alimentarius: I'm a utilitarian because I prefer happiness to suffering.
Hey, I'm a libertarian for the same reason, but I thought you were a consequentialist, what happened?
Jon Irenicus: 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. 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.
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.
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.
There are three clauses in my statement (see below), you cannot use "former", and "latter" if you expect me to be able to understand what you're speaking about:
(I)It is an assertion that has yet to be proven wrong, and (II)since all judgments of value are subjective (III)it is impossible to claim that there is something that can be objectively valued.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Former = naturalistic "fallacy", latter = ought-is gap.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
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.
I'm a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.
alimentarius:I'm a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.
I thought you were a utlitarian? And before that a consequentialist?
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!
Yes, happiness does assume liberty.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Yes, happiness does assume liberty.
You overestimate the effect that liberty has on happiness, one could easilly be a happy slave.
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
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.
liberty student:I wasn't aware that Bulgaria became capitalist.
Social democracy in Eastern Europe is capitalist. It's not like in Scandinavia.
social democratic capitalism is like dry water.
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: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.
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.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Happiness is not zero sum. Just like economics.
I thought that utilitarianism = consequentialism in this context.
In a sense, yes. Good consequences are those which prevent suffering and lead to more happiness.
No. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism, as well as of hedonism.