Political Theory

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:31:50 GMT

I thought that utilitarianism = consequentialism in this context.

No. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism, as well as of hedonism.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

alimentarius — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:41:25 GMT

In a sense, yes. Good consequences are those which prevent suffering and lead to more happiness.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:26:35 GMT

I thought that utilitarianism = consequentialism in this context.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

alimentarius — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:51:42 GMT

Happiness is not zero sum. Just like economics.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Andrew Cain — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:38:06 GMT

alimentarius:

I'm a utilitarian because I prefer happiness to suffering.

Rule utilitarianism does not necessarily entail your happiness. Merely the maximization of social happiness in society. You could very well be the individual who losses out in the deal in order to maintain that happiness.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

liberty student — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:57:28 GMT

alimentarius:
Social democracy in Eastern Europe is capitalist. It's not like in Scandinavia.

Social democracy is the opposite of capitalism. In capitalism, people own property. In social democracy, the majority or bureaucrats can take property whenever they want. In order to have a free market, there has to be an expectation of a consistent system of property rights, so people can plan how they will store wealth, how they will acquire wealth, how they will trade property etc. In a social democracy, such stability is always at the mercy of the mob or some special interest.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:44 GMT

social democratic capitalism is like dry water.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

alimentarius — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:24:09 GMT

liberty student:
I wasn't aware that Bulgaria became capitalist.

Social democracy in Eastern Europe is capitalist. It's not like in Scandinavia.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Brainpolice — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:08:25 GMT

Laughing Man:

Much hostility has transpired over the weeks concerning 'left' and 'right' libertarains [ 'thick' & 'thin' whatever you call them ] however, have we forgotten which institution we are truly both against? Do we not have a common foe who still exists at this time? Let us not squabble about which is better or worse but that which we all concede is immoral and unjust, the State. Did the Anti-Imperialist league tear itself apart about the just size of government in the face of imperialism? Did the 'Old Right' denounce each other? We are linked by a common goal. Let us not forget that.

To: Minarchists, sorry you guys don't belong

Some issues that might make such a "unity" not as coherant as it may first seem:

1. If people have a different understanding of what constitutes the state or what the preconditions for state formation are, then while they may both nominally be "anti-state", the ultimate substance of their positions may potentially widely vary to the point of not going together very well at all. Even if the groups in question are largely in opposition to the same particular state, what one "anti-statist" proposes "post-state" may reduce to another form of statism from the perspective of another "anti-statist". To an anarcho-capitalist, the anarcho-syndicalist's "worker's councils" may just be localized democracies, while to an anarcho-communist, the anarcho-capitalist's "PDAs" or "DROs" may just be "private" mini-states.

2. Shared opposition to a particular state doesn't necessarily imply shared opposition to "the state" as a matter of principle. While this may seem like just a slight against anarchist-minarchist alliance, it also applies within the vague rubric of "anarchism". From a hardline social anarchist perspective, anarcho-capitalists aren't against "the state" as a matter of principle, they just want "private states". From a hardline anarcho-capitalist perspective, social anarchists aren't against "the state" as a matter of principle, they just want universalized, hyper-inclusive states in the form of "direct democracy". The anarchist-minarchist debate consequentially plays itself out *inside* of anarchism.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

laminustacitus — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:06:58 GMT

Daniel:

Yes, happiness does assume liberty.

You overestimate the effect that liberty has on happiness, one could easilly be a happy slave.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

DanielMuff — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:03:35 GMT

Yes, happiness does assume liberty.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

liberty student — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:54:19 GMT

Angurse:

alimentarius:
I'm a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.

I thought you were a utlitarian? And before that a consequentialist?

Go with the flow. He's headed in a positive direction!

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Angurse — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:49:57 GMT

alimentarius:
I'm a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.

I thought you were a utlitarian? And before that a consequentialist?

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

alimentarius — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:47:48 GMT

I'm a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.

Re: A Declaration of Intent on the LvMi

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:43:55 GMT

laminustacitus:
The Euthyphro dilemma is unique to polytheistic systems, but in monotheistic ones the definition of a deity generally renders it an obsolete theological debate.

No, it doesn't. The cop-out of "good flows from god's nature" begs the question of how we know god's nature to be good in the first place to make such a claim--is it because god says so (subjective dynamic) or because we can determine it without god (objective). So Euthyphro still holds.