grip.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Conza88 — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:28:45 GMT

The last part was more of a general rant at what happens fairly often here on the forums, not directed at the OP per se - so don't take it personally.

And patronize who? If someone is relatively new to the political philosophy I can definitely understand, but when someone is writing a damn thesis about it and sets up a strawman... come on!? Sure they tried, they also failed. But hey, maybe I'm reading this all wrong? lol

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Sieben — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:04:54 GMT

Conza don't patronize someone who's trying.

Re: Thesis: Nietzschean Libertarianism

Conza88 — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:33:03 GMT

"It is nonetheless a straightforward fact that libertarianism (at least superficially and as it is generally presented and intended) suffers from the same disease as other moral frameworks do: an underlying claim to objective truth about good and evil; i.e. a claim to an objectively quantifiable universal morality which is supposed to trump all others universally".

Except it does no such thing. And as such, your whole thesis is a strawman and a waste of time. Congratulations.

This is all really need to be said;

"I came across an exchange between Mr. Halliday, Walter Block and an editors note by Murray. The Libertarian Forum pdf from 1973_06. I agree with Blocks rebuttal, and Murray's note:

"How about Professor Block's second premise, that evil is only the initiation of violence? Here I think it is possible to partially reconcile the Block and Halliday positions. It is a question of what context we are dealing with. I would agree with Block that within the context of libertarian theory, evil must be confined to the initiation of violence. On the other hand, when we proceed from libertarianism to the question of wider social and personal ethics, then I would agree with Halliday that there are many other actions which should be considered as evil: lying, for example or deliberately failing to fulfill one's best potential. But these are not matters about which liberty - the problem of the proper scope of violence - has anything to say. In short, qua libertarian there is nothing wrong or evil about breaking dates, being gratuitously nasty to one's associates, or generally behaving like a cad: here not only do I join Professor Block, but I would expect Mr. Halliday and all other libertarians to do the same. On the other hand, qua general ethicist, I would join Mr. Halliday in denouncing such behavior, while Professor Block would not."

Recently; "Block: I'm shocked that I ever wrote it. I don't think I meant it. I agree, fully, with Murray."

Seems to me yet again someone reads into the philosophy, forgets the basics, arrogantly thinks they see errors and contradictions where none exist or are a result of their misunderstanding and then arrogantly contends its a failure of the authors or political philosophy, not them - who in actual fact have made the most basic of errors by failing to make the distinction between political philosophy and personal ethics.