Sphairon: wilderness:Criminals rising up (so to speak) the levels emerging from lower morality whereas the police are emergences of the higher level to prevent the criminal aspects of biological forces from toppling more moral values such as society and intellect. That's actually quite a fair analogy. Not just that, but your whole post. However, it's not an attempt to justify a given set of values (as some seem to be interpreting it), but an explanation as to how a given set of values may emerge, isn't it? As such, I find it very enlightening and have to agree.
wilderness:Criminals rising up (so to speak) the levels emerging from lower morality whereas the police are emergences of the higher level to prevent the criminal aspects of biological forces from toppling more moral values such as society and intellect.
That's actually quite a fair analogy. Not just that, but your whole post. However, it's not an attempt to justify a given set of values (as some seem to be interpreting it), but an explanation as to how a given set of values may emerge, isn't it? As such, I find it very enlightening and have to agree.
Thank you, and yes, it is not a justification of "a given set of values... but (is) an explanation..." I'm glad you saw that. And yes it is to show how a given set of values can emerge to off-set other values. Some values are biological and some social. A society of criminals will make intersubjective consensus' that degenerate intellectual patterns and thereby make it difficult to understand. No clarity or hardly any clarity is provided for a reasonable man or woman to make sense of the criminal consensus. That's why it might also be called insane or the current administrative State that makes decisions that any intellectual in time might come along and make a comment like, "They just don't make any sense." or "They have no common sense". For in all honesty, they probably don't have any intellectual sense. Probably a lot of peer pressure to simplify the distinction. Peer pressure wrapped around agenda's not based on good sound intellectual arguments.
Sphairon:The thing is, libertarian philosophy draws heavily from intellectual considerations. That was a problem I had with natural rights a few months ago; I asked myself, if my "natural rights" are not enforceable, then of what use are they? Well, they are useful as a concept. They describe a way how to properly handle human interaction and give plausible explanations derived from plausible axioms as to why it should be exactly that way. This may be ignored from a biological perspective, but force (a "biological argument", if you will) doesn't invalidate the integrity of an intellectual claim.
Exactly. Force does not "invalidate the integrity of an intellectual claim". They are not working on the same level if you will. It doesn't mean force is to be gotten rid of. The right to self-defense is a strong property right argument, and will only continue to be a good intellectual argument enacted as long as there is the intersubjective consensus present to uphold such an intellectual value. I would say that in a criminal society somebody committing self-defense and yet is thrown in prison can intellectually argue property rights all day and night but the lock in the prison cell will still be clamped shut. That man or woman in prison is more moral in light of property right intellectual arguments, and thus why that society doing such an action to somebody enacting self-defense would be called criminal. But with an intersubjective consensus that adheres to intellectual values of property rights, then that society would be more moral for heeding a good intellectual argument based on property rights. Now if a better intellectual pattern comes along rather than property rights, then fine. Intellectual patterns are values and values can be changed. There are many other intellectual values around to, and these intellectual values can be argued and debated. That's something we do on this forum and in other areas of our life for instance.
Sphairon: Physical reality (biology) may not match my claim, but I'm still entitled to it. How fast and to what extent it will be enforced depends, again, on the intersubjective consensus.
Physical reality (biology) may not match my claim, but I'm still entitled to it. How fast and to what extent it will be enforced depends, again, on the intersubjective consensus.
Exactly! Good discussion