Juan:What false morality would that be eh ? Are you saying that the moral positions behind libertarianism are false ? I take it you finally admit to not being a libertarian. Good.
Juan, as you define it, who here (at the community forums) qualifies as a libertarian? Could you name names please?
Juan:By the way, how can anything be true or false in your epistemologically nonsensical world in which nothing is really good bad black white or whatever?
I don't know what you understand about epistemology right now. Do you understand the concept of known knowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns and known unknowns?
Juan:Are you playing dumb ?
I am not a very good actor.
Juan:Abortion is either right or wrong that's what you said. You didn't add "but that's my irrelevant personal opinion cause I'm a confused moral nihilist". So, which is it ?
But that's a given that it is either right or wrong within the context of my subjective morality. Is and ought are not the same thing. I can't speak for your morality, or anyone elses. When I know the answers to questions I have about abortion, I will be able make a moral determination. Right now, I cannot. I don't have enough knowledge to make a call on the rightness or wrongness of it.
As to your criticisms of what panarchy is, all I can say is that I understand panarchy to be a market for politics, preferably with the same voluntary nature we like to speak about wrt free markets. I know that utopia is not possible (or perhaps even desirable) but I think markets in politics, including a market for anarchy is a significant step in the right direction. It might not be the perfect Utopia that some people insist upon, but then, nothing is.
liberty student: wilderness:I define a ruler, in this context, as somebody that arbitrary initiates physical aggression. I would call that an aggressor, but I don't think an aggressor is necessarily a ruler. A ruler is someone who can coerce you with aggression or (loosely) the threat of aggression. Someone who just punches you or breaks into your shed isn't necessarily trying to rule you.
wilderness:I define a ruler, in this context, as somebody that arbitrary initiates physical aggression.
I would call that an aggressor, but I don't think an aggressor is necessarily a ruler. A ruler is someone who can coerce you with aggression or (loosely) the threat of aggression. Someone who just punches you or breaks into your shed isn't necessarily trying to rule you.
That's my shed and if they broke it or stole anything they are claiming dominion over what is mine. Someone who punches me is trying to dictate my actions, assuming I'm not wanting to be in the fight. They are trying to rule over my actions. That's all a ruler does.
liberty student:AJ makes a good point that words are very limiting when it comes to communicating. We end up spending a lot of time trying to argue ideas through words, and all the differentiations of meaning each person applies to each word.
that really isn't thought provoking. it should be obvious that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words will describe the picture. But the words are not the picture and the picture is not the words. A tree isn't a bird either.
wilderness:those that doesn't recognize natural rights (which include justice) don't meet this
Again, you're conflating natural rights with justice. They aren't the same thing. Justice is not exclusive to natural rights. Other theories of the origin of rights can have identical practical conceptions of justice.
wilderness: liberty student: wilderness:if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals. There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective. But I never said what the cause was. When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I'm not talking about when it is not a good cause.
liberty student: wilderness:if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals. There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective.
wilderness:if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals.
There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective.
But I never said what the cause was.
When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I'm not talking about when it is not a good cause.
I don't understand this. You assigned a value to the cause. What is that value based on? When property is violated. But what if I think it is in my best interest not to seek justice? Does this mean I have mis-valued justice? That I have acted in bad cause?
wilderness:I never said anything about "objective".
Well, you did, because natural rights can be in a system of subjective ethics, but it does not tolerate other conceptions of ethics. It is objective. In that regard, it is like socialism in a free market. You can voluntarily choose socialism in a free market, but you cannot choose a free market in socialism.
A subjective ethicist can tell a natural rights libertarian, "I don't get down with NR, but I am cool that you do." Juan calls this moral relativism. I call this tolerance and civility. A natural right libertarian might say, "You don't see that life and justice and liberty are all the same thing, part of this system of natural rights, therefore any conception you have is incomplete" (or as Juan might put it, "You are amoral, a relativist, not a libertarian, a statist etc etc).
wilderness: You talk about other people all the time. Everybody does. And calling it an opinion doesn't change the fact that the "talk" is about somebody else and it's not about you. Everybody labels everybody and the world. Call a tree a tree and it has now been labeled with a name you value.
I think this may be a non sequitur.
Anyway, I have plans tonight. So I'll catch up tomorrow. I hope we're still cool.
wilderness:That's my shed and if they broke it or stole anything they are claiming dominion over what is mine. Someone who punches me is trying to dictate my actions, assuming I'm not wanting to be in the fight. They are trying to rule over my actions. That's all a ruler does.
So people can't rule by consent?
wilderness:that really isn't thought provoking. it should be obvious that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words will describe the picture. But the words are not the picture and the picture is not the words. A tree isn't a bird either.
No, a tree is not a bird. But that won't stop two people from calling it different things.
liberty student: wilderness:those that doesn't recognize natural rights (which include justice) don't meet this Again, you're conflating natural rights with justice. They aren't the same thing.
Again, you're conflating natural rights with justice. They aren't the same thing.
I didn't say justice is NR. I know they are not the same thing. Justice is a result of NR.
liberty student: Justice is not exclusive to natural rights. Other theories of the origin of rights can have identical practical conceptions of justice.
Justice is a result and not a natural right in name. But where there is liberty there is justice. What other theories denote justice but exclude the presence of liberty?
liberty student: wilderness:But I never said what the cause was. When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I'm not talking about when it is not a good cause. I don't understand this. You assigned a value to the cause. What is that value based on? When property is violated.
wilderness:But I never said what the cause was. When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I'm not talking about when it is not a good cause.
I don't understand this. You assigned a value to the cause. What is that value based on? When property is violated.
yes, when property is violated
liberty student:But what if I think it is in my best interest not to seek justice?
if that's what you want
liberty student:Does this mean I have mis-valued justice?
No. Why would it?
liberty student:That I have acted in bad cause?
I don't know. Did you?
liberty student: wilderness:I never said anything about "objective". Well, you did,
Well, you did,
No. I didn't. Look at my post. I never said "objective".
liberty student:...because natural rights can be in a system of subjective ethics, but it does not tolerate other conceptions of ethics.
It depends on what context the "tolerance" is. If somebody tries to murder me, I'm going to defend myself and that's well within my natural right.
liberty student:It is objective.
See. Now you're labeling me. [imagine a finger shaking back in forth in a 'no-no' gesture]
liberty student:In that regard, it is like socialism in a free market. You can voluntarily choose socialism in a free market, but you cannot choose a free market in socialism.
"In that regard..." No.
liberty student:A subjective ethicist can tell a natural rights libertarian, "I don't get down with NR, but I am cool that you do."
So could I. And if somebody advocates murder and you say, 'You are down with that', that leads into what I called not being passionate about what an individual believes in. Lack of motive (motivation).
liberty student:Juan calls this moral relativism. I call this tolerance and civility. A natural right libertarian might say, "You don't see that life and justice and liberty are all the same thing, part of this system of natural rights, therefore any conception you have is incomplete" (or as Juan might put it, "You are amoral, a relativist, not a libertarian, a statist etc etc).
Look at what Juan advocates. Juan says murder, rape, and stealing is wrong. Are you trying to tell me you are "down with" murder, rape, and stealing?
liberty student: wilderness: You talk about other people all the time. Everybody does. And calling it an opinion doesn't change the fact that the "talk" is about somebody else and it's not about you. Everybody labels everybody and the world. Call a tree a tree and it has now been labeled with a name you value. I think this may be a non sequitur.
But it's not. You said you don't 'label' (or some form of that) or maybe it was "impose" your values on others, but you do. And you did it in this post. You labeled me as an 'objectivist', which is wrong. And you gave value and named justice as not being a NR - and I agree with that value of yours. Then you went on to determine how Juan will act and think, so, you found what Juan values and thinks to be something you are 'not down with' - which is fine.
Actually I think it is terrific to impose some values I have on others. Such as imposing peace on others. Or love with an occasional imposing of love in the form of a hug upon my wife. I think these are great values to impose on others.
liberty student:Anyway, I have plans tonight. So I'll catch up tomorrow. I hope we're still cool.
we're cool. the only thing that gets my goat is when people stop dialoguing and keep on assuming what is incorrect. That's why I keep on dialoguing so I don't assume what I might think about somebody else. And this doesn't mean you're bailing on the dialogue. You have plans and appropiately ended the discussion like anybody else that I know would do if we were sitting here simply bullshitting. It's when we're talking and then the person suddenly gets up and leaves without saying anything that I find particularly rude.
AJ: Yes Conza, you and I conceive morality differently. I don't see any more point to that line of discussion.
Yes Conza, you and I conceive morality differently. I don't see any more point to that line of discussion.
That would be because;
Conza88:you and utilitarianism have no answer.
No?
Conza88:Why should an individual behave ethically? As far as I'm aware, you and utilitarianism have no answer.
AJ:For their own benefit, in the broadest sense.
Conza88:"And if the individual criminal benefits from those consequences, i.e stealing / theft... so be it?"
...
liberty student: wilderness:That's my shed and if they broke it or stole anything they are claiming dominion over what is mine. Someone who punches me is trying to dictate my actions, assuming I'm not wanting to be in the fight. They are trying to rule over my actions. That's all a ruler does. So people can't rule by consent?
Rule what? That seems like a good question cause I don't readily know what you mean by that.
If you mean in a republic, then yes my neighbor that votes is ruling over me and I really don't like that. And I would blame him or her on the woes that the gov't enacts cause he's not only letting it happen but encouraging it.
liberty student: wilderness:that really isn't thought provoking. it should be obvious that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words will describe the picture. But the words are not the picture and the picture is not the words. A tree isn't a bird either. No, a tree is not a bird. But that won't stop two people from calling it different things.
true. and there's nothing wrong with that. we can still find out what the other person means if necessary by going to it and pointing at it. I don't know what this supposed to tell me. I mean for me, and I know you're an atheist so bare with me, God is a mystery. It's something in my life that, damn, I'll never be able to fully explain. And you're an atheist so how in the world are you going to understand those words. beats me.*shrugs*
But that's a given that it is either right or wrong within the context of my subjective morality.
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."
liberty student:We're value free, in the sense that we don't impose our values on others, not that we lack values or don't desire to value things.
Exactly! Moreover, we don't impose our values on science itself.
J. Grayson Lilburne: liberty student:We're value free, in the sense that we don't impose our values on others, not that we lack values or don't desire to value things. Exactly! Moreover, we don't impose our values on science itself.
But don't you want to?! All the cool kids are doing it...you want to be cool right?
Seriously though, in retaining rights such as non-aggression & self-ownership, you do impose values if you seek to sustain an uncoerced being. Or even if you are a pacifist, to some degree you are still imposing values or at least there is an exchange in values. I think I get what you guys mean though, you don't want to be unjustly telling people what to do.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:But don't you want to?!
Actually, part of me does want to. It's tempting to pretend that libertarianism can be "proven" ethically right objectively. One more weapon in the arsenal, right? But one must never give in to error, but proceed ever more boldly against it. :)
Laughing Man:Seriously though, in retaining rights such as non-aggression & self-ownership, you do impose values if you seek to sustain an uncoerced being. Or even if you are a pacifist, to some degree you are still imposing values or at least there is an exchange in values. I think I get what you guys mean though, you don't want to be unjustly telling people what to do.
You misunderstand. I have no qualms about enforcing some of my values on others. I will readily enforce my own subjective non-aggression axiom on murderers, rapists, burglars, etc. By "I don't impose my values on others", I mean specifically that I don't pretend the value judgments of of burglars, statists (but I repeat myself), etc are somehow objectively, scientifically wrong. I will work to frustrate the execution of their value judgments as a practical matter. I will even say their actions are wrong according to MY subjective judgment. But I don't pretend my subjective judgment reflects some universal, scientific truth.
Juan:Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ?
No, I am questioning your sincerity. Is there anyone besides yourself, who is the model libertarian you constantly chide me for not being? Who is he/she? Who are they? Name names. Tell me who is the libertarian who lives up to your standard, since you berate me for not being able to.
If you can't, then your criticism is meaningless to me. It's a standard which can't be met, and you propose it knowing full well it can't be met, which in my book, is dishonest.
So who. Name names.
Juan:And it looks as if you ignored my question. What 'false morality' are you talking about ?
I'll answer this when you name names. You have been calling me out as not being your model libertarian for some time now. Let's get to the bottom of it. Who is the model?
Juan:Look LS, I understand that you've gone from being a 'student' to being someone who fancies that he knows 'philosophy', when he actually doesn't.
I don't know much. That is what I have learned. How little I know.
Juan:So don't bother playing skeptic games with me.
Not a game. I asked you if you considered epistemology. Same with asking you to name names. Same with asking you if you were born a radical libertarian. You point fingers and insult others, you make all sorts of claims about the quality of the character of others, but are these criticisms baseless and hypocrisy? I want to know. Were you ever not a libertarian? Were you born a libertarian? Who besides you, lives up to your conception of perfect libertarianism that you claim all of us amoralists fail?
Juan:And if you were talking about your personal and irrelevant preferences, out of curiosity, why do you think that people give a damn about your opinions on abortion ? Or your opinions on theft, murder, war, or any other subjective and personal non-crime for that matter ?
Attacking me won't get you off the hook. I'm calling you on your criticisms. Back them up.
J. Grayson Lilburne:I have no qualms about enforcing some of my values on others. I will readily enforce my own subjective non-aggression axiom on murderers, rapists, burglars, etc. By "I don't impose my values on others", I mean specifically that I don't pretend the value judgments of of burglars, statists (but I repeat myself), etc are somehow objectively, scientifically wrong. I will work to frustrate the execution of their value judgments as a practical matter. I will even say their actions are wrong according to MY subjective judgment. But I don't pretend my subjective judgment reflects some universal, scientific truth.
So how do see yourself being a libertarian? That is, if everyone can go around enforcing their subjective preferences, and if everyone's subjective preferences are equally right (or wrong), how do you ground the principled commitment to property rights, NAP, etc. necessary for a libertarian society? Is it some kind of consequentialism, e.g. persuading everyone that libertarianism is the best way to achieve their ends? If so, what about people whose ends are not served by libertarianism, e.g. Nazis? (+1 for Godwin counter)
My problem with libertarian moral subjectivism is that I don't see how moral subjectivism can ground libertarianism. If it can ground it, then perhaps the objectivism/subjectivism debate is not crucial.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
wilderness:the only thing that gets my goat is when people stop dialoguing and keep on assuming what is incorrect.
What gets my goat is when it is no longer possible to communicate because it's boiled down to redefining words, instead of supporting ideas. I think we've reached that point.
wilderness:You have plans and appropiately ended the discussion like anybody else that I know would do if we were sitting here simply bullshitting.
I did have plans. Pistons over Celtics in the upset.
wilderness:It's when we're talking and then the person suddenly gets up and leaves without saying anything that I find particularly rude.
Well, I am going to do that now. I don't see us getting any closer in understanding, and I really don't want to return to the nastiness of before. Time is short, lets spend it smiling instead of scowling.
Sage:My problem with libertarian moral subjectivism is that I don't see how moral subjectivism can ground libertarianism.
You're making the same mistake that had me so bitter and conflicted through the last half of last year.
You can't ground the subjective as an objective if you're determined to work in the Aristotelian framework. That's why I objected to your Rothbard/Friedman synthesis. It's trying to make two different things equal. It won't work. It has never worked.
What do you mean grounding? Nazis will be ignored, punished if they are naziing.
What is the best book for someone looking on how an anarchic society would exist, but from the premise that the anarchic society already exists? Thanks.
First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can't claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn't involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics.
Second, why should an individual behave ethically? You tell me. Why do you behave ethically (presuming you do)? Is it because you want to get into heaven? Because you were raised to value ethics highly? Is it because you are informed by your intuition and emotions, like love, compassion, guilt, fear?
Is it because you chose to be? Is it because nature chose it for you?
Is it something you can change, for better or worse? Is it something you have always done?
I'm a subjective ethicist. I try to behave ethically because I value that more highly than any material luxury. My utilitarianism [sic] drives me to be libertarian.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Laughing Man:But don't you want to?! Actually, part of me does want to. It's tempting to pretend that libertarianism can be "proven" ethically right objectively.
Actually, part of me does want to. It's tempting to pretend that libertarianism can be "proven" ethically right objectively.
It would spare me a lot of frustration if libertarianism could be proven to be ethically right objectively.
I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.
J. Grayson Lilburne:But I don't pretend my subjective judgment reflects some universal, scientific truth.
Yup.
"If no man has moral authority over any other man, then clearly no man has the right to initiate force or fraud over another man, i.e. basic libertarian ethics. One is morally justified in using force for self-defense against initiations of force or fraud. Secondly, retaliatory force for the purpose of restitution, is also justified. If a person didn't have the right to take my property from me, then it is clearly justified to seek restitution from the thief. This is not forcing a morality on another person, but a reaction to the other person forcing their morality on the victim."
LS, here you can learn the technique proof by vigorous assertion.
scineram:LS, here you can learn the technique proof by vigorous assertion.
You actually made me laugh for once.
scineram: What do you mean grounding? Nazis will be ignored, punished if they are naziing.
Winner.
liberty student: wilderness:the only thing that gets my goat is when people stop dialoguing and keep on assuming what is incorrect. What gets my goat is when it is no longer possible to communicate because it's boiled down to redefining words, instead of supporting ideas. I think we've reached that point. wilderness:You have plans and appropiately ended the discussion like anybody else that I know would do if we were sitting here simply bullshitting. I did have plans. Pistons over Celtics in the upset. wilderness:It's when we're talking and then the person suddenly gets up and leaves without saying anything that I find particularly rude. Well, I am going to do that now. I don't see us getting any closer in understanding, and I really don't want to return to the nastiness of before. Time is short, lets spend it smiling instead of scowling.
I know you had plans. You told me you did. I don't know why you strawmanned me and then gave up. I guess you didn't know how to dialogue appropiately anymore. And I don't see why you thought any "nastiness" was about to happen. short fused? I've noticed those that call themselves 'subjectivists' are over-emotional and get angry very quickly. I guess that would explain the unnecessary strawmans. But ok. It's good to know when you need to walk away.
liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian.
lol. Imposing your values...lol
Sage:My problem with libertarian moral subjectivism is that I don't see how moral subjectivism can ground libertarianism. If it can ground it, then perhaps the objectivism/subjectivism debate is not crucial.
If libertarianism means moral objectivism, then of course moral subjectivism can't do that. I think of libertarianism as more of a heuristic than a fully well-defined concept. Voluntarism, anarchy, panarchy, anti-monopoly - those are more clearly defined, and each of those can be grounded in subjective morality.
--
Re: Conza, I've already answered your question. You dodged my answer by asking me to define "racket." Remember? I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to such lines of discussion. If you think you've made a good point, I'm happy to let it stand and let others decide.
Why anarchy fails
Sage:So how do see yourself being a libertarian?
Mini-Manifesto of Liberty
Sage:That is, if everyone can go around enforcing their subjective preferences
Everyone by definition goes around enforcing their subjective preferences.
Sage:e.g. persuading everyone that libertarianism is the best way to achieve their ends?
Yes, that is the Misesian project, in contrast to the Rothbardian project, which also tries to assert "universal" ends.
Sage:If so, what about people whose ends are not served by libertarianism, e.g. Nazis? (+1 for Godwin counter)
"The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer a life of health and abundance to misery, starvation, and death. The correctness of this statement cannot be challenged. It is proved by the fact that all antiliberal doctrines--the theocratic tenets of the various religious, statist, nationalist, and socialist parties--adopt the same attitude with regard to these issues. They all promise their followers a life of plenty. They have never ventured to tell people that the realization of their program will impair their material well-being. They insist--on the contrary--that while the realization of the plans of their rival parties will result in indigence for the majority, they themselves want to provide their supporters with abundance." (HA chapter 8, emphasis added)
J. Grayson Lilburne:Yes, that is the Misesian project, in contrast to the Rothbardian project, which also tries to assert "universal" ends.
Do you deny the existence of any such universals in human nature?
DD5: J. Grayson Lilburne:Yes, that is the Misesian project, in contrast to the Rothbardian project, which also tries to assert "universal" ends. Do you deny the existence of any such universals in human nature?
No. For example, it is universal, by definition, that all men have ends. In other words, I believe in praxeology. But I deny the existence of any universality in the content of those ends.
wilderness: liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian. lol. Imposing your values...lol
But that is not imposing my values. That is working from the action axiom, which is value free. Now we can debate whether the action axiom is valid, but it's a scientific statement, not an ethical one.
wilderness:I don't know why you strawmanned me and then gave up.
How did I strawman you?
wilderness:I guess you didn't know how to dialogue appropiately anymore.
This is the sort of passive-aggressive stuff which you do, and then it leads to full blown conflict. You were doing it to AJ, and I knew from your last post where you started mocking what I was saying, that we were headed in the same direction.
It's similar, although you are not as blunt as Juan, when you're being condescending, and then claim someone won't discuss with you further. It's because we're not stupid and can tell when you're not debating in good faith anymore. When you're consistently communicating a disdain not just for our ideas, but for us for writing them.
I don't know what else to say. Time is incredibly short for me. I don't want to spend it in conflict with you. I don't want to spend it in conflict with others.
wilderness:And I don't see why you thought any "nastiness" was about to happen. short fused? I've noticed those that call themselves 'subjectivists' are over-emotional and get angry very quickly. I guess that would explain the unnecessary strawmans. But ok. It's good to know when you need to walk away.
More passive-aggressive condescension, where none is necessary.
I thought maybe over time, we could start somewhat fresh, but while it seemed positive at first, we're right back to one or both of us not having respect for the other, and I don't see how good will come from that. If you feel good about the things you've written to me, if you feel good about the way you treat AJ, that's fine, but when people start to consistently back off from discussing you, maybe it is not their ethical system that is the lowest common denominator, but your approach to communication.
WRT to backing off, I think something AJ and I do have in common, is the subjective ethicist approach to seeking positive rather than negative outcomes. NR people seem to be constantly criticizing and I include the big boys as well, Hoppe, Rothbard, Kinsella etc. What NR folks don't seem to be as interested in, is generating positive ideas and positive outcomes. I think that is the risk of having an objective perspective on ethics. One doesn't have to do any self-inquiry because they have already reached a point where all of the premises are assumed to be checked.. I believe Adam Knott alluded to the lack of internal analysis by Austro-libertarians of Austro-libertarians and how stultifying that lack of rigor can be to the checking and development of ideas.
The part of what LS wrote immediately after what you quoted is crucial:
liberty student: First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can't claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn't involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics.
liberty student: wilderness:I guess you didn't know how to dialogue appropiately anymore. This is the sort of passive-aggressive stuff which you do, and then it leads to full blown conflict. You were doing it to AJ, and I knew from your last post where you started mocking what I was saying, that we were headed in the same direction. It's similar, although you are not as blunt as Juan, when you're being condescending, and then claim someone won't discuss with you further. It's because we're not stupid and can tell when you're not debating in good faith anymore. When you're consistently communicating a disdain not just for our ideas, but for us for writing them. I don't know what else to say. Time is incredibly short for me. I don't want to spend it in conflict with you. I don't want to spend it in conflict with others. wilderness:And I don't see why you thought any "nastiness" was about to happen. short fused? I've noticed those that call themselves 'subjectivists' are over-emotional and get angry very quickly. I guess that would explain the unnecessary strawmans. But ok. It's good to know when you need to walk away. More passive-aggressive condescension, where none is necessary. I thought maybe over time, we could start somewhat fresh, but while it seemed positive at first, we're right back to one or both of us not having respect for the other, and I don't see how good will come from that. If you feel good about the things you've written to me, if you feel good about the way you treat AJ, that's fine, but when people start to consistently back off from discussing you, maybe it is not their ethical system that is the lowest common denominator, but your approach to communication.
This is EXACTLY how I feel about discourse with wilderness.
J. Grayson Lilburne: DD5: J. Grayson Lilburne:Yes, that is the Misesian project, in contrast to the Rothbardian project, which also tries to assert "universal" ends. Do you deny the existence of any such universals in human nature? No. For example, it is universal, by definition, that all men have ends. In other words, I believe in praxeology. But I deny the existence of any universality in the content of those ends.
Are you familiar with the science of Evolutionary psychology, which is precisely the study of such universals of the kind that you are denying? There are also other fields such as behavioral genetics that reinforce the idea that there are universals and they are a product of evolution.
The reason that I ask is because I personally cannot accept this complete subjectivist view only in light of what I have learned in the past from these other fields. I could be mistaken in my approach, but I cannot see how these particular sciences of human nature can be separated from the philosophy of human nature. Great progress in these fields has been made over the last few decades. The progress has been largely ignored and denied by mainstream but for precisely the same reasons that praxeology and Austrian economics has been ignored. Much of it rejects the compatibility of social engineering and planning with human nature and it is a complete slap in the face to the socialist doctrine. This makes it very unpopular in the academia. It doesn't outright embrace libertarianism (at least not yet), but for me, in a twisted way, this is how I found Hayek, the libertarian philosophy, and eventually Austrian economics.
LS: J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ? No, I am questioning your sincerity.
J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ?
If you can't, then your criticism is meaningless to me.
You have been calling me out as not being your model libertarian for some time now.
I asked you if you considered epistemology.
Same with asking you to name names. Same with asking you if you were born a radical libertarian.
Were you ever not a libertarian?
LS: J: And if you were talking about your personal and irrelevant preferences, out of curiosity, why do you think that people give a damn about your opinions on abortion ? Or your opinions on theft, murder, war, or any other subjective and personal non-crime for that matter ? Attacking me won't get you off the hook. I'm calling you on your criticisms. Back them up.
J: And if you were talking about your personal and irrelevant preferences, out of curiosity, why do you think that people give a damn about your opinions on abortion ? Or your opinions on theft, murder, war, or any other subjective and personal non-crime for that matter ?
Juan: LS: J: Anyone who consistently 'believes' in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ? No, I am questioning your sincerity. LOL. So you are calling me dishonest ? Maybe a moderator should ban you for insulting me. Lilburne please ? Btw, what does sincerity mean to you ? Isn't sincerity a moral concept and so, basically, just a subjective opinion ?
You dodged answering the question again Juan.
I think it's obvious what that says about your arguments. There is nothing behind them. You make claims you won't support, and then if questioned on the support for your claims, evade, evade, evade.
Thanks for making my point again.
DD5:Are you familiar with the science of Evolutionary psychology, which is precisely the study of such universals of the kind that you are denying?
As you can see from my mini-manifesto which I link to above, I think evolutionary psychology has a lot of explanatory power regarding moral commonalities. But preponderant commonalities are not universalities. And to derive ends from evolutionary psychology, I think, would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
liberty student: wilderness:I guess you didn't know how to dialogue appropiately anymore. This is the sort of passive-aggressive stuff which you do, and then it leads to full blown conflict. You were doing it to AJ, and I knew from your last post where you started mocking what I was saying, that we were headed in the same direction.
And yet, I NEVER mocked you. And never thought we were heading in that direction. YOU DID. I mean practice what you preach and understand you don't know what other people are saying sometimes and therefore why I advocate dialogue. That's I said "we're cool". I mean what the HELL happened!
liberty student:It's because we're not stupid and can tell when you're not debating in good faith anymore. When you're consistently communicating a disdain not just for our ideas, but for us for writing them.
practice what you preach cause you really are confused. I never was being condensing and communicating disdain. And now you're trying to tell me I think you're stupid. Practice what you preach and stop imposing your feelings on the reality of what I'm saying.
liberty student:I don't know what else to say. Time is incredibly short for me. I don't want to spend it in conflict with you. I don't want to spend it in conflict with others.
There's nothing wrong with walking away when you get angry LS.
liberty student: wilderness:And I don't see why you thought any "nastiness" was about to happen. short fused? I've noticed those that call themselves 'subjectivists' are over-emotional and get angry very quickly. I guess that would explain the unnecessary strawmans. But ok. It's good to know when you need to walk away. More passive-aggressive condescension, where none is necessary.
And yet I'm not doing that. See why I advocate dialogue cause you went off the deep end when I thought all was cool. What the hell is a matter with you?
liberty student:I thought maybe over time, we could start somewhat fresh, but while it seemed positive at first, we're right back to one or both of us not having respect for the other, and I don't see how good will come from that. If you feel good about the things you've written to me, if you feel good about the way you treat AJ, that's fine, but when people start to consistently back off from discussing you, maybe it is not their ethical system that is the lowest common denominator, but your approach to communication.
And maybe it's because you get angry and lack the ability to dialogue and actually know what I'm saying. Maybe it's because you like to impose your values on others and only hear what you want to hear because you really made up a lot of crap here in this post all based on an over-emotional muddle.
liberty student:WRT to backing off, I think something AJ and I do have in common, is the subjective ethicist approach to seeking positive rather than negative outcomes. NR people seem to be constantly criticizing and I include the big boys as well, Hoppe, Rothbard, Kinsella etc. What NR folks don't seem to be as interested in, is generating positive ideas and positive outcomes. I think that is the risk of having an objective perspective on ethics. One doesn't have to do any self-inquiry because they have already reached a point where all of the premises are assumed to be checked.. I believe Adam Knott alluded to the lack of internal analysis by Austro-libertarians of Austro-libertarians and how stultifying that lack of rigor can be to the checking and development of ideas.
And your totally wrong. But you'll never believe your wrong. And you'll simply say that's your subjective navel gazing. But I've been positive the whole time until you flew off the handle here for no reason and therefore lack thereof. Because it's obvious you are imposing your values on what you *think* I'm doing. But I'm here telling you - you're completely confused about what I said. I really don't know what your problem is and why you got like this. I thought we were having a good discussion and then bam, you start making stuff up. I'm the one being positive LS. You're simply deluded.
liberty student: wilderness: liberty student:First, everyone is a utilitarian. lol. Imposing your values...lol But that is not imposing my values. That is working from the action axiom, which is value free. Now we can debate whether the action axiom is valid, but it's a scientific statement, not an ethical one.
Ethics is a science.