Political Theory

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:31:31 GMT

gussosa:

wilderness:
Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other. These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought. Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent: cause they have red shirts.

It sounds like you are talking about motives. I don't like to use the word reason for a motive. I use reason to speak about a conscious effort for the evaluation of alternatives. In the case of the soldiers, the reasoning process could be "if I fight those guys in red shirts I COULD be killed by them, but if I refuse to fight I WILL be killed by my own officers, so I choose the lesser evil and go fight". However, no consideration is given to the premise that red shirts are enemies.

When talking about physical phenomena there is always only one true premise, which might be composed of several sensations (the ball is round, green and smells like plastic). When talking of abstractions, there is one that is best than the others or all are equally wrong (in opposition to everyone is partly right).

All bodies of the same size and shape fall at the same speed. The sun is bright. All those are true premises. What may change is the abstraction that describes/rules/explains the fact. The law of gravity is a far better abstraction than the idea that instincts in physical bodies that lead them to the ground, and a single universal force would be (if possible) a far better theory than having four different forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear). However, facts don't change.

Facts, data, ok, don't change, but our perception of them do. Thus, the fact isn't the whole truth if we don't know all the facts. So what are we talking about?

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

gussosa — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:10:20 GMT

wilderness:
Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other. These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought. Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent: cause they have red shirts.

It sounds like you are talking about motives. I don't like to use the word reason for a motive. I use reason to speak about a conscious effort for the evaluation of alternatives. In the case of the soldiers, the reasoning process could be "if I fight those guys in red shirts I COULD be killed by them, but if I refuse to fight I WILL be killed by my own officers, so I choose the lesser evil and go fight". However, no consideration is given to the premise that red shirts are enemies.

When talking about physical phenomena there is always only one true premise, which might be composed of several sensations (the ball is round, green and smells like plastic). When talking of abstractions, there is one that is best than the others or all are equally wrong (in opposition to everyone is partly right).

All bodies of the same size and shape fall at the same speed. The sun is bright. All those are true premises. What may change is the abstraction that describes/rules/explains the fact. The law of gravity is a far better abstraction than the idea that instincts in physical bodies that lead them to the ground, and a single universal force would be (if possible) a far better theory than having four different forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear). However, facts don't change.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:46:26 GMT

gussosa:

wilderness:
Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other: "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

What about this?

A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't make any conscious effort to find the best way to use the means available in order to reach his goals, he would just verbalize his feelings.

I understand that even in this situation he would have to choose the best words to convey the exact nature of his feelings, but I just tried to give an example of how someone can take things for granted and never check the premises. An individual whose parents were government employees and became a government employee himself right after high school is not exactly a good prospect candidate for Libertarianism. A similar situation happens with a worker who has never been involved in entrepreneurial or management activities. It would be pretty hard to convince him that his boss simply hasn't got any money to give a raise. He has been told over and over by union leaders that "bosses always have money".

A pragmatic faith lets you accept some premises without checking them. Like the student of a maths teacher who says "for now just trust me, we will see the demonstration later".

You need a personal faith crisis to get rid of some premises that stuck with you unchecked, because while they work (or simply aren't used) you won't doubt of them.

In the case of the worker, he might suffer that crisis after the boss is forced to give raises and then the company goes bankrupt. However, even in those cases he might think (or be told) the boss robbed his own company and escaped with the money, and the premise stays untouched.

Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other. These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought. Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent: cause they have red shirts.

I'd rather look at this as better reasons that can be better argued. Yet, I can argue a better reason or premise to somebody all day and night, but eventually they will have to choose. This is about freedom. But also the flaw is to think I or anybody has the best reason/premise, cause this closes the path to an open-mind and anything that actually might be even better.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:33:46 GMT

Juan:
wilderness:
Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this.
Yes. You asserted that physics is non-objective and I disagreed and still disagree. You misread my last message to you in that thread and I didn't feel like trying to make my point again, for which I am to blame.

On the other hand, I thought we agreed that there's such a thing as 'natural rights' in the moral sphere (but maybe I misread you as well...)

Anyway, Charles Anthony's position is inconsistent and he doesn't realize it.

As to using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' I don't see a problem with it. If some people don't understand or disagree with the concepts or meanings implied, well, that's not my fault is it ?

Actually I assert that physics is objective or subjective, which ever way an individual inclines or perceives.

Yes, I agree with natural rights. And it's not anybody's fault that objective and subjective have different meanings to different people. I can argue objectivism means tryanny (due to it's unwillingness to notice change), but I can also argue objectivism means facts due to the current paradigm that are valued [Newton is no less objective than Plato's perfect circles of planets around the earth this was fact until respectively in order of the statement, not in order of history, Kepler (elliptical orbits) and Copernicus (planets around the sun)]. I can argue subjectivism takes notice of the consumer and is as factual as factual can be. I can also argue that subjectivism means not enough order can be established for agreement (aka it's all subjective). What is objective evolves so it's really subjective. I based what I know on value. I admit I don't know all and keep an open mind. Natural Law is the best that I know of now, but that might change and therefore faced with new facts Natural Law could become as subjective as liking strawberry ice cream more than vanilla ice cream. But I know you have your perspective and I have mine. This "objective" and "subjective" understanding is not solely mine, but is shared by others in the philosophy arena such as the Metaphysics of Quality.

For the moment Natural Law is as factual to me as electrons, but also when I'm engrossed in a good fictional novel that fictional reality is just as objective as the wind touching my face on a windy day.

Thanks

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

William — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:17:31 GMT

gussosa:

I have tried to find something about this in the literature section but couldn't do it.

In a Libertarian society:

What happens if somebody (Mr. A) is denounced by another one (Mr. B) as a criminal, but Mr A isn't affiliated to any security or justice agency and he won't comply to go to trial? Maybe he is nuts or extremely poor and proud, but he won't even accept pro-bono services.

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

If something like this happens in bulk, probably a revolution/ violence. Think of it along the lines of jury nullification. Masses of people who are denied justice and basic goods will punish those who they find guilty, with thier own brand of justice.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

gussosa — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:12:27 GMT

wilderness:
Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other: "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

What about this?

A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't make any conscious effort to find the best way to use the means available in order to reach his goals, he would just verbalize his feelings.

I understand that even in this situation he would have to choose the best words to convey the exact nature of his feelings, but I just tried to give an example of how someone can take things for granted and never check the premises. An individual whose parents were government employees and became a government employee himself right after high school is not exactly a good prospect candidate for Libertarianism. A similar situation happens with a worker who has never been involved in entrepreneurial or management activities. It would be pretty hard to convince him that his boss simply hasn't got any money to give a raise. He has been told over and over by union leaders that "bosses always have money".

A pragmatic faith lets you accept some premises without checking them. Like the student of a maths teacher who says "for now just trust me, we will see the demonstration later".

You need a personal faith crisis to get rid of some premises that stuck with you unchecked, because while they work (or simply aren't used) you won't doubt of them.

In the case of the worker, he might suffer that crisis after the boss is forced to give raises and then the company goes bankrupt. However, even in those cases he might think (or be told) the boss robbed his own company and escaped with the money, and the premise stays untouched.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

Juan — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:56:21 GMT

wilderness:
Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this.

Yes. You asserted that physics is non-objective and I disagreed and still disagree. You misread my last message to you in that thread and I didn't feel like trying to make my point again, for which I am to blame.

On the other hand, I thought we agreed that there's such a thing as 'natural rights' in the moral sphere (but maybe I misread you as well...)

Anyway, Charles Anthony's position is inconsistent and he doesn't realize it.

As to using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' I don't see a problem with it. If some people don't understand or disagree with the concepts or meanings implied, well, that's not my fault is it ?

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:46:10 GMT

gussosa:

wilderness:

gussosa:

wilderness:
Freedom is not taught. Freedom is. What's all this "common man" talk? Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom.

Yes, value is a reality here. That is the very basis of freedom and choice. I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.

Maybe the problem here is that I use the word reason only for conscious reason, while you also use it for that kind of automatic decision making that I see more as feelings or habits.

I see decisions in the mind taking place along with feelings and habits. Other than that we slide into origin theories on what comes first, second, third... thought, feeling, or habits and I don't value such "origin theories".

Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other: "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

gussosa — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:38:53 GMT

wilderness:

gussosa:

wilderness:
Freedom is not taught. Freedom is. What's all this "common man" talk? Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom.

Yes, value is a reality here. That is the very basis of freedom and choice. I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.

Maybe the problem here is that I use the word reason only for conscious reason, while you also use it for that kind of automatic decision making that I see more as feelings or habits.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:06:28 GMT

Juan:
Charles Anthony:
Somehow it does not surprise me in the least that you have trouble with the non-aggressio principle.
I don't have a problem with the NAP. You do.

You have a big problem with basic philosophy and logical consistency too. You seem to be totally unable to grasp that the NAP is objective and it entails objective truth and objective justice.

Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this. Objective and subjective are poor choices of words in my opinion for they carry a lot of different meanings for a lot of different people.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:03:24 GMT

gussosa:
And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.[

those demands would not be classifiable as human action though. (or if the demands are action, then they do use reason after all)

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

Juan — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:02:06 GMT

Charles Anthony:
Somehow it does not surprise me in the least that you have trouble with the non-aggressio principle.

I don't have a problem with the NAP. You do.

You have a big problem with basic philosophy and logical consistency too. You seem to be totally unable to grasp that the NAP is objective -- it relies on objective truth and entails objective justice.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

wilderness — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:00:49 GMT

gussosa:

wilderness:
Freedom is not taught. Freedom is. What's all this "common man" talk? Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom.

Yes, value is a reality here. That is the very basis of freedom and choice. I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

gussosa — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:54:32 GMT

wilderness:
Freedom is not taught. Freedom is. What's all this "common man" talk? Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom. And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

Re: a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

gussosa — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:49:33 GMT

Byzantine:

Voegelin

Thanks for clearing that. Now read again the article on Kohlberg. You could speak of a moral intelligence. In fact, Kohlberg just applied the ideas of Jean Piaget (of cognitive development) to the field of ethics. Some people are smarter, some people are stronger, some people are more ethical, some people are wealthier...

Inequality happens in every single field of human life, not just in economics. It is natural.

The faster people may become professional runners, the more ethical people may become cops and judges. Division of labour, baby!!!!

I believe "heaven on earth" is impossible, but a pure capitalist society is the best possible. Freedom is brought by a permanent check on each other. Government makes itself unattainable to the check of the rest of society, as you can change the people but no the institutions. Erase the government and the mutual check will bring order naturally.