then you should be a libertarian. we will help you
it is a 'paradox' (not really) that laissez-faire is superior to interventionism in overcoming poverty.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
alimentarius:In my opinion libertarian rights are also based on emotions.
Lesson One of Libertarianism: Rights are based on reason.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I'd rather say an appeal to consequences.
And which way you decide based on the "consequences" will of course depend on the emotive reaction each produces, if any at all...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I appreciate your answers. Please don't think that I'm trolling. I'm just not used to accepting claims without asking critical questions. Maybe I'll not accept all your libertarian viewpoints, but I hope to understand them better.
Laughing Man:Lesson One of Libertarianism: Rights are based on reason.
I think people defined rights because they found it was a good way to ensure safety for themselves. That is reasonable, but still based on emotions.
alimentarius:I think people defined rights because they found it was a good way to ensure safety for themselves. That is reasonable, but still based on emotions.
Actually I would consider that consequencialism, not rights-derived from emotion.
You use your emotions to determine if a given consequence is good or bad.
alimentarius: You use your emotions to determine if a given consequence is good or bad.
You can use your reason to determine that just the same.
I would disagree there.
alimentarius: I would disagree there.
Why?
Because I don't see how something can be rightt or wrong if we eliminate emotions from this world.
LOL! You are acting as though objective ethics is far more obvious than your performance in debates would indicate. You haven't even been able to establish the coherence of objective ethics, let alone its truth, so you should reconsider being so arrogant to so baldly claim that as "lesson one" of ALL libertarianism. I suppose Lesson Two of Libertarianism would be "Promote Eudaimonia!" and Lesson Three would be "Left Libertarians Rock!"
Laughing Man: alimentarius:In my opinion libertarian rights are also based on emotions. Lesson One of Libertarianism: Rights are based on reason.
Objective, libertarian ethics outside of a theistic system do not exist.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Lilburne:You haven't even been able to establish the coherence of objective ethics, let alone its truth, so you should reconsider being so arrogant to so baldly claim that as "lesson one" of ALL libertarianism.
Whether a conquestionalist or deontological, the reason rights are established are because of human logic and reason to some degree. Or are you of the mind that rights are divine edicts like mana from heaven?
Lilburne: I suppose Lesson Two of Libertarianism would be "Promote Eudaimonia!" and Lesson Three would be "Left Libertarians Rock!"
No lesson two is that High C fruit punch has objective value and lesson three is that the afterlife consists of Jesus singing lead vocals for Lynard Skynard and he has an angel band and we're all in the front row hammered.
laminustacitus:Objective, libertarian ethics outside of a theistic system do not exist.
Actually I would state that objective libertarian ethics within a theistic system are nonexistent.
alimentarius: Because I don't see how something can be rightt or wrong if we eliminate emotions from this world.
I'm from the NR school that finds the emotions and reason may act in unison, or in some form or fashion find expression. They each play their part in being human.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Objective, libertarian ethics outside of a theistic system do not exist. Actually I would state that objective libertarian ethics within a theistic system are nonexistent.
That does nothing to prove the existence of objective, libertarian ethics.
alimentarius:Because I don't see how something can be rightt or wrong if we eliminate emotions from this world.
It's possible. Look at act utilitarians.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
laminustacitus: That does nothing to prove the existence of objective, libertarian ethics.
Says the man who merely said the opposite of what I said.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: That does nothing to prove the existence of objective, libertarian ethics. Says the man who merely said the opposite of what I said.
Avoid the question as much as you want, the point still remains: objective, libertarian ethics do not exist.
laminustacitus:objective, libertarian ethics do not exist.
Ahem...
'That does nothing to prove the [non] existence of objective, libertarian ethics.' -Iaminustacitus
Let's start with the simple grounds.
Why can't there be objective rights?
And do you or do you not concede that everyone has a right to self-ownership, property, and the liberty to carry out their will in a non-aggressive manner?
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:objective, libertarian ethics do not exist. Ahem... 'That does nothing to prove the [non] existence of objective, libertarian ethics.' -Iaminustacitus
There is no objective "good", or "evil" outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, "good", and "evil" are subjective categories that result from the each individual's judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on. Even the state of eudemonia is brought about by cirumstances dictated by the individual's valuations, and is hence subjective.
laminustacitus: There is no objective "good", or "evil" outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, "good", and "evil" are subjective categories that result from the each individual's judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on.
There is no objective "good", or "evil" outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, "good", and "evil" are subjective categories that result from the each individual's judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on.
And theistic frameworks are not human made just like non-theistic ones? Do you actually believe that all holy texts are the word of God?
laminustacitus:Even the state of eudemonia is brought about by cirumstances dictated by the individual's valuations, and is hence subjective.
Well I never stated that what an individual's eudiamonia is isn't subjective. The objectivity of eudiamonia is that it can be applied to all individuals for we all have ultimate ends in some fashion.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: There is no objective "good", or "evil" outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, "good", and "evil" are subjective categories that result from the each individual's judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on. And theistic frameworks are not human made just like non-theistic ones? Do you actually believe that all holy texts are the word of God?
A theistic framework can claim that there is an objective "Good" in the world: a deity, and when discussing objective ethics, I think it is important to differentuiate between theistic, and non-theistic frameworks regardless of the validity of theism.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Even the state of eudemonia is brought about by cirumstances dictated by the individual's valuations, and is hence subjective. Well I never stated that what an individual's eudiamonia is isn't subjective. The objectivity of eudiamonia is that it can be applied to all individuals for we all have ultimate ends in some fashion.
How do you know we all have "ultimate ends in some fashion"?
laminustacitus: A theistic framework can claim that there is an objective "Good" in the world
A theistic framework can claim that there is an objective "Good" in the world
As can non-theistic frameworks.
laminustacitus:How do you know we all have "ultimate ends in some fashion"?
Because it is impossible not to have one. To state one doesn't have one is in fact a performative contradiction.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: A theistic framework can claim that there is an objective "Good" in the world As can non-theistic frameworks.
Try.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:How do you know we all have "ultimate ends in some fashion"? Because it is impossible not to have one. To state one doesn't have one is in fact a performative contradiction.
That's a ridiculous assertion; there is no reason why an individual cannot not have an ultimate ends.
laminustacitus:Try.
You know my framework. Natural Rights/Law
laminustacitus:That's a ridiculous assertion; there is no reason why an individual cannot not have an ultimate ends.
Actually it isn't. Trying not to have an ultimate end is in fact...an ultimate end. Hence performative contradiction.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Try. You know my framework. Natural Rights/Law
I didn't ask for your framework, I asked for you to derive a objective "good".
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:That's a ridiculous assertion; there is no reason why an individual cannot not have an ultimate ends. Actually it isn't. Trying not to have an ultimate end is in fact...an ultimate end. Hence performative contradiction.
Not if someone never thinks about their non-existent "ultimate end". In addition, you assume that when individuals don't have ultimate ends that they try not to have ultimate ends, rather than just not having an ultimate end.
This is a great example of how including ideas like "objective" notions of right and wrong in libertarianism (without coherently articulating such notions) leaves it wide open to easy criticism from outside. As the underdogs, we can't afford the luxury of incoherent doctrine.
Why anarchy fails
Prove it.
BTW, they're definitely impossible within such a system if they're the outcome of the being's whims...
Aha.
laminustacitus:I didn't ask for your framework, I asked for you to derive a objective "good".
Liberty, private property and life.
laminustacitus: Not if someone never thinks about their non-existent "ultimate end".
Not if someone never thinks about their non-existent "ultimate end".
One not knowing about the consequences of action doesn't not absolve the premise that there is an ultimate end. Anyways I find it highly unlikely that no one said 'when I grow up I want to be a fireman..astronaut etc.
laminustacitus: In addition, you assume that when individuals don't have ultimate ends that they try not to have ultimate ends, rather than just not having an ultimate end.
They will run into the question of having an ultimate end. Everyone is asked what their goals in life are at one time or another,we all calculate what we would like to do or what will give us the most pleasure in doing over the course of our life. What's your ultimate end? Just so you can't move through life without the topic being brought up
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:I didn't ask for your framework, I asked for you to derive a objective "good". Liberty, private property and life.
Ask a suicidal communist how much values those three, and you will find that they are not objective "goods". They are only good so long as individuals value them as so.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: Not if someone never thinks about their non-existent "ultimate end". One not knowing about the consequences of action doesn't not absolve the premise that there is an ultimate end. Anyways I find it highly unlikely that no one said 'when I grow up I want to be a fireman..astronaut etc.
That does not equal an ultimate end, rather it is a mere end. Just because I want a glass of water does not mean that having a glass of water is my ultimate end.
Jon Irenicus: Objective, libertarian ethics outside of a theistic system do not exist. Prove it.
There are no objective judgments of value to anchor the ethics to, and all attempts are generalizations of one's own judgments of value.
Jon Irenicus: There is no objective "good", or "evil" outside of a theistic framework; in a non-theistic one, "good", and "evil" are subjective categories that result from the each individual's judgments of value for there is nothing objective to anchor them on. Even the state of eudemonia is brought about by cirumstances dictated by the individual's valuations, and is hence subjective. Aha.
The Euthyphro dilemma is unique to polytheistic systems, but in monotheistic ones the definition of a deity generally renders it an obsolete theological debate.
The former is an assertion (all attempts to show objective ethics are impossible fail), the latter is defining the problem away.
Jon Irenicus:The former is an assertion (all attempts to show objective ethics are impossible fail)
It is an assertion that has yet to be proven wrong, and since all judgments of value are subjective it is impossible to claim that there is something that can be objectively valued.
Jon Irenicus:the latter is defining the problem away.
If you really want to get into the theology of the matter: in most monotheistic religions all that is good is rooted in a deity, hence the Euthyphro dilemma disappears since nothing that is good is not rooted in a deity. Hence there is no need to analyze whether a commandement is good because it is commanded by a deity, but was commanded by a deity because it is good; rather, it is good because it is rooted in a deity.
Laughing Man: alimentarius:Because I don't see how something can be rightt or wrong if we eliminate emotions from this world. It's possible. Look at act utilitarians.
I'm a utilitarian because I prefer happiness to suffering.
I don't agree that the only way to make money legally is to produce goods and services that other people value. How about speculations
No, you see, the burden of proof is on the person making that assertion, and so far the attempts to do so (the naturalistic "fallacy" and the "ought-is" gap) cannot rule out the possibility of objective ethics, because the former is nonsensical twaddle and the latter cannot rule out systems based on assertoric/problematic hypotheticals.
Silly. So it still means it's based on the deity's subjective whims. Convenient.