liberty student:You think, or you know? In order to be objective, you have to know. If you're just thinkin' 'bout it, mulling it over, picking and choosing, then that sounds like subjectivism to me.
You know I am a natural rights theorist.
liberty student:Ah. But doesn't objectivism have a utilitarian aspect? What more is utilitarianism than preferences expressed as absolutes?
Yes in the sense that it is an ethical system whose basis is that the maximization of social welfare is the highest end to be pursued. No in the sense of what that goal is.
liberty student:You still haven't made clear that something (or someone) objective must drive me to embrace the NAP.
Reason would be sufficient for me. How can you propound a system of economical theory concerning private property while also announcing that no one has a right to defend said property from trespassers, that we have a right to reside in an environment free of coercion? You say Austrian-ism is objective, but how can you have things like double inequality of value, or any subjective evaluation of goods and services if you don't have a objective system of property rights and if you have such a system then why not also an ethical / legal system that espouses true ethical statements such as
Stealing is wrong
Taxation is stealing
Therefore taxation is wrong.
You can't have a system of property rights without a system of legal codes and if you have such a system then you have an objective ethical system that applies to all who reside in a given area.
liberty student:Bit late for flowers and fruit baskets, isn't it?
If you want to be nasty then that is your choice, I'm content with the knowledge that I at least made an effort to be kind.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Angurse:You could use non-cognitivism to simply bypass that proof problem that natural-righters and moral absolutists can't seem to overcome.
We covered this. Non-cognitivism is emotivism, the theory that ethical statements don't express truth. It is rather stupid.
Laughing Man:How can you propound a system of economical theory concerning private property while also announcing that no one has a right to defend said property from trespassers, that we have a right to reside in an environment free of coercion?
I don't.
Laughing Man:You say Austrian-ism is objective
Did I?
Laughing Man:You can't have a system of property rights without a system of legal codes
Don't agree.
Laughing Man:If you want to be nasty then that is your choice
I wasn't aware I was nasty.
Angurse:Natural law only matters if people agree on what the rules actually are.
The rules of natural law haven't undergone much change since the Greeks.
liberty student:I don't.
Then what economic theory do you propound?
liberty student:Did I?
Yes you did. One of the things I noticed that was strange, Austrian economics gives objective truths but ethical systems are completely subjective.
liberty student:Don't agree.
Explain the enforcement of property rights without a legal system. Explain how you even have the concept of property without such a system.
liberty student:I wasn't aware I was nasty.
Right, you just make a statement about how 'us guys' marginalize ourselves and you are being kind.
libertystudent: Juan: Are you calling me a joker ? That depends. If I was calling you a joker, how would that make you feel?
Juan: Are you calling me a joker ?
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."
Laughing Man:We covered this. Non-cognitivism is emotivism, the theory that ethical statements don't express truth. It is rather stupid.
Hardly stupid considering that no ethical statement has ever been proven as truth.
Laughing Man:The rules of natural law haven't undergone much change since the Greeks.
Yet not all the Greeks agreed to the rules, nor were they ever proven as being. Its as silly as utilitarianism and the social contract theory in my opinion.
Juan:Anyway, I don't really care if you call me a joker or not
Why not?
Angurse:Hardly stupid considering that no ethical statement has ever been proven as truth.
So stealing isn't immoral?
Angurse:Yet not all the Greeks agreed to the rules, nor were they ever proven as being. Its as silly as utilitarianism and the social contract theory in my opinion.
What would it take for you to be proven they exist?
Laughing Man:One of the things I noticed that was strange, Austrian economics gives objective truths but ethical systems are completely subjective.
What is strange about that? One of the objective truths from Austrian economics, is the subjective theory of value.
Laughing Man:Explain the enforcement of property rights without a legal system.
Co-operation.
Laughing Man:Right, you just make a statement about how 'us guys' marginalize ourselves and you are being kind.
Ha, you brought up marginalizing first! Priceless.
Laughing Man:So stealing isn't immoral?
Morality and ethics are not the same thing.
Juan:Why do you ask ?
I ask because I care about you Juan. I care so much it hurts.
liberty student:What is strange about that? One of the objective truths from Austrian economics, is the subjective theory of value.
Economics deals with human action while ethical systems deal with which human actions are acceptable and unacceptable.
liberty student:Co-operation.
Cooperation over what? Without property rights what is there to cooperate over?
liberty student:Ha, you brought up marginalizing first! Priceless.
My comment was concerning the viewpoint of logical positives towards ethical theory. I don't see how me saying that means you aren't rude for making an insulting remark about me.
I'll respond to your retorts on this topic tomorrow for anyone who has any.
Laughing Man:I don't see how me saying that means you aren't rude for making an insulting remark about me.
I made an insulting remark about you? When?
I think it is, I can't prove anything though.
Laughing Man:What would it take for you to be proven they exist?
Bridge the Is-Ought gap.
Juan:What kind of material do you think the bridge ought to be made of ?
I'd prefer logic, but if you can make it out of balsa wood I'd be equally impressed.
Angurse: Laughing Man:What would it take for you to be proven they exist? Bridge the Is-Ought gap.
Why is that the standard? Why would you accept the existence or objective ethics, morality, law, or whatever if this is demonstrated. It seems neither sufficient nor necessary to establish objective ethics.
Stephen: Why is that the standard? Why would you accept the existence or objective ethics, morality, law, or whatever if this is demonstrated. It seems neither sufficient nor necessary to establish objective ethics.
I never said it was "the standard," its what I would need for proof. I've already made it clear that I don't think natural rights or objective ethics are necessary, whether they exist or not.
yes, who needs life, liberty, and property. they are not necessary.
of course this is handie-dandie sarcasm
You said, "Yet not all the Greeks agreed to the rules, nor were they ever proven as being. Its as silly as utilitarianism and the social contract theory in my opinion."
What do you mean by proven as being? Obviously, some Greeks agreed to certain rules. Don't those rules exist than for those Greeks?
Also, what if there is some logical form that social conventions regarding the use of property must conform to for them to be justified or defensible?(A pure critique of legal convention, if you will) Would this count as an is statement, or an ought? It would kind of be both wouldn't it? Since it is a statement which describes reality, it would be an is statement. Since it also describes individual's value scales, it would also be an ought statement (at least for anyone who feels compelled to argue that one should hold some proposition to be true).
Are forms not in existence?
@ the OP
Democracy for Breakfast:What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism?
Capitalism is the economic system under which factors of production are owned privately.
Socialism it the uneconomic system under which factors of production are under social control.
Democracy for Breakfast:so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal?
Capitalism is simply the more economically efficient than any other system. Given that capitalism presupposes a non-invasion of any persons property, every exchange is beneficial to all parties involve and raises social utility. Given that all other possible systems, full blown socialism or any of the possible variety of mixed economies, are predicated on invasion of original property owners (this is how social control is achieved), there are many forced exchanges where one party benefits and the other is made worse off. Therefore, socialism or any soft variant will have lower social utility than under capitalism.
In addition, capitalism is the only economic system which is morally defensible. Socialism uses property expropriation to acquire social control over factors of production. And invasion of innocent original appropriators can never be justified.
Democracy for Breakfast:I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective.
I'm not 100% sure why this is.
A big part of the answer i think is that we spend most of our highly impressionable years in a socialist (public) school system, educated by socialists (who of course are not going to bite the hand that feeds them, so to speak).
Another big reason, imo, is the widespread methodology of radical empiricism (logical positivism), which holds that nothing about reality can be know with absolute certainty. Then we need to try everything out. In a social context, this means you have to have a socially engineering state which experiments with this tax and that regulation, observes the effects, and adjusts accordingly. Only through such a process of discovery can we arrive at an optimal social utility.
Just my guesses.
Democracy for Breakfast:It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
In the cases of religion, I would say that neither can be established by any non-arbitrary criteria. They are both bases on texts containing unverifiable accounts. They are both equally arbitrary and are matters of faith rather than truth.
As far as AnCap and Socialism go, there are properties inherent in both systems which can be used to pass judgment on their comparative efficiency and justness. (see above)
The Late Andrew Ryan: Democracy for Breakfast: What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal? I know the question is kind of broad, but I feel pretty sick, I'm not in the mood to type out an entire paragraph of my thought. I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective. It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion. 1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing. 2. All capitalism is, is voluntary exchange. Therefore anything that isn't voluntary exchange (AKA anything that has to do with teh governments) takes one thing and gives it to another, or merley restricts its exchange. In the case of wealth redistribution or heavy socialism it's giving from one group of people by force and giving to other people by force. There are two justifications for this. 1. Property rights don't exist 2. Democracy dictates what is right. Well you get whatever is taken for me and then me and then I and two others come to your house. Suddenly I'm in the majority, I not only take everything you own I also take the oppurtunity to cut your throat. The majority wished it and the majority has no restrictions, therefore it is good and no one can dictate otherwise from the actions of my three against his one. If property rights don't exist I can take everything you own anyway.... End Game. But in Captialism there is NO force required except for defence and things people agreed to because everything is voluntary. There is nothing contradictory about this, therefore voluntarism stands alone as totally un-self contradictory 3. Communism and A-Cap are totally different... I don't know how you could compare them. In an Anarcho-Captialist society everyone voluntarily exchanges everything, in a communist one they are forced to. In an Anarcho-Communist society you could make the case that it is in no way anarchist and that it is instead totally statist. It's just to the point that everyone is so brainwashed that the marginal (the part of the state that deals with force) has, or almost has, dissapeared. 4. Your religeous example is different. (Putting aside the fact that god doesn't exist) Unless you believe that you've talked to a supreme being you can't know everything about him. Unless you thought you heard him say "CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGEON" you don't know what religeon will bring you salvation and instead you believe only in your "feelings" and both religeons have those feelings so you can't say one is better than the other. Political ideology is driven by provable concepts of human nature and ethics. 5. If socialism is appealing you're pretty much advocating evil whether you know it or not. Those are most of the reasons that Voluntarism is the best type of society. No force that's not deserved, only voluntary transactions, and totally non-self contradictory.
Democracy for Breakfast: What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal? I know the question is kind of broad, but I feel pretty sick, I'm not in the mood to type out an entire paragraph of my thought. I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective. It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal?
I know the question is kind of broad, but I feel pretty sick, I'm not in the mood to type out an entire paragraph of my thought.
I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective.
It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing.
2. All capitalism is, is voluntary exchange. Therefore anything that isn't voluntary exchange (AKA anything that has to do with teh governments) takes one thing and gives it to another, or merley restricts its exchange. In the case of wealth redistribution or heavy socialism it's giving from one group of people by force and giving to other people by force. There are two justifications for this. 1. Property rights don't exist 2. Democracy dictates what is right. Well you get whatever is taken for me and then me and then I and two others come to your house. Suddenly I'm in the majority, I not only take everything you own I also take the oppurtunity to cut your throat. The majority wished it and the majority has no restrictions, therefore it is good and no one can dictate otherwise from the actions of my three against his one. If property rights don't exist I can take everything you own anyway.... End Game. But in Captialism there is NO force required except for defence and things people agreed to because everything is voluntary. There is nothing contradictory about this, therefore voluntarism stands alone as totally un-self contradictory
3. Communism and A-Cap are totally different... I don't know how you could compare them. In an Anarcho-Captialist society everyone voluntarily exchanges everything, in a communist one they are forced to. In an Anarcho-Communist society you could make the case that it is in no way anarchist and that it is instead totally statist. It's just to the point that everyone is so brainwashed that the marginal (the part of the state that deals with force) has, or almost has, dissapeared.
4. Your religeous example is different. (Putting aside the fact that god doesn't exist) Unless you believe that you've talked to a supreme being you can't know everything about him. Unless you thought you heard him say "CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGEON" you don't know what religeon will bring you salvation and instead you believe only in your "feelings" and both religeons have those feelings so you can't say one is better than the other. Political ideology is driven by provable concepts of human nature and ethics.
5. If socialism is appealing you're pretty much advocating evil whether you know it or not.
Those are most of the reasons that Voluntarism is the best type of society. No force that's not deserved, only voluntary transactions, and totally non-self contradictory.
Check this out.
Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals." - Albert Einstein.
Its a pretty harsh rebuttle of what you just said.. I hope you can disprove it :/
Democracy for Breakfast: Check this out. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals." - Albert Einstein. Its a pretty harsh rebuttle of what you just said.. I hope you can disprove it :/
I read through it and here are some of the most obvious problems that I came upon:
This article is hardly a harsh rebuttal--it is littered with fallacies. Of course, a person who is not an expert on social and economic issues has a right to opine on the subject of socialism. However, Einstein severely embarrasses himself and betrays his ignorance in this article.
Stephen:What do you mean by proven as being? Obviously, some Greeks agreed to certain rules. Don't those rules exist than for those Greeks?
Sure, the rules can apply to the Greeks who agreed to them, but not ALL. Yet natural law is contingent on universal validity, which still hasn't been proven.
Stephen: Also, what if there is some logical form that social conventions regarding the use of property must conform to for them to be justified or defensible?(A pure critique of legal convention, if you will) Would this count as an is statement, or an ought? It would kind of be both wouldn't it? Since it is a statement which describes reality, it would be an is statement. Since it also describes individual's value scales, it would also be an ought statement (at least for anyone who feels compelled to argue that one should hold some proposition to be true).
It doesn't really describe an individuals value scale, the individual would have to overlook his value scale and conform to the given social conventions.
Stephen:Are forms not in existence?
Universally valid form? No. (At least, it hasn't been verified that any exist)
Angurse:I never said it was "the standard," its what I would need for proof. I've already made it clear that I don't think natural rights or objective ethics are necessary, whether they exist or not.
Thank you.
Just some stuff Laughing Man needed to be called out on:
Laughing Man:Yes, it is a system of thought utilized by logical positivists in order to marginalize ethical meta-physical beliefs and theory. Not saying that you are a positivist, but if you are then I'm not going to worry about it.
Yeah, Keynesians use emotivism like that too. Wait, what?
Laughing Man:and public choice under Buchanan is rather silly.
I presume you've read Down's An Economic Theory of Democracy, or Buchanan and Tullock's The Calculus of Consent ?(If you're read Mueller's Public Choice III, Brennan and Lomasky's Democracy and Decision, Olson's The Logic of Collective Action, or any other works in the Public Choice tradition, let me know). I'm just curious, because calling Public Choice "rather silly" sort of leads me to the conclusion that you don't really know what James Buchanan said, ever.
I mean, you're a libertarian, so is it really "rather silly" to model political actors as self interest rather than benevolent altruists, or in other words to look at politics without the romance?
(It's interesting that you'd call a school of economic thought started by a Nobel prize winner and continued by many other eminent economics "silly").
Laughing Man:You can't have a system of property rights without a system of legal codes and if you have such a system then you have an objective ethical system that applies to all who reside in a given area.
It's curious that you should say that. It'scurious because you're saying to LibertyStudent "look, unless you have objectively established the morality of property rights you can't defend them in practise!", which sort of leads a situation in which, according to you, nobody need ever defend their property rights.
In fact, how any violation of property rights can ever occur must be seriously perplexing to you.
Laughing Man:You say Austrian-ism is objective, but how can you have things like double inequality of value,
But, an economist needn't make any claims about the initial distribution of property rights in order to assert that a double coincidnce of wants will lead to read. Now, of course, economists do make assumptions about property rights (i.e. when the economist says that a price ceiling will cause a shortage they're assumption that people won't just start stealing from the producers) and some economists have done economic analysis on property rights (Barzel, Rothbard, Demsetz, De Soto).
Laughing Man:The rules of natural law haven't undergone much change since the Greeks
So, the fact that Rothbard, Miller, Den Uyl & Rasmussen had wildly different intepretations of Aristotle than, say, MacIntyre is of no importance?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:One can be a non-cognitivist and not be an emotivist (one can be, say, a quasi-realist).
When dealing with ethical propositions, which we are here, individuals who comment that there is no true or falsity in them are emotivists. Non-cognitivists are a general theory that there is no truth in a general arena. Since we are talking about ethics, it is emotivism.
GilesStratton:I highly doubt that the logical positivists got to together and thought "how can we marginalize those natural rights guys?" to which Ayer responded "emotivism!"
Emotivism is a natural result of only actualizing what can be empirically tested in the world.
GilesStratton: I presume you've read Down's An Economic Theory of Democracy, or Buchanan and Tullock's The Calculus of Consent ?(If you're read Mueller's Public Choice III, Brennan and Lomasky's Democracy and Decision, Olson's The Logic of Collective Action, or any other works in the Public Choice tradition, let me know). I'm just curious, because calling Public Choice "rather silly" sort of leads me to the conclusion that you don't really know what James Buchanan said, ever. I mean, you're a libertarian, so is it really "rather silly" to model political actors as self interest rather than benevolent altruists, or in other words to look at politics without the romance?
I'm well aware of this relative unanimity concept and I feel it is completely absurd.
GilesStratton:(It's interesting that you'd call a school of economic thought started by a Nobel prize winner and continued by many other eminent economics "silly").
Hold on while I point all of those wonderful nobel prize winners who invented such great economical theories. I actually have a shrine in my room of them.
GilesStratton:It's curious that you should say that. It'scurious because you're saying to LibertyStudent "look, unless you have objectively established the morality of property rights you can't defend them in practise!", which sort of leads a situation in which, according to you, nobody need ever defend their property rights.
Unless you do have property rights, then how can one claim anything in the first place before even trying to defend it?
GilesStratton:But, an economist needn't make any claims about the initial distribution of property rights in order to assert that a double coincidnce of wants will lead to read.
Have we suddenly devolved into the bizarro world where an exchange doesn't presuppose there is property or a service that both parties hold? Exchange is only possible through trading of goods or services, such an exchange presupposes a form of property rights.
GilesStratton:So, the fact that Rothbard, Miller, Den Uyl & Rasmussen had wildly different intepretations of Aristotle than, say, MacIntyre is of no importance?
Define 'wildly'. Is natural rights theory exactly the same thing as the days of Aristotle? No. That is why I said 'Natural rights theory has undergone little change' Rothbard himself admits that he propounds a theory based on Aristotelian / Thomistic theory. Roderick Long and Geoffry Plauche too.
Angurse: Stephen:Are forms not in existence? Universally valid form? No. (At least, it hasn't been verified that any exist)
Let me try with some neutral examples. Do space and time exist? They are after all not empirical observations but the structure and form of physical reality which must presuppose any empirical observations. Are they also not universally valid? Does not every actor intuitively understand these action produced phenomenon?
Angurse: Stephen:What do you mean by proven as being? Obviously, some Greeks agreed to certain rules. Don't those rules exist than for those Greeks? Sure, the rules can apply to the Greeks who agreed to them, but not ALL. Yet natural law is contingent on universal validity, which still hasn't been proven.
The question was not regarding universal validity. It just seems incoherent to regard rules that at least some ppl are following as non-existent or incoherent.
Angurse: Stephen:Also, what if there is some logical form that social conventions regarding the use of property must conform to for them to be justified or defensible?(A pure critique of legal convention, if you will) Would this count as an is statement, or an ought? It would kind of be both wouldn't it? Since it is a statement which describes reality, it would be an is statement. Since it also describes individual's value scales, it would also be an ought statement (at least for anyone who feels compelled to argue that one should hold some proposition to be true). It doesn't really describe an individuals value scale, the individual would have to overlook his value scale and conform to the given social conventions.
Stephen:Also, what if there is some logical form that social conventions regarding the use of property must conform to for them to be justified or defensible?(A pure critique of legal convention, if you will) Would this count as an is statement, or an ought? It would kind of be both wouldn't it? Since it is a statement which describes reality, it would be an is statement. Since it also describes individual's value scales, it would also be an ought statement (at least for anyone who feels compelled to argue that one should hold some proposition to be true).
Well, I posed this as a hypothetical. My main question was this, is there such a thing as an invalid or impossible value scale? Are there not objective constraints on every individuals value scales? And if so, wouldn't this form (structure, ect.) that every value scale must conform to constitute both an ought and an is proposition? I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes.
Some examples of impossible value scales:
- (100)
- (101)
- 1 unit of good X
- (103)
- 2 units of good X
- (105)
- (106)
- (4)
- going to the movies and not going to the movies
- (6)
Laughing Man:When dealing with ethical propositions, which we are here, individuals who comment that there is no true or falsity in them are emotivists. Non-cognitivists are a general theory that there is no truth in a general arena. Since we are talking about ethics, it is emotivism.
Well, Wikipedia says otherwise (and I'd scan a chart in Alex Miller's book and upload it here to further prove my point, but I don't have my copy):
Wikipedia: Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism. Emotivism, defended by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson, holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Boo on killing!" Quasi-realism, defended by Simon Blackburn, holds that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims and can be appropriately called "true" or "false", even though there are no ethical facts for them to correspond to. Projectivism and moral fictionalism are related theories. Universal prescriptivism, defended by R.M. Hare, holds that moral statements function like universalized imperative sentences. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Don't kill!" Hare's version of prescriptivism requires that moral prescriptions be universalizable, and hence actually have objective values, in spite of failing to be indicative statements with truth-values per se.
Now, I understand this doesn't prove anything, but generally people would agree that emotivism isn't the only type of non-cognitivism. But I'm glad we agree that there was no maliciousness on behalf of Ayer & Co. Their metaethical beliefs followed from their logical positivism, they weren't trying to marginalize anybody.
Laughing Man:I'm well aware of this relative unanimity concept and I feel it is completely absurd.
OK, so let me get this straight. You're going to write off the entirety of Public Choice because you disagree with the unanimity principle? (I'm not even sure what it means to "think its absurd" or "disagree with it means. On the same note, Rothbard's criticism of Pareto optimality completely misses the mark.)
Seriously, this is what happens when people base their views of Rothbard's caricatures. Nobody (seriously, nobody) actually thinks that solely because a policy is Pareto improvement (or possible Pareto improvement, or if it satisfies the unanimity principle or whatever) it is better. No, these are ways of comparing various proposed policies in terms of their efficiency. For one thing most authors will assume their normative assumptions are arbitrary to some extent.
As I said, if you're writing off the whole of Public Choice because of one principle you find disagreeable, you'd better be acquinted with the works I cited.
Laughing Man:Hold on while I point all of those wonderful nobel prize winners who invented such great economical theories. I actually have a shrine in my room of them.
Laughing Man:Unless you do have property rights, then how can one claim anything in the first place before even trying to defend it?
By picking up a shotgun and pointing at anybody who comes near! But you're really missing my argument, you're saying that I can't defend something unless I have a normative right in it. That's fair enough, but then theft is impossible in your world and the state is legitimised!
Laughing Man:Define 'wildly'. Is natural rights theory exactly the same thing as the days of Aristotle? No. That is why I said 'Natural rights theory has undergone little change' Rothbard himself admits that he propounds a theory based on Aristotelian / Thomistic theory. Roderick Long and Geoffry Plauche too
OK, once again, you're missing the point! To the best of my knowledge, Alasdair MacIntyre (a proponent of Aristotilian ethics) is a Marxist. Rothbard (an alleged proponent of Aristotilian ethics) was a self described "radical libertarian". The idea that they all really agree on the rules, just isn't true.
Laughing Man:Have we suddenly devolved into the bizarro world where an exchange doesn't presuppose there is property or a service that both parties hold? Exchange is only possible through trading of goods or services, such an exchange presupposes a form of property rights.
You be bustin' strawmen's heads left and right.
GilesStratton: Well, Wikipedia says otherwise (and I'd scan a chart in Alex Miller's book and upload it here to further prove my point, but I don't have my copy): Wikipedia: Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism. Emotivism, defended by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson, holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Boo on killing!" Quasi-realism, defended by Simon Blackburn, holds that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims and can be appropriately called "true" or "false", even though there are no ethical facts for them to correspond to. Projectivism and moral fictionalism are related theories. Universal prescriptivism, defended by R.M. Hare, holds that moral statements function like universalized imperative sentences. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Don't kill!" Hare's version of prescriptivism requires that moral prescriptions be universalizable, and hence actually have objective values, in spite of failing to be indicative statements with truth-values per se.
We're dealing with the belief that factual claims cannot be derived from ethical propositions. Base subjectivism in the sense that 'killing is bad' does not establish an objective value statement.
GilesStratton:OK, so let me get this straight. You're going to write off the entirety of Public Choice because you disagree with the unanimity principle? (I'm not even sure what it means to "think its absurd" or "disagree with it means. On the same note, Rothbard's criticism of Pareto optimality completely misses the mark.)
No, you asked if I knew about the unanimity principle and I replied. Now you think I just deconstructed public choice because I rejected it. There are many more reasons to think it absurd.
GilesStratton:By picking up a shotgun and pointing at anybody who comes near! But you're really missing my argument, you're saying that I can't defend something unless I have a normative right in it. That's fair enough, but then theft is impossible in your world and the state is legitimised!
Explain how the state is legitimized and how theft is impossible under the argument I give.
GilesStratton:OK, once again, you're missing the point! To the best of my knowledge, Alasdair MacIntyre (a proponent of Aristotilian ethics) is a Marxist. Rothbard (an alleged proponent of Aristotilian ethics) was a self described "radical libertarian". The idea that they all really agree on the rules, just isn't true.
Please, give me some of his titles. I would love to see how a Marxist defends virtue ethics and natural rights.
GilesStratton:You be bustin' strawmen's heads left and right.
You stated that economists don't have to establish an account of property rights before discussing how exchange works. Exchange is only possible if the property or service being given is private, obviously not if there is communal ownership of property and obviously not if nobody owns anything.
I just want to say I found the entire essay exceedingly poor in refuting any aspect of the postive nature of capitalism so I'll just blow up the pillars upon which Einstien builds his entire foundation and not bother with destroying the rest.
1. So Mr. Einstien, you don't like the capitalist system. Now let's pretend for a moment that the way you describe capitalism is the way that it is in every particular. So you want to replace this system where workers are exploited by their capitalist masters with the system of socialism. It's all well and good to say that socialism is just "A centrally planned state that is trying to reach ethical social goals" so how do you want to do this? You propose that a coersive monopoly on the use of force should go into the houses, factories, and ECT of the capitalists and take their property. If they resist by attempting to protect what is theirs through force they will be shot, if they survive they will be sent to prison. You advocate replacing this system of VOLUNTARY explotation through force, through guns. What ethics are you proposing? Answer: There are none.
Seriously how the hell could somone who fled Nazi Germany advocate this??? Those "social goals" you were talking about, well guess what? In a certian case those social goals were exterminating an entire race of people. In fact this race and religeon happened to be particularly wealthy and prosperous on the most part. What happened to them? They had their lands confiscated by force and were killed if they resisted. Then they were sent of as cattle into camps, some of them lived in a sort of hell where they helped attain the goals of society through laboring all day every day to construct weapons of war until there was little left but bones covered up by stretched skin. They were the lucky ones. The others were shoved into the camps and starved and shoved into ovens, shot, tortured, until their bodies were piles so high that tractors had to be brought in to trample thier bones into dust.
Wasn't this a perfectly acceptable social goal? Far more than 51% of the german population adored the Furer and gave him undivided loyalty. By doing this Germany became the strongest country on the face of the earth, the confiscation of jewish lands and release of capital was an important part of this because it released a large amount of land and capital to be used by new people. They also rid themselves of what they felt were undesirable elements of society.
So why would any of your social goals be any different? You propose forcful theft of property and the deaths of all who may resist. And even if these people relented thier property willingly wouldn't you have to be worried about that small but important part of the population from rebelling and attempting to reap revenge upon evil that took from them? To secure society wouldn't all undesirable elements have to be eliminated?
Where is your toy morality now? There are no property rights. No one is entitled to anything so why should anyone be given anything? They aren't entitled to shit! Why not just burn everything? It makes just as much sense once you've violated property rights. Why are humans important at all in the first place? They can't acquire wealth or indeed do anything that isn't directly authorized by society.
It's nonsense
2. The way you propose to do this is by bringing in the state. What is the state? It's an extortion racket. Statism is evil anyway you look at it. It's a portion of the population FORCING the other parts to do things by threat of death. It has its origin a few thousand years ago back when a religeous cult began forcing its wims upon others. For one who overturned much bullshit in the relm of phisics you sure are awfully blind when it comes to realizing what tools you are attempting to achieve social equality with.
Also maybe if we didn't have a state we wouldn't have to worry about it being corrupted.... Hmm?
3. I think that it's easy for you sitting in your ivory tower to talk about what motivates people. I for one am certianly not motivated by society. I'm motivated by things I like. I'm not on this forum replying to you because I feel society wills it. I'm here becuase I like to talk philosophy/politics and kicking Einstiens ass makes me feel like a genious.
Now what is society? Can you touch it? Can you feel it? Can you be it?
Society is merly a group of people BUT they do not think as one, they do not think as a hivemind and are therefore they aren't any specific entity. No group of people has any more importance and any others. Society, as a living thinking entity, does not exist and therefore is indeed the same or even less important than any individual.
So it is perfectly possible to be happy without even being part of a community. END GAME.
4. So exactly how would your socialist system run? How would they know the wants of the people? How would they know if they were doing well to fill those needs or not? How would they diversify to fit small groups? How would they calculate huge portions of the economy all by themselves?
In every case in history the state has done a worse job than private companies. It's always the same the more control the worse it is, and now you dare to suggest the entirity of our economy should be controlled in every aspect. Just flicking through Mises' socialism would refute the possibility of such a system working.
"I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky. But there is something more powerful in each of us, a combination of our efforts, a great chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interests that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you differently either has his hand in your pocket or a pistol to your neck."
5. Captialism is voluntary exchange. That's all it is. Those evil employers you were talking about? They make themselves, their workers, and their costomers better off. Why is this bad??? The wealth of society increases and of course somone has to come along and feel that there's a problem with it! You can say that workers are being payed too little but that's how much that they agree to and they can always advance by providing more and more for society.
Regulating the economy is regulating human action. Human behavior is economic behavior. Economic freedom is human fredom, and to justify relinquishing these freedoms is enslavement.
Man A wants some of Man B's oranges. In return he gives man B some of his Apricots. They agree on a price and they exchange and they both believe they are better off. NO! WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FORCE BOTH OF THEM TO SPREAD THEIR FOOD AROUND TO MAN C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y AND Z AT GUNPOINT!!!!
Why the hell would you listen to somone who proposes running the lives of billions by his own whim?
Entrepreneurs plan the structure of production and recieve capital if they do a good job. Capitalists invest in production and if they invest in sucessful products they help supply demand and recieve capital back. Buyers and laborers produce goods for a wage (or profit) and buyers get goods they desire at a price they want in return.
Alot less menacing in you talk about non-violent interaction the way it is.
6. There is no way to prevent corruption in the government because that's all teh institution is, a blight upon human kind.
BAM!