a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

Charles Anthony:

I agree with that however, I can not change human nature.

I'm glad you agree. As to your apparent objection : "I can't change human nature" - I don't know what it means. It can mean anything...or nothing.

I have no problem with that because I really do not believe anybody will be "rich" in a truly anarchist world.

I don't know what you mean. If taken literally it doesn't make much sense either. All people will be equally poor ? Or equally rich ? Or ?

So, I think your hypothetical scenario of "an evil "rich" guy is able to get innocent people convicted" is absurd.

Why ? A person can make some money. Then one day commit a crime (for whatever reason) and not want to get caught (understandably, no ?). So, trying to get somebody else blamed may be an option. The question is, can paying a higher fee accomplish that ?

Now, I do believe that in a competitive system concerned with finding truth he's not likely to succeed. If, on the other hand, the system works by pleasing its customers (and the 'tribe' perhaps...) then it sounds plausible that by paying enough he will avoid justice.

CA:

J:

On the other hand, assuming a competitive system is in a place because its users are interested in freedom and justice then it should be pretty hard to get innocent people convicted.

Well, that is an even more absurd hypothetical because it is internally inconsistent.

Okay, my mistake. What I meant is "the majority is interested in justice and freedom"...which seems to me like the obvious and necessary condition for a free society to exist.

NirGrahamUK:

what does 'rich' mean? rich is in my dictionary but 'rich' i havent come across before reading this thread.....

Not sure what you mean...? Well, you can replace "rich" with "willing/able to pay for a 'special' ruling" - I think that my reply to Charles Anthony clarifies what I mean ?

wilderness:

Stranger:

gussosa:

 

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

You can't protect people from themselves.

I still like this answer.

 

It is a nice answer indeed, but it would apply only to someone like the hypothetical electrician who doesn't want to have an insurance. It is his own stupidity that leads to failure.

In the case of a mentally ill person, he is not doing any harm to himself, because he wasn't able to make any choice.

However, even in the case of the stupid electrician, there is an interest of the justice system in finding the truth. Maybe the electrician doesn't offer a defense because he doesn't believe in the system, the same way any of us wouldn't trust the current statist system if accused of treason to the republic. Maybe he is a full fledged commie who hates private courts. Maybe we can consider him a mentally ill person. Because the real criminal, a customer of him who is a scammer, can get away with the process and go on, the private system would be interested in doing a fair trial. The closest to fair that is possible with an uncooperative accused.

gussosa:

wilderness:

Stranger:

gussosa:

 

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

You can't protect people from themselves.

I still like this answer.

 

It is a nice answer indeed, but it would apply only to someone like the hypothetical electrician who doesn't want to have an insurance. It is his own stupidity that leads to failure.

In the case of a mentally ill person, he is not doing any harm to himself, because he wasn't able to make any choice.

However, even in the case of the stupid electrician, there is an interest of the justice system in finding the truth. Maybe the electrician doesn't offer a defense because he doesn't believe in the system, the same way any of us wouldn't trust the current statist system if accused of treason to the republic. Maybe he is a full fledged commie who hates private courts. Maybe we can consider him a mentally ill person. Because the real criminal, a customer of him who is a scammer, can get away with the process and go on, the private system would be interested in doing a fair trial. The closest to fair that is possible with an uncooperative accused.

   That answer had to do with your original questioning.  What to do with somebody that doesn't want to defend themselves?  Are you sincerely suggesting that you just force them to apply defense?  That scenario goes against the free-will of the individual.  So you say a mentally ill individual can't make such a decision.  Ok.  I understand.  Your desire to help such an individual is undoubtedly shared by others.  A State changes not the desires of people.  The State only stands in the way of the desires of people.  So your desire to help the mentality ill will not be aggressed against.

   Same goes for this "private system would be interested in doing a fair trial" that you mention.  There's your answer.  You just said it, and I think it is a good answer indeed.

 

Juan:

Charles Anthony:

I agree with that however, I can not change human nature.

I'm glad you agree. As to your apparent objection : "I can't change human nature" - I don't know what it means. It can mean anything...or nothing.

It does not surprise me that you do not know what it means.  I will spell it out for you: Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression.  I can not change any of that.  Now, I am sure you can describe Human nature as a different set but this is the Mises.org forum.  We are discussing libertarianism here. 

 

Juan:

Charles Anthony:

I have no problem with that because I really do not believe anybody will be "rich" in a truly anarchist world.

I don't know what you mean. If taken literally it doesn't make much sense either. All people will be equally poor ? Or equally rich ? Or ?

You are the one who brought "rich" into the discussion with your hypothetical scenario.  I can use your definition as you have provided it. 

 

Juan:

Charles Anthony:

So, I think your hypothetical scenario of "an evil "rich" guy is able to get innocent people convicted" is absurd.

Why ? A person can make some money. Then one day commit a crime (for whatever reason) and not want to get caught (understandably, no ?). So, trying to get somebody else blamed may be an option. The question is, can paying a higher fee accomplish that ?

You can attempt to make somebody such an offer, if you want.  There is no physical law of the universe that will stop you.  In anarchy, I highly doubt it would work.  In our current state of affairs, sure, that is essentially the way our statist legal systems work.  Crooked cops, judges, prosecuters and lawyers hold a violent monopoly over the legal system.  So, they and their jobs are insulated from market forces. 

Essentially, what you are asking is "Can you pay people to hide any crimes you commit and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle?"  Of course not. 

I really do not see that as a problem because eventually those people will be weeded out in a couple of generations.  They will be eaten by their own kind just like the mafia bumps eachother off.  They will also be shunned by others.  Like I said before, the perverted uncle who blames the homeless guy will quickly become obvious.  I will quote myself: 

Charles Anthony:

Even if there are homeless people who can not afford legal representation, why would anybody believe anybody who blames them?  Personally, I would think: "Oh, typical!  The perverted uncle blames the homeless guy -- again!"  It would not take more than one generation for adult victims of perverts to spill the beans.  Also, I think most people would also wonder why the perverted uncle let his daughter come in contact with homeless men -- that is just me.

You seem to be suggesting otherwise.  So, maybe you should explain how it would come about.  I do not think such extravagant market power would exist in anarchy just like I do not think astronauts would land on the moon without the subsidies of the state.  That is just me.  However, your objection hinges on the belief that you can fool people once, twice, three times, etc. etc.  Maybe that is possible.  Personally, I think that is a poor objection because such a population would be so stupid that they would be doomed for extinction.  Maybe you can offer a reason why any person should believe that such hypothetically stupid people would be able to survive more than a generation or two without a state. You also seem to be suggesting that people would willfully continue to do business with evil "rich" corrupt people.  I doubt it.  However, you might be right.  If you are right, your objection is not with anarchy.  Your objection is with human nature. 

I just do not see any need to take your hypothetical scenario seriously in an anarchist world. However, I will certainly give you this much: The actions of your hypothetically corrupt people would likely be observable in a transition towards anarchy. 

 

Juan:

Now, I do believe that in a competitive system concerned with finding truth he's not likely to succeed. If, on the other hand, the system works by pleasing its customers (and the 'tribe' perhaps...) then it sounds plausible that by paying enough he will avoid justice.

  You are making a mistake.  You are treating law and justice as if they depend on objective truths.  They are nothing of the sort.  A legal system is simply the resolution of disputes. 

Your concept of "justice" is more than what it literally means.  That is ok but stop calling it justice.  You should call it Juan's Law And Justice Plus because it also contains requirements of truth or fairness or peace or love or whatever else all based on some undefined or magically objective scale. 

 

Juan:

Okay, my mistake. What I meant is "the majority is interested in justice and freedom"...which seems to me like the obvious and necessary condition for a free society to exist.

Well, it may be obvious to you but I suggest that you back it up.  I do not care what interests the majority.  Furthermore, your "majority" is just a way for you to accept markets without having to admit that you are accepting markets.    Eventually, the market will weed out your hypothetical evil "rich" man and his co-conspirators. 

 

wilderness:

That answer had to do with your original questioning.  What to do with somebody that doesn't want to defend themselves?  Are you sincerely suggesting that you just force them to apply defense?  That scenario goes against the free-will of the individual.  So you say a mentally ill individual can't make such a decision.  Ok.  I understand.  Your desire to help such an individual is undoubtedly shared by others.  A State changes not the desires of people.  The State only stands in the way of the desires of people.  So your desire to help the mentality ill will not be aggressed against.

I understand that, and that's why I liked it so much. It completely reoriented my thinking in this subject.

The rights of the mentally ill is a tricky subject to me, that would lead to another and overwhelming thread.

My guess, in my not yet researched view, is that the mentally ill have no right to freedom, as they are completely unable to evaluate the means and the goals needed to sustain their lives. They are in the situation of a toddler.

Of course there is the problem of determining who is really mentally ill to the point of being dependent or dead. I don't even have a formation in psychology (not even by books) so I can't really guess if there is a line and where it is.

Frankly, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Charles Anthony:

Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression."

What??

You are the one who brought "rich" into the discussion with your hypothetical scenario. I can use your definition as you have provided it.

What ? You said "I really do not believe anybody will be "rich" in a truly anarchist world." - That hardly makes sense.

You can attempt to make somebody such an offer, if you want. There is no physical law of the universe that will stop you. In anarchy, I highly doubt it would work.

Why ? An amoral market does not by any means exclude corruption. If some people demand corruption and can pay for it the market will supply it. That's value-free economics.

Essentially, what you are asking is "Can you pay people to hide any crimes you commit and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle?" Of course not.

I'm afraid you got that totally wrong. I'm saying that in your world of moral subjectivism anything can be bought including the 'legal' violation of the NAP. Also, notice that given your moral subjectivism/relativism the NAP is meaningless anyway.

You are making a mistake. You are treating law and justice as if they depend on objective truths.

LOL. And again : LOL!!. Well, IIRC you confidently assert the non-existence of natural rights... ? I should have known better than believing that you have a rational position to defend...

CA:

J:

Okay, my mistake. What I meant is "the majority is interested in justice and freedom"...which seems to me like the obvious and necessary condition for a free society to exist.

Well, it may be obvious to you but I suggest that you back it up.

It's self evident that a free society can only exist if the majority of people stick to the OBJECTIVE principle of OBJECTIVE non-aggression.

Charles Anthony:

I will spell it out for you: Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression.  I can not change any of that.  Now, I am sure you can describe Human nature as a different set but this is the Mises.org forum.  We are discussing libertarianism here. 

We might even be discussing omelette recipes here, but Human Nature is defined as a set of behaviors easily identified. It is the "common sense" school of psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Your view puzzles me.

Charles Anthony:

Essentially, what you are asking is "Can you pay people to hide any crimes you commit and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle?"  Of course not. 

The individual would violate the Non Aggression Axiom, but we are Libertarians, we are not in the quest to make of each one of us a proletarian ubermensch of some sort, with perfect ethics.

Evil people do exist and they will always exist. Thinking otherwise would be foolish.

Justice is objective, based on objective principles. As far as I have meditated it, you can make a complete legal system based only in three individual rights (life, freedom and private property) and the non aggression axiom, all of which derive from the simple existence of the individual. Everything else is derived from it. Give a judge these principles and the training to use them and he will be a great judge.

If you don't understand, it is not your fault, really. According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

What I find most disturbing of your view is that you don't recognize individual tragedies. The evil guy commits a crime here and there and escapes, somehow, all the 6 thousands million people in the world will know he is a crook and will stop doing business with him. Or eventually, somehow, he will find a crook worse than him that will kill him, ending the problem... and then some other crook will kill the second crook..... and..... a third crook .... ad infinitum.

Even if people did find out on time that the guy is evil, you can't just forget that an injustice (or several) was committed.

I don't mean to insult you, but you sound like a teenager who believes in an utopia. I am a libertarian because I believe humans are flawed, you can't dream of ideal (or flawed) human beings guiding others as well you can't dream of an entire population of ideal human beings treating each other nicely all the time.

gussosa:

According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.

That sounds quite elitist....and if it were true then a free society is an utopia....

Juan:

gussosa:

According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.

That sounds quite elitist....and if it were true then a free society is an utopia....

Elitist? Why? Anyone can reach the last stage, but they have to go through several moral dilemmas that require of them to achieve a superior level of reasoning. If you got through life without facing difficult dilemmas, you won't develop your moral understanding.

And I don't see how that makes a free society impossible. Most adults live according to conformity, obedience or gregarious tendencies. Don't make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man. The revolution is going to start with intellectuals, and they will spread the word.

I realize there is some sort of similarity with the elitism of the new left, but the main difference is that we believe in voluntary agreements, and not in paternalistic coercion.

Byzantine:

I think you're actually more a gnostic than a libertarian.

Do you even know what a gnostic is?

Backflips of what? That problem was already presented and solved. I was worried about unjust justice situations.

In the current world it could be an entrepreneur facing a worker's takeover, a woman accused of adultery in a muslim country, any person who acted on self-defense, etc.

I presented an intentionally hard problem to test the strength of the Libertarian legal theory.

Byzantine:

gussosa:

I am a libertarian because I believe humans are flawed, you can't dream of ideal (or flawed) human beings guiding others as well you can't dream of an entire population of ideal human beings treating each other nicely all the time.

This is one of the reasons an anarchist society is not going to do backflips to save the insane homeless guy in your extruded, rococco hypotheticals.

I think you're actually more a gnostic than a libertarian.

   Byzantine, I think the point is, if gussosa is really into helping the insane homeless guy, then he can.  If the insane homeless guy (ihg) doesn't want his help, then he can't coerce the ihg into getting help. 

gussosa:

If you don't understand, it is not your fault, really. According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.

As to this part, I have no clue what gussosa is reaching for.

gussosa:

Most adults live according to conformity, obedience or gregarious tendencies.

And I don't see how that makes a free society impossible.

Indeed. Apparently you don't.

Don't make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man.

...

I'm only noting that if the 'common' man doesn't value freedom then there is going to be no freedom. Don't make the mistake of believing that order is created top down.

gussosa:

Don't make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man.

The internet allows us to bypass growing our own intellectuals and starting a multi-generational shift in the institutions of the state.

We're able to transmit our ideas, proofs directly to individuals, in every country, in every language, regardless of their means or exposure to higher learning.

The game has, and is, changing.  Our success is contingent on both driving and riding change.

Byzantine:

gussosa:

Do you even know what a gnostic is?

This:

"If you don't understand, it is not your fault, really. According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality."

 

I don't know what kind of dictionary you use. Mine is an encyclopedic Salvat and last time I checked gnostics were a christian school that believes in the potential divinity of human beings. Some of them have some very cool ideas like that God is composed of six entities: the father (Yahve), the mother (Sophia), Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Holy Spirit and a female counterpart of it too.

I am sure you mean something else but I can't guess what.

Juan:

gussosa:

Most adults live according to conformity, obedience or gregarious tendencies.

And I don't see how that makes a free society impossible.

Indeed. Apparently you don't.

Don't make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man.

...

I'm only noting that if the 'common' man doesn't value freedom then there is going to be no freedom. Don't make the mistake of believing that order is created top down.

The common man doesn't need abstract ethics to value freedom. If teachers and priests say that freedom is important, the guy will believe it. If he ever gets to a situation where freedom doesn't seem to solve the issue, then he will try to reason and find an alternative.

Why do you think most people so strongly believe in minimum wages and stuff like that? Someone they trust told them to.

gussosa:

Juan:

gussosa:

Most adults live according to conformity, obedience or gregarious tendencies.

And I don't see how that makes a free society impossible.

Indeed. Apparently you don't.

Don't make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man.

...

I'm only noting that if the 'common' man doesn't value freedom then there is going to be no freedom. Don't make the mistake of believing that order is created top down.

The common man doesn't need abstract ethics to value freedom. If teachers and priests say that freedom is important, the guy will believe it. If he ever gets to a situation where freedom doesn't seem to solve the issue, then he will try to reason and find an alternative.

Why do you think most people so strongly believe in minimum wages and stuff like that? Someone they trust told them to.

Freedom is not taught.  Freedom is.  What's all this "common man" talk?  Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

 

gussosa:

Charles Anthony:

I will spell it out for you: Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression.  I can not change any of that.  Now, I am sure you can describe Human nature as a different set but this is the Mises.org forum.  We are discussing libertarianism here. 

We might even be discussing omelette recipes here, but Human Nature is defined as a set of behaviors easily identified. It is the "common sense" school of psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Your view puzzles me.

You can quote whatever you want but we are discussing libertarianism, the non-aggression principle and Austrian economics on Mises.org.  I suggest that you look up von Mises' book Human Action and look up what axioms we take for granted. I will try to be more explicit here: if you want to discuss libertarian law, the non-aggression principle is paramount. 

 

gussosa:

Justice is objective, based on objective principles.

Not when humans are the actors in the delivery of justice.  As long as you have human beings meting out justice, there is no objectivity. 

 

gussosa:

As far as I have meditated it, you can make a complete legal system based only in three individual rights (life, freedom and private property) and the non aggression axiom, all of which derive from the simple existence of the individual. Everything else is derived from it. Give a judge these principles and the training to use them and he will be a great judge.

Once your justice system depends on a human judge, you are no longer dealing with an objective system.  Furthermore, your three individual rights are not objective truths. 

You can treat them like they are objective truths because everybody agrees on the same principles but it is still subjective. 

 

gussosa:

If you don't understand, it is not your fault, really.

Likewise.  Not many libertarians understand that the non-aggression principle is an axiom. 

 

gussosa:

What I find most disturbing of your view is that you don't recognize individual tragedies.

Spare me!  

 

 

 

 

Juan:

Frankly, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Charles Anthony:

Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression."

What??

Somehow it does not surprise me in the least that you have trouble with the non-aggression principle. 

 

 

Byzantine:

Voegelin

Thanks for clearing that. Now read again the article on Kohlberg. You could speak of a moral intelligence. In fact, Kohlberg just applied the ideas of Jean Piaget (of cognitive development) to the field of ethics. Some people are smarter, some people are stronger, some people are more ethical, some people are wealthier...

Inequality happens in every single field of human life, not just in economics. It is natural.

The faster people may become professional runners, the more ethical people may become cops and judges. Division of labour, baby!!!!

I believe "heaven on earth" is impossible, but a pure capitalist society is the best possible. Freedom is brought by a permanent check on each other. Government makes itself unattainable to the check of the rest of society, as you can change the people but no the institutions. Erase the government and the mutual check will bring order naturally.

wilderness:

Freedom is not taught.  Freedom is.  What's all this "common man" talk?  Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom. And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

gussosa:

wilderness:

Freedom is not taught.  Freedom is.  What's all this "common man" talk?  Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom. 

   Yes, value is a reality here.  That is the very basis of freedom and choice.  I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

    Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.  

Charles Anthony:

Somehow it does not surprise me in the least that you have trouble with the non-aggressio principle.

I don't have a problem with the NAP. You do.

You have a big problem with basic philosophy and logical consistency too. You seem to be totally unable to grasp that the NAP is objective -- it relies on objective truth and entails objective justice.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.[

those demands would not be classifiable as human action though. (or if the demands are action, then they do use reason after all)

Juan:

Charles Anthony:

Somehow it does not surprise me in the least that you have trouble with the non-aggressio principle.

I don't have a problem with the NAP. You do.

You have a big problem with basic philosophy and logical consistency too. You seem to be totally unable to grasp that the NAP is objective and it entails objective truth and objective justice.

    Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this.  Objective and subjective are poor choices of words in my opinion for they carry a lot of different meanings for a lot of different people.

 

wilderness:

gussosa:

wilderness:

Freedom is not taught.  Freedom is.  What's all this "common man" talk?  Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom. 

   Yes, value is a reality here.  That is the very basis of freedom and choice.  I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

    Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.  

Maybe the problem here is that I use the word reason only for conscious reason, while you also use it for that kind of automatic decision making that I see more as feelings or habits.

gussosa:

wilderness:

gussosa:

wilderness:

Freedom is not taught.  Freedom is.  What's all this "common man" talk?  Something basic missing in your reasoning here, such as you freely reason.

True. Freedom is. But to value freedom not. Most people choose to be wage earners instead of entrepreneurs because they value safety more than freedom. 

   Yes, value is a reality here.  That is the very basis of freedom and choice.  I understand that.

gussosa:

And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands.

    Yes, people stick to their reasons sometimes.  

Maybe the problem here is that I use the word reason only for conscious reason, while you also use it for that kind of automatic decision making that I see more as feelings or habits.

    I see decisions in the mind taking place along with feelings and habits.  Other than that we slide into origin theories on what comes first, second, third... thought, feeling, or habits and I don't value such "origin theories".

    Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other:  "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

wilderness:

Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this.

Yes. You asserted that physics is non-objective and I disagreed and still disagree. You misread my last message to you in that thread and I didn't feel like trying to make my point again, for which I am to blame.

On the other hand, I thought we agreed that there's such a thing as 'natural rights' in the moral sphere (but maybe I misread you as well...)

Anyway, Charles Anthony's position is inconsistent and he doesn't realize it.

As to using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' I don't see a problem with it. If some people don't understand or disagree with the concepts or meanings implied, well, that's not my fault is it ?

wilderness:

Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other:  "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

What about this?

A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't make any conscious effort to find the best way to use the means available in order to reach his goals, he would just verbalize his feelings.

 

I understand that even in this situation he would have to choose the best words to convey the exact nature of his feelings, but I just tried to give an example of how someone can take things for granted and never check the premises. An individual whose parents were government employees and became a government employee himself right after high school is not exactly a good prospect candidate for Libertarianism. A similar situation happens with a worker who has never been involved in entrepreneurial or management activities. It would be pretty hard to convince him that his boss simply hasn't got any money to give a raise. He has been told over and over by union leaders that "bosses always have money".

A pragmatic faith lets you accept some premises without checking them. Like the student of a maths teacher who says "for now just trust me, we will see the demonstration later".

You need a personal faith crisis to get rid of some premises that stuck with you unchecked, because while they work (or simply aren't used) you won't doubt of them.

In the case of the worker, he might suffer that crisis after the boss is forced to give raises and then the company goes bankrupt. However, even in those cases he might think (or be told) the boss robbed his own company and escaped with the money, and the premise stays untouched.

gussosa:

I have tried to find something about this in the literature section but couldn't do it.

In a Libertarian society:

What happens if somebody (Mr. A) is denounced by another one (Mr. B) as a criminal, but Mr A isn't affiliated to any security or justice agency and he won't comply to go to trial? Maybe he is nuts or extremely poor and proud, but he won't even accept pro-bono services.

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

 

If something like this happens in bulk, probably a revolution/ violence.  Think of it along the lines of jury nullification.  Masses of people who are denied justice and basic goods will punish those who they find guilty, with thier own brand of justice.

Juan:

wilderness:

Juan, I think you and I had a similar conversation before about this.

Yes. You asserted that physics is non-objective and I disagreed and still disagree. You misread my last message to you in that thread and I didn't feel like trying to make my point again, for which I am to blame.

On the other hand, I thought we agreed that there's such a thing as 'natural rights' in the moral sphere (but maybe I misread you as well...)

Anyway, Charles Anthony's position is inconsistent and he doesn't realize it.

As to using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' I don't see a problem with it. If some people don't understand or disagree with the concepts or meanings implied, well, that's not my fault is it ?

    Actually I assert that physics is objective or subjective, which ever way an individual inclines or perceives.

     Yes, I agree with natural rights.  And it's not anybody's fault that objective and subjective have different meanings to different people.  I can argue objectivism means tryanny (due to it's unwillingness to notice change), but I can also argue objectivism means facts due to the current paradigm that are valued [Newton is no less objective than Plato's perfect circles of planets around the earth this was fact until respectively in order of the statement, not in order of history, Kepler (elliptical orbits) and Copernicus (planets around the sun)].  I can argue subjectivism takes notice of the consumer and is as factual as factual can be.  I can also argue that subjectivism means not enough order can be established for agreement (aka it's all subjective).  What is objective evolves so it's really subjective.  I based what I know on value.  I admit I don't know all and keep an open mind.  Natural Law is the best that I know of now, but that might change and therefore faced with new facts Natural Law could become as subjective as liking strawberry ice cream more than vanilla ice cream.  But I know you have your perspective and I have mine.  This "objective" and "subjective" understanding is not solely mine, but is shared by others in the philosophy arena such as the Metaphysics of Quality.  

   For the moment Natural Law is as factual to me as electrons, but also when I'm engrossed in a good fictional novel that fictional reality is just as objective as the wind touching my face on a windy day.

Thanks

 

gussosa:

wilderness:

Maybe you could rephrase what you meant in the more original comment or maybe we understand each other:  "And you reason when you find the need to. A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't reason at all, he would just make demands."

What about this?

A person whose all needs are immediately satisfied wouldn't make any conscious effort to find the best way to use the means available in order to reach his goals, he would just verbalize his feelings.

 

I understand that even in this situation he would have to choose the best words to convey the exact nature of his feelings, but I just tried to give an example of how someone can take things for granted and never check the premises. An individual whose parents were government employees and became a government employee himself right after high school is not exactly a good prospect candidate for Libertarianism. A similar situation happens with a worker who has never been involved in entrepreneurial or management activities. It would be pretty hard to convince him that his boss simply hasn't got any money to give a raise. He has been told over and over by union leaders that "bosses always have money".

A pragmatic faith lets you accept some premises without checking them. Like the student of a maths teacher who says "for now just trust me, we will see the demonstration later".

You need a personal faith crisis to get rid of some premises that stuck with you unchecked, because while they work (or simply aren't used) you won't doubt of them.

In the case of the worker, he might suffer that crisis after the boss is forced to give raises and then the company goes bankrupt. However, even in those cases he might think (or be told) the boss robbed his own company and escaped with the money, and the premise stays untouched.

    Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other.  These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought.  Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent:  cause they have red shirts.

    I'd rather look at this as better reasons that can be better argued.  Yet, I can argue a better reason or premise to somebody all day and night, but eventually they will have to choose.  This is about freedom.  But also the flaw is to think I or anybody has the best reason/premise, cause this closes the path to an open-mind and anything that actually might be even better.

 

 

wilderness:

Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other.  These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought.  Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent:  cause they have red shirts.

It sounds like you are talking about motives.  I don't like to use the word reason for a motive. I use reason to speak about a conscious effort for the evaluation of alternatives. In the case of the soldiers, the reasoning process could be "if I fight those guys in red shirts I COULD be killed by them, but if I refuse to fight I WILL be killed by my own officers, so I choose the lesser evil and go fight". However, no consideration is given to the premise that red shirts are enemies.

When talking about physical phenomena there is always only one true premise, which might be composed of several sensations (the ball is round, green and smells like plastic). When talking of abstractions, there is one that is best than the others or all are equally wrong (in opposition to everyone is partly right).

All bodies of the same size and shape fall at the same speed. The sun is bright. All those are true premises. What may change is the abstraction that describes/rules/explains the fact. The law of gravity is a far better abstraction than the idea that instincts in physical bodies that lead them to the ground, and a single universal force would be (if possible) a far better theory than having four different forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear). However, facts don't change.

gussosa:

wilderness:

Ok, you seem to be arguing premises now, and not strictly reason though undoubtedly they are involved with each other.  These people have come to these conclusions and yes they trust and have faith in them, but have been given reasons/thought.  Even the most ardently strict order-obey model such as in the military has reasons, the reasons given could be simply, "They are the enemy in the red shirts kill them.", The reason is inherent:  cause they have red shirts.

It sounds like you are talking about motives.  I don't like to use the word reason for a motive. I use reason to speak about a conscious effort for the evaluation of alternatives. In the case of the soldiers, the reasoning process could be "if I fight those guys in red shirts I COULD be killed by them, but if I refuse to fight I WILL be killed by my own officers, so I choose the lesser evil and go fight". However, no consideration is given to the premise that red shirts are enemies.

When talking about physical phenomena there is always only one true premise, which might be composed of several sensations (the ball is round, green and smells like plastic). When talking of abstractions, there is one that is best than the others or all are equally wrong (in opposition to everyone is partly right).

All bodies of the same size and shape fall at the same speed. The sun is bright. All those are true premises. What may change is the abstraction that describes/rules/explains the fact. The law of gravity is a far better abstraction than the idea that instincts in physical bodies that lead them to the ground, and a single universal force would be (if possible) a far better theory than having four different forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear). However, facts don't change.

    Facts, data, ok, don't change, but our perception of them do.  Thus, the fact isn't the whole truth if we don't know all the facts.  So what are we talking about?