Political Theory

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Ancap66 — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:48:51 GMT

My video:

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

vive la insurrection — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:27:33 GMT

For instance: why are minimum wages bad?

Ethical argument: because they violate people's right to freedom of contract.
Economic argument: because they increase unemployment.

These are both ethical arguments. If you ask why "something is bad", all I can give is an ethical response

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

vive la insurrection — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:18:34 GMT

If they really are consequentialists, then if the government told them that killing their children would usher in Heaven on Earth, they would gladly and eagerly do so.

Assuming "Heaven on Earth" means killing your children and randomly obeying orders from govt.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Gumdy — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:06:48 GMT

Conza, I trust you wouldn't start expaining AE to a socialist... even if you would persuade him to some extent of AE it wouldn't make a difference.

I find that simply explaining something simple such as the minimum wage can be a real mind opener.. I think It's a matter of practicality AFAIC..

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Conza88 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:55:42 GMT

Re: "Was wondering what people here think about this."

Typical activist fallacy. More so; if you want to use the "consequentialist approach" i.e be "value free" = that is what AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS FOR.

Sorry, consequentalism fails remarkably - in all facets for libertarianism / political philosophy.

"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH, pg 354, economics and ethics of private property

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Aristippus — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:54:13 GMT

No problem. I suppose I was just saying that the observation of the customs of property that evolved simultaneously and independently across (almost?) all agricultural societies was the inspiration for the NAP. In a similar way, observation of market prices was one of the inspirations for the study of economics, despite its a priori nature.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Autolykos — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:37:01 GMT

Okay, thanks. I thought you meant "based" in the sense of "logically based". Sorry for the confusion there.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Aristippus — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:31:21 GMT

Yes that's right.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Autolykos — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:18:48 GMT

Aristippus:
Well I meant that the NAP is based on customary ideas of justice, which in turn (and deep in the past) are based on utility - not that the NAP is directly based on utility.

So you mean historically based, not logically based - am I right?

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Gumdy — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:09:15 GMT

Since the only valid non consequenstionlist justification I'm aware of are Argumentation ethics and to some extent de-Jassay's presumption of liberty, both highly complex, subtle and technical, and since the human psyche is very results rather than logical consistency oriented, and further since every ought presumes a can (you can't prescribe what is unworkable) I easily agree.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Ancap66 — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:53:26 GMT

In a way, telling a statist that "taxation is theft", is like telling the owner of an oversized pick-up truck that "you don't need to make up for the size of your weaner." It's brutally honest, but also likely to provoke righteous indignation.

Implied ethics is more useful. E.g. by pointing out that the state is just a stockpile of weapons, you not only point out the limitations of what the state can actually do, but also imply that what appears to be armed robbery is probably a bad thing. We want to erode the statist's emotional attachment to the state, but they must be the ones who connect the dots, otherwise they may not grasp the full picture.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

AdrianHealey — Sun, 27 May 2012 09:27:40 GMT

For the record; that blogpost is not an official statement of the entirety of SFL. There was some criticism from within SFL as well.

You can find one follow up blogpost to criticize the position taken here. The position defended in that blogpost is probably closer to what some people here defend. (Maybe not 100% what you would argue for, but closer nonetheless.)

I work with Casey and he is a very good guy. However - as I told him - I disagree with some parts of this blogpost, as did others in SFL.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Ancap66 — Sat, 26 May 2012 03:58:50 GMT

It's effective to combine consequentialism with suggested ethics in the same argument. E.g. the incentives of the state are no different from the mafia, therefore the state must also be parasitic - therefore it appears that the state is an evil institution; or forcefully extracting wealth from producers is similar to slavery, and both are harmful to productivity - therefore it would seem that taxation is a form of slavery, and so must be abolished.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

Neodoxy — Fri, 25 May 2012 23:36:20 GMT

Consequentialist argumentation is the only form of argumentation which is really compelling to most people. Whether or not you believe in utilitarianism, the fact is that most people believe in some awkward combination of rights-based and utilitarian ethics. Therefore the only real way to convince most people is by arguing for the improvement in living standards that results from the transition to a free market. That's what's compelling, not the "ethical" approach, which could result in what many people consider an unethical situation. You can't change people's values very easily, you can play to their values by changing their conception of something quite easily.

Re: Students for Liberty article advises libertarians to adopt consequentialist approach

John James — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:03:15 GMT

Greg:
I'm pretty sure that pussy even stopped wearing bow ties after Stewart railed on him, seriously grow a pair and keep that thing on! lol

I think you're right. I the time vicinity myself actually. That was also soon before Crossfire got canceled as well. And Stewart is basically credited with that too. One man wrecking crew that guy was. Watch the full interview. It's a beautiful thing. I can't say he stopped attacking the media like that over the years, but I wish he would do more of it.

Those comments cracked me up. John James' comment came off as very asshole-ish but you got some mad linking skills I'll give you that.