NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html) while looking through infoshop.org. Hope you enjoy.

Libertarianism in one lesson.
No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real libertarianism!

Introduction

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!


Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

Government
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

Regulation
The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort.
The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism "ruled" pamphleteering.
No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty, guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas.
Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

Political Debate Strategy
Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor libertarian claims.
Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best argument.
The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.
Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.
Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.

Rather refreshing isn't it. Now let's see if anyone notices that I posted the second part of the Lesson.

Libertarianism in one lesson; The second lesson

Why is there a second lesson when the title says one lesson? Libertarianism is so double-plus-good that through the magic of libertarian accounting we can insist that 1+1=1. See the first bulleted entry for further explanation.

Introduction

Refresher time in libertarianism! Some of you might begin to doubt our generation-long barrage of libertarian propaganda due to the stubborn reluctance of reality to conform to libertarian ideology.

Never fear! Even if you are in the wasteheap of history, the market in its wisdom grants you a period of unemployment during which you can reinstill your dogmatic certitude. We have a fresh crop of excuses to memorize that will convince you of your own brilliance! Smite the unprepared!


Libertarian Party USA
So what if David Bergland's "Libertarianism In One Lesson" has 99 pages in 16 numbered chapters. Why would you think that was more than one lesson?
America's fastest declining political party!
Harry Browne had it right in his 2000 campain. Trust to the efficacy of the market! As soon as you threaten to put a bounty on the head of a terrorist, all your terrorism problems will be solved.
We cannot trust government to get anything right. We should look to examples of private organizations such as the Libertarian Party USA as role models; even if they cannot count their declining membership, balance their budget, or tell their members the truth about their finances.
If markets are the best allocation mechanism, libertarians should demand that the party's positions should be sold to the highest bidders. Forget that voting crap: it's initiation of force! Surely the highest bidder will represent libertarian interests better than anyone else.
Libertarians are to liberty as conservatives are to conservation!

Libertarianism Has The Answers!
Libertarianism is based on natural rights; no, neutrality; no, non-aggression; no, responsability; no, self ownership; no, property rights; no, ....
When is it legitimate to initiate the use of force against others? Never! Unless, of course, you really need to initiate force... then it's pre-emptive protection of property rights.
Of course libertarianism is compatible with Christianity! Just substitute "the market" for "Jesus", and ask "What would the market do?"
It is more parsimonious and economically austere to consider only the libertarian side of the argument.
Net funding for charitable works and public goods will increase when the taxes that currently support them are abolished. After all, don't we all donate our tax refund checks to charity?
Trendy buzzwords like 'chaos theory' irrefutably prove that Government interferes with the 'spontaneous order' of free people.
Criticism of libertarianism is destructive. Criticism of society by libertarians is constructive.
Nostalgia for bygone "golden eras" will guide us better than the actual historical record of their suffering, corruption, cruelty, inequality of rights, and primitive standards of living.
Nobody has a right to free food or medical care or other amenities. Children are thus either imaginary or property.
Our libertarian ideas are boldly nonconformist, yet conveniently reaffirm our desire to do nothing but complain.
Libertarians get to define who the classical liberals were. If they weren't just like libertarians, no matter how famous, they should be stricken from the rolls. Rousseau? Faugh!

Government
Public schools are a monopoly: a staggering 80% of American children attend them in thousands of independently run school districts. Microsoft is not a monopoly: only 95% of computers use MSWindows.
Government causes pollution, crime, discrimination, slavery, poverty, and all the other evils of the world. Businesses and individuals only produce wealth: they are not involved and not responsible for any of those problems.
Taxation is slavery, but rent is not. Even if you pay more in rent, even if you have also chosen where you pay taxes.
DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact that the Internet came from a government project.
Gang rape is democracy. Five people say "Yes," one person says "No," and the majority rules. Which is why gang rape is legal in every state.
America was much more libertarian 150 years ago, before Big Government, when women, children, and slaves were the property of white males, and killing indians for their land was Manifest Destiny.
A practice common in business is insufferable by government. Pay for government services? Insufferable!
Four legs gooooood, two legs baaaaaad. Private gooooood, government baaaaaad.
All government activity is use of force, and thus volence. Yes, this includes public libraries: don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public libraries?

Markets
Only markets, promoted by those wise liberals of the 18th century, can solve coordination problems. Democratic representative governments, which were foisted upon us by those same deluded liberals of the 18th century, result in chaos and difficulty finding good servants.
When government provides a service, it is a crutch. When private enterprise provides the same service, you are a manly man to purchase it.
Big media have a virulent anti-business bias because they report on harmful business practices. Truth is no defense against our accusations of bias, nor is the observation that big media ARE big business.
There are no market failures, only government failures. Which is why we should abolish corporations, patents, copyright and other intellectual property; they are established by government interference with free markets.

Found this (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html) while looking through infoshop.org. Hope you enjoy.
And this is why I dumped the Libertarian party after two weeks. Such idiocy...

This is RIGHT Libertarianism.

Left (or Socialist or Communist or whatever) Libertarianism is very different.

This is RIGHT Libertarianism.

Left (or Socialist or Communist or whatever) Libertarianism is very different.

I know that. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't. Most people on this forum know the difference, and if they don't, they consider libertarianism to be a right wing ideology.

Just saying...

some Dee Dee Dee's out there don't get it, though... and I lie in that area, so...

EDIT: I mean on the political charts and stuff and cncering Left Libertarianism...

Now that adds to the discourse, people! :rolleyes:

Some libertarian shat in his Post Toasties apparantly.

So, basically, the Libertarian party of the U.S. is right-wing libertarianism. What's left-wing libertarianism all about?

So, basically, the Libertarian party of the U.S. is right-wing libertarianism. What's left-wing libertarianism all about?

Liberal/Socialist Economy+Libertarian Laws and Politics

So, basically, the Libertarian party of the U.S. is right-wing libertarianism. What's left-wing libertarianism all about?
It's a lot more like you'd imagine your traditional Hippie commune for example, or the Israeli Kibbutzim.

Everyone is free to do what they want...until they make or want to use stuff. Then the community comes first.

It's a lot more like you'd imagine your traditional Hippie commune for example, or the Israeli Kibbutzim.

Everyone is free to do what they want...until they make or want to use stuff. Then the community comes first.

On the further left, yes... that suffices.

Of course, one has to realize that thee is a more centrist stance...

Marxism is simple?

Marxism is simple?

Yeah... everyone owns/rules/decides everything... I guess.

I might be wrong.

So, basically, the Libertarian party of the U.S. is right-wing libertarianism. What's left-wing libertarianism all about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

What's left-wing libertarianism all about?

Libertarian socially, authoritarian economically.

That was complete shit.

Are the leftists on here now resorting to trollish strawman threads?

This is RIGHT Libertarianism.

Left (or Socialist or Communist or whatever) Libertarianism is very different.


And this is why I dumped the Libertarian party after two weeks. Such idiocy

That is not representative of any form of libertarianism, for you to think so shows a complete ignorance of the ideology.

well, I skimmed it. :p

Libertarian socially, authoritarian economically.

Where "authoritarian" is a scaremonger's term for "non-capitalist" ;)

These folks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://www.mutualist.org

...are non-capitalist libertarians. Demonstrate just what exactly is "authoritarian" about them.

Demonstrate just what exactly is "authoritarian" about them.

They don't think people should be allowed to own property or spend their money how they choose.

Yeah... everyone owns/rules/decides everything... I guess.

I might be wrong.
It's a simple idea, but it's complicated to implement. Same with Libertarianism.

They don't think people should be allowed to own property or spend their money how they choose. :rolleyes:

Well, do all Right-Winger (not libertarian) believe in not having freedom of speech?

:rolleyes:

Well, do all Right-Winger (not libertarian) believe in not having freedom of speech?

Who said I'm a right-winger? And what does that have to do with libertarianism? No true libertarian, left or right, believes in not having freedom of speech.

Who said I'm a right-winger? And what does that have to do with libertarianism? No true libertarian, left or right, believes in not having freedom of speech.

I meant that your statement was a vast generalization and was incorrect.

They don't think people should be allowed to own property or spend their money how they choose.

The third link I provided was typed wrong; it is now corrected. But, to destroy completely false assumptions:


Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.


They assert belief in "free market anti-capitalism"

"We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use."
That'll be a little stupid. It would severely limit the amount of private property one could own (and the purpose one could use it for) and that contravenes the idea.

By the way, I just got the link to this sweet little project: http://freestateproject.org/about/faq.php

If anyone is interested...

That'll be a little stupid. It would severely limit the amount of private property one could own (and the purpose one could use it for) and that contravenes the idea.


They might respond that the massive centralization of political and economic power that results from the current statist capitalist intrepretation of the concept, as embodied in the extremely close relationship between the corporation, wealthy, and the state, is in fact what promotes the effects you describe. Obviously, if the "purpose one could use it for" includes exercising power at the expense of the liberty and security of one's fellow man, that "use" is invalid and immoral.

By the way, I just got the link to this sweet little project: http://freestateproject.org/about/faq.php

If anyone is interested...


I've always figured that analysis of the problems with the American electoral system (and there are many...) and rational suggestions, debate, and consideration of solutions would do far more good than encouraging some evangelical sideshow for a political party that basically no one knows or cares about.

Obviously, if the "purpose one could use it for" includes exercising power at the expense of the liberty and security of one's fellow man, that "use" is invalid and immoral.
Hey, why would you want to tell me what is invalid and immoral? I'm not really into absolutism as such.
If someone doesn't want to work my machines...fine, I'm not forcing anyone. But if someone does want to sign that contract - then that's none of your business.

I've always figured that analysis of the problems with the American electoral system (and there are many...) and rational suggestions, debate, and consideration of solutions would do far more good than encouraging some evangelical sideshow for a political party that basically no one knows or cares about.
It probably wouldn't be as effective, let's put it like that. The US electoral system is a behemoth, and changing it is difficult to say the least. To do so rationally and without playing politics is impossible.

They don't think people should be allowed to own property

Nor do they think people should be permitted to be dictators. Why do they hate freedom?

or spend their money how they choose.

Mutualists actually do believe in free exchange.

Hey, why would you want to tell me what is invalid and immoral? I'm not really into absolutism as such.
If someone doesn't want to work my machines...fine, I'm not forcing anyone. But if someone does want to sign that contract - then that's none of your business.

It becomes my business when the owners of said machines exploit the mechanism of the state for favorable treatment; such favorable treatment typically assisting in making sure that the owner's position remains unchallenged, and that the dependence of the masses on "voluntary" contracts remains secure. Do no pretend that the owners of business insist on completely voluntary relations, freedom, liberty and such. Even a most cursory analysis of reality will demonstrate that this simply isn't the case. Washington D.C., as well as the capitals of any number of other countries, are crawling with lobbyists for the wealthy and business interests for a reason.

The father of modern capitalism said it best himself:


We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… [When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.


When the ability of the worker to eat at night is dependent on the whim of his employer to continue to honor the "voluntary" contract, it becomes increasingly difficult to speak of any "free" market. Until the corporate, business, and wealth lobbyists all go home, it is impossible to talk about a "free" market.

It becomes my business when the owners of said machines exploit the mechanism of the state for favorable treatment; such favorable treatment typically assisting in making sure that the owner's position remains unchallenged, and that the dependence of the masses on "voluntary" contracts remains secure.
As in how? Making sure that contracts aren't being violated after they were signed? Making sure that an armed mob isn't going to take over the factory that I paid for?

Washington D.C., as well as the capitals of any number of other countries, are crawling with lobbyists for the wealthy and business interests for a reason.
They are also crawling with lobbyists of consumer protection groups, unions etc etc
And the vast majority of employers (that being small and medium-sized businesses) don't have reps with the government at all.

The father of modern capitalism said it best himself:
The father of modern capitalism isn't Adam Smith, it's more likely to be Henry Ford. Adam Smith is the father of economics as a discipline.

When the ability of the worker to eat at night is dependent on the whim of his employer to continue to honor the "voluntary" contract, it becomes increasingly difficult to speak of any "free" market.
It does not.

Let me make this very clear: There is no difference between Mr Caveman having to and hunt for a living, and Mr Johnson having to go to work for a living.

Both may not choose the fact that they are doing something, but both are choosing the way they do it, picking an option out of a set of alternatives within their reach.

It does not.

Let me make this very clear: There is no difference between Mr Caveman having to and hunt for a living, and Mr Johnson having to go to work for a living.

Except the obvious, that is.

In one case, it involves submission to the will of the employer; in the other case, it does not.

In one case, it involves submission to the will of the employer; in the other case, it does not.
In that case any sort of agreement is a submission.

I work for an international fast-food provider. I accepted their parts of the deal, they accepted mine. I didn't submit, I accepted. Big difference.

In that case any sort of agreement is a submission.

No, only agreements characterized by power differences.

Which, of course, was DC's objection.

When the ability of the worker to eat at night is dependent on the whim of his employer to continue to honor the "voluntary" contract, it becomes increasingly difficult to speak of any "free" market.

No, only agreements characterized by power differences.
The power difference is largely in your head, you know. If you believe in yourself and the good you're selling (ie your labour), then you may well walk out of an interview thinking "Well, you guys are gonna miss out" rather than "Oh, poor little me didn't get the job".

And besides - not having marketable skills is a choice too.

Found this (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html) while looking through infoshop.org. Hope you enjoy.
Only if you enjoy strawmen and lies. But that's all socialists have to offer.

Nor do they think people should be permitted to be dictators. Why do they hate freedom?

Who said anything about dictators? IMO, I think people should be allowed to do anything they want, provided they aren't threatening anyone else or violating anyone's rights.

Only if you enjoy strawmen and lies. But that's all socialists have to offer.

That, coming from you, is quite amusing.

The power difference is largely in your head, you know.

No, it is quite objective. The need for sustenance, and for material goods necessary for a decent existence in modern society, cannot be willed away.

If you believe in yourself and the good you're selling (ie your labour), then you may well walk out of an interview thinking "Well, you guys are gonna miss out" rather than "Oh, poor little me didn't get the job".

The power difference remains. Any slave can imagine being free, but imagination is not reality.

And besides - not having marketable skills is a choice too.

For some, maybe, but having the option does not mean that the requirements are not egregious.

Who said anything about dictators?

The "freedom" to own property is merely the "freedom" to rule, and is thus not a freedom at all.

IMO, I think people should be allowed to do anything they want, provided they aren't threatening anyone else or violating anyone's rights.

I agree. We probably differ on what rights people have, however.

The "freedom" to own property is merely the "freedom" to rule, and is thus not a freedom at all.

But other people have that same freedom. Nothing is stopping others from acquiring property.

No, it is quite objective. The need for sustenance, and for material goods necessary for a decent existence in modern society, cannot be willed away.
You're acting as if there was only one employer in the world.

The power difference remains. Any slave can imagine being free, but imagination is not reality.
What sort of subservience are you talking about here?

For some, maybe, but having the option does not mean that the requirements are not egregious.
It's a choice for almost everyone. Unless you have some sort of physical or mental disability you are free to do well at school, and that's how it starts.

You're acting as if there was only one employer in the world.

There is more than one employer, and there is more than one worker; competition cuts both ways.

Regardless, even were this not the case, the power difference remains. The employer is looking for a profit, the worker for employment; the dependence on the relationship is unequal, and thus its terms favor the employer.

Mere choice of master does not make a person free.

What sort of subservience are you talking about here?

The same one as before - economic dependence.

It's a choice for almost everyone. Unless you have some sort of physical or mental disability you are free to do well at school, and that's how it starts.

Really? So a child going to a poorly-funded and poorly-managed inner-city school is as "free" to do well at school as a child going to a private school in the suburbs for upper middle class people?

So a child whose parents are always working, and are thus not as available for help, is as "free" to do well at school as a child with well-off parents who can afford to take time off and spend time with their children? (You know that one reason IQ scores are skewed across "races" is the pressures of economic class, not just in unequal access to education but in access to supportive home environments?)

So a child whose parents are always working, and are thus not as available for help, is as "free" to do well at school as a child with well-off parents who can afford to take time off and spend time with their children? (You know that one reason IQ scores are skewed across "races" is the pressures of economic class, not just in unequal access to education but in access to supportive home environments?)

Parents wouldn't always be unavailable if we didn't have all these damn taxes. They have to spend so much time slaving away to pay for the welfare/warfare state, they have no time to rear their children properly.

Parents wouldn't always be unavailable if we didn't have all these damn taxes. They have to spend so much time slaving away to pay for the welfare/warfare state, they have no time to rear their children properly.

The warfare state is a function of modern statist capitalism; I hate it as much as you do, and any decent transformation of our society would involve its elimination.

Social welfare expenditures tend to either be on things that individuals would be paying for anyway (Social Security) or programs designed to lower the burden on precisely the people I am discussing.

The warfare state is a function of modern statist capitalism; I hate it as much as you do, and any decent transformation of our society would involve its elimination.

Social welfare expenditures tend to either be on things that individuals would be paying for anyway (Social Security) or programs designed to lower the burden on precisely the people I am discussing.

The warfare state is the result of the incestuous relationship between corrupt big businesses and their political allies. As Dwight Eisenhower would say, the military-industrial complex. As long as the collusion of the state and business - rather than the total separation of the two - continues, we can only expect more wars like Iraq.

Regardless, even were this not the case, the power difference remains. The employer is looking for a profit, the worker for employment; the dependence on the relationship is unequal, and thus its terms favor the employer.
So you mean to say that an employer is not dependent on making a profit, at least in the long term?

Really? So a child going to a poorly-funded and poorly-managed inner-city school is as "free" to do well at school as a child going to a private school in the suburbs for upper middle class people?
Yes. That's the beauty of the service that is "education" - the quality of the product depends to a huge extent on the effort the providee puts in.

I mean, I've heard some horror stories about some of these innercity schools - but I really doubt that there are any in which there is not a single student who finishes with a decent set of marks and might even gain a scholarship to further education. And if one person does it, that just proves that it is possible.

It's a little bit like an intertemporal budget constraint: there is a certain amount of fun to be had in one's life. One can either have fun today by having parties, not working in school and just generally being one of the "cool kids" - or one can "save" one's fun and have more of it once you're an adult and the education pays off. It's still a choice and if people are myopic, that's their problem, not mine.

So a child whose parents are always working, and are thus not as available for help, is as "free" to do well at school as a child with well-off parents who can afford to take time off and spend time with their children?
To be honest, well-off parents tend to spend a lot of time at work as well. But no matter...my parents didn't really help me with my homework. They did teach me to read at an early age, that's true, and they did buy me books and the like (not really expensive ones, but you get the idea). But my mum's not the academic type, and my dad was always at work.

(You know that one reason IQ scores are skewed across "races" is the pressures of economic class, not just in unequal access to education but in access to supportive home environments?)
What does IQ have to do with supportive parents or the type of school you go to? It's not like they're asking reading comprehension or maths in them.

What does IQ have to do with supportive parents or the type of school you go to? It's not like they're asking reading comprehension or maths in them.

Actually, a lot of supposed "IQ tests" do just that... Mostly ones on the internet, though.

The warfare state is the result of the incestuous relationship between corrupt big businesses and their political allies. As Dwight Eisenhower would say, the military-industrial complex. As long as the collusion of the state and business - rather than the total separation of the two - continues, we can only expect more wars like Iraq.

I see this as an inevitable feature of modern capitalism. State intervention in the economy has pretty much been a constant feature of states throughout history. There are both good and bad reasons for this, but regardless, I don't think it's preventable, and it must be expected that this intervention will in large part serve to benefit the institutions of concentrated economic power.

So you mean to say that an employer is not dependent on making a profit, at least in the long term?

Yes, that is what I mean to say. Even if they do not have other sources of income, as most of them do, they have the option of selling the business or their share of the business.

Yes. That's the beauty of the service that is "education" - the quality of the product depends to a huge extent on the effort the providee puts in.

I mean, I've heard some horror stories about some of these innercity schools - but I really doubt that there are any in which there is not a single student who finishes with a decent set of marks and might even gain a scholarship to further education. And if one person does it, that just proves that it is possible.

But "possible" is not good enough.

It was "possible" for an African slave in the US to escape to the North or to Canada. The problem was that it was extremely difficult.

It's a little bit like an intertemporal budget constraint: there is a certain amount of fun to be had in one's life. One can either have fun today by having parties, not working in school and just generally being one of the "cool kids" - or one can "save" one's fun and have more of it once you're an adult and the education pays off. It's still a choice and if people are myopic, that's their problem, not mine.

It should not be a "choice" at all. And the degree to which it is a choice is relative to one's economic status.

To be honest, well-off parents tend to spend a lot of time at work as well. But no matter...my parents didn't really help me with my homework. They did teach me to read at an early age, that's true, and they did buy me books and the like (not really expensive ones, but you get the idea). But my mum's not the academic type, and my dad was always at work.

There are different kinds of support. Did they care how well you did in school?

What does IQ have to do with supportive parents or the type of school you go to? It's not like they're asking reading comprehension or maths in them.

Things like the number of words heard at home in the early years of childhood can have effects.

Yes, that is what I mean to say. Even if they do not have other sources of income, as most of them do, they have the option of selling the business or their share of the business.
In which case they'd still be hurt economically, probably quite severely because no one wants to buy a business that doesn't make a profit and has no prospect of doing so.

But "possible" is not good enough.
So what do you propose? That everyone becomes rich? That isn't possible.

You can either have some people richer than others, or everybody being pretty much the same. And indeed, it suddenly then starts to become really impossible for anyone to make it big.

It should not be a "choice" at all.
Work or play should not be a choice at all?

And the degree to which it is a choice is relative to one's economic status.
True. And I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm not even saying that I particularly like it.

I am however saying that the alternative will do far more damage, and that I could not stand to live in a world where whether or not I get to live the life I want to live depends on the decision of some sort of committee...just so that some party animal gets "the same chance" as me.

There are different kinds of support. Did they care how well you did in school?
Well yeah. But not as much as I did. It was them who had to make me feel better when I felt I screwed up an exam by only getting 80%.

In which case they'd still be hurt economically, probably quite severely because no one wants to buy a business that doesn't make a profit and has no prospect of doing so.

But all economic harm is relative to one's economic position. The capitalist may have a reduced profit, she may have less wealth, but the worker will lose her economic security and her decent standard of living if she is unemployed.

So what do you propose? That everyone becomes rich? That isn't possible.

That no one be rich, no one be poor, and everyone be free.

You can either have some people richer than others, or everybody being pretty much the same. And indeed, it suddenly then starts to become really impossible for anyone to make it big.

So be it.

Work or play should not be a choice at all?

Absolutely not. It should be "work and play."

Hell, there is something to be said for making it merely "play." (http://www.infoshop.org/library/abolition_of_work.php)

True. And I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm not even saying that I particularly like it.

I am however saying that the alternative will do far more damage, and that I could not stand to live in a world where whether or not I get to live the life I want to live depends on the decision of some sort of committee...just so that some party animal gets "the same chance" as me.

How is that much different from it being determined by economic circumstances? In both cases you have little influence over your alternatives, but at least under state socialism the alternatives are more equally distributed.

Me, I prefer more radical options than either the statist-capitalist perversion we have today or the mildly preferable option of democratic socialism.

Well yeah. But not as much as I did. It was them who had to make me feel better when I felt I screwed up an exam by only getting 80%.

But did they not help you achieve this self-motivation?

That, coming from you, is quite amusing.
Prove it.


No, it is quite objective. The need for sustenance, and for material goods necessary for a decent existence in modern society, cannot be willed away.
And a difference in power cannot be willed into existence.


The "freedom" to own property is merely the "freedom" to rule, and is thus not a freedom at all.
Prove it.

So you mean to say that an employer is not dependent on making a profit, at least in the long term?

Or more importantly, that his capital is not dependent on the labor of others.

He apparently believes one of two things: either a) a factory owner is perfectly capable of maintaining the operations of his factory on his own, but only hires labor because he is lazy, or b)the possessors of capital are perfectly willing to leave their capital unused.

Yes. That's the beauty of the service that is "education" - the quality of the product depends to a huge extent on the effort the providee puts in.

I mean, I've heard some horror stories about some of these innercity schools - but I really doubt that there are any in which there is not a single student who finishes with a decent set of marks and might even gain a scholarship to further education. And if one person does it, that just proves that it is possible.

Soheran is somewhat correct, that a proportion of the population is doomed by socioeconomic factors, but that sort of fatalistic determinism kind of kills any justification one has for economic justice.

Well, this thread proved my hypothesis: most right-libertarians have no sense of humor whenever you start making fun of their ideology. Come on, can't anyone take a joke?

Oh well. I guess there will be a reprisal thread to make fun of left-libertarians. You know what I think: go ahead, say what you want. I can laugh at myself, can you?

Absolutely not. It should be "work and play."

Hell, there is something to be said for making it merely "play." (http://www.infoshop.org/library/abolition_of_work.php)
Even if I'm working for me, it's still work. And I have to work to survive. If I do no work at all, I produce nothing. I can't survive on nothing.

Just like under the capitalism you despise, the alternatives are work or starve. Nothing's changed - you've just made everyone equal.

Well, this thread proved my hypothesis: most right-libertarians have no sense of humor whenever you start making fun of their ideology. Come on, can't anyone take a joke?

Oh well. I guess there will be a reprisal thread to make fun of left-libertarians. You know what I think: go ahead, say what you want. I can laugh at myself, can you?

You offer a trollish, insulting appraisal of another political ideology (which was, by the way, supported in full seriousness by several posters following the OP) and not expect others to rise up in defense of their ideas?

You offer a trollish, insulting appraisal of another political ideology (which was, by the way, supported in full seriousness by several posters following the OP) and not expect others to rise up in defense of their ideas?

I knew fully well what would happen. I just was waiting to see how vicious it would be. I think I struck a nerve...

Anyway, I'm wondering what gives right libertarians the exclusive right to define what is acceptable and what is not. I could care less if you made fun of me or my ideology.

You offer a trollish, insulting appraisal of another political ideology (which was, by the way, supported in full seriousness by several posters following the OP) and not expect others to rise up in defense of their ideas?

It's not an uncommon tactic:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11398264&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11400777&postcount=8
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11400975&postcount=14


Make some inane statement
Have inane statement torn apart
Try to weasle out of it with a combination "I'm the victim"/"you have no sense of humor" red herring/strawman defense


Rather easily defeated, however.

I knew fully well what would happen. I just was waiting to see how vicious it would be. I think I struck a nerve...

Anyway, I'm wondering what gives right libertarians the exclusive right to define what is acceptable and what is not. I could care less if you made fun of me or my ideology.
Your misuse of a common phrase completely undercuts your point.

Now that's funny.

I knew fully well what would happen. I just was waiting to see how vicious it would be. I think I struck a nerve...

Then you were trolling.

Anyway, I'm wondering what gives right libertarians the exclusive right to define what is acceptable and what is not. I could care less if you made fun of me or my ideology.

That is a bigger strawman than any of the ones in the OP.

But all economic harm is relative to one's economic position. The capitalist may have a reduced profit, she may have less wealth, but the worker will lose her economic security and her decent standard of living if she is unemployed.
So, a capitalist who doesn't make a profit doesn't lose his or her economic security and his or her decent standard of living?

A few hundred thousand former Enron shareholders may doubt that. Because, let's not forget this, the modern capitalist is a shareholder - both institutional and private.

That no one be rich, no one be poor, and everyone be free.
But I wouldn't be free to be rich. I would lose out, quite severely because I would have nothing left to look forward to except neverending mediocrity.

So be it.
Because we all know that enforced stagnation is a good idea, right?

Absolutely not. It should be "work and play."
And it is. You just can't do both at the same time (although many people really enjoy their jobs), so you have to decide when you do them.

How is that much different from it being determined by economic circumstances? In both cases you have little influence over your alternatives, but at least under state socialism the alternatives are more equally distributed.
The difference is that economic circumstances are variable, and not the be-all and end-all. We know that it is quite possible (even if it is difficult) to become rich despite having been poor.
The committee on the other hand will have my arse shot if I resist.

And state socialism has been debunked. Again and again and again.

But did they not help you achieve this self-motivation?
If they did, then they didn't do it by spending a lot of money.

Or more importantly, that his capital is not dependent on the labor of others.

He apparently believes one of two things: either a) a factory owner is perfectly capable of maintaining the operations of his factory on his own, but only hires labor because he is lazy, or b)the possessors of capital are perfectly willing to leave their capital unused.

"Capital" and "capitalist" mean two different things.

So, a capitalist who doesn't make a profit doesn't lose his or her economic security and his or her decent standard of living?

A few hundred thousand former Enron shareholders may doubt that. Because, let's not forget this, the modern capitalist is a shareholder - both institutional and private.

Enron's collapse was not exactly a typical event.

It is undoubtedly true that very small-scale "capitalists" - that is, workers who invest some of their savings in the stock market - can be severely harmed by that sort of thing, but since most of the capital is owned by a very small and very rich minority, this does not apply generally.

But I wouldn't be free to be rich.

And I wouldn't be free to rule. What an imposition!

Wealth is not a right, and countless millions of people are not "free to be rich" today, either.

I would lose out, quite severely because I would have nothing left to look forward to except neverending mediocrity.

Even today only a very tiny minority lives the life of a rich person in the developed world, and for the vast majority of human history no one lived like that. Were they all trapped in "neverending mediocrity"?

Because we all know that enforced stagnation is a good idea, right?

Equality is not "forced stagnation."

And it is.

It is not. If it were, we would not have school systems where smart, talented people fail because they can't bring themselves to care, and we would not have the sort of economic inequality we have today.

The difference is that economic circumstances are variable, and not the be-all and end-all. We know that it is quite possible (even if it is difficult) to become rich despite having been poor.
The committee on the other hand will have my arse shot if I resist.

And theft is illegal under capitalism, too.

And state socialism has been debunked. Again and again and again.

By what? Mindlessly pointing to the Soviet Union and insisting that an indictment of that failure applies generally?

If they did, then they didn't do it by spending a lot of money.

Talking about "spending a lot of money" misses the point, and was not at all what I was addressing.

"Capital" and "capitalist" mean two different things.

If a capitalist is separated from the capital he becomes a laborer, if he is dependent on the capital, he is an exploiter.

Therefore we can determine that, if there exists a problem, it is in the relationship between a capitalist and his capital, in that they become inseparable.

Nevertheless, you should address my main point, that a capitalist doesn't simply hold on to capital, as that will cost him money, and by the leftist definition of "capitalist," he/she requires the labor in order to render value unto the capital.

Therefore, the capitalist is dependent on two things: the labor of others, or his own labor. If he uses his own labor, no exploitation, if he uses the labor of others, then labor has a bargaining chip. Correct?

Enron's collapse was not exactly a typical event.
But corporations failing or losing a lot of shareholder value is.

It is undoubtedly true that very small-scale "capitalists" - that is, workers who invest some of their savings in the stock market - can be severely harmed by that sort of thing, but since most of the capital is owned by a very small and very rich minority, this does not apply generally.
Because being "workers" makes you right, and being "non-workers" makes you wrong. Got it.

Wealth is not a right, and countless millions of people are not "free to be rich" today, either.
Wealth is the product of living one's life a certain way, and the right is to live one's life that way. Wealth is the product of a right.

And seeing as there are no institutional or legal barriers to becoming rich...I'd say that they are free to do so. They'd just have to try for a change.

Even today only a very tiny minority lives the life of a rich person in the developed world, and for the vast majority of human history no one lived like that. Were they all trapped in "neverending mediocrity"?
Well, people can be poor but still relatively rich compared to other people. As far as deriving happiness from wealth is concerned, relative wealth is more important than absolute wealth.
But if you'd force people to be unable to have it better than their fellow man, then yeah, everybody would be mediocre, and that situation would presumably go on indefinitely.

Equality is not "forced stagnation."
Because progress without entrepreneurship is such a common occurence?

It is not. If it were, we would not have school systems where smart, talented people fail because they can't bring themselves to care, and we would not have the sort of economic inequality we have today.
People fail because they choose not to care. It is a choice of either having fun now and work later for less return, or work today and have more fun tomorrow.
You can have both, just not necessarily at the same time.

And theft is illegal under capitalism, too.
That was a bit random, wasn't it?

By what? Mindlessly pointing to the Soviet Union and insisting that an indictment of that failure applies generally?
Not even. Mises has shown the information problem which predicted what happened to every planned economy in history, before the USSR was even around.

Talking about "spending a lot of money" misses the point, and was not at all what I was addressing.
Because you're still being deterministic. If something does not cost a lot of money, poor people can do it just as well as rich people.

If a capitalist is separated from the capital he becomes a laborer, if he is dependent on the capital, he is an exploiter.

No, that is a false dichotomy.

The capitalist can both retain ownership of his capital and not be dependent on it.

Therefore we can determine that, if there exists a problem, it is in the relationship between a capitalist and his capital, in that they become inseparable.

Nevertheless, you should address my main point, that a capitalist doesn't simply hold on to capital, as that will cost him money, and by the leftist definition of "capitalist," he/she requires the labor in order to render value unto the capital.

Therefore, the capitalist is dependent on two things: the labor of others, or his own labor. If he uses his own labor, no exploitation, if he uses the labor of others, then labor has a bargaining chip. Correct?

I did not say that labor has no bargaining chip.

The point is that the capitalist has more alternatives than the worker; he is (usually) much more materially secure, and can walk away from the bargain, or wait it out until there is a better one, with much more ease than the worker can.

But corporations failing or losing a lot of shareholder value is.

Sure.

Because being "workers" makes you right, and being "non-workers" makes you wrong. Got it.

That's not what I said.

Wealth is the product of living one's life a certain way, and the right is to live one's life that way. Wealth is the product of a right.

For the most part, wealth is the product of wealth (both in economic opportunities and in investment) and other people's labor.

This is not always the case, but when it is not, a high degree of natural talent is usually relevant.

And seeing as there are no institutional or legal barriers to becoming rich...I'd say that they are free to do so. They'd just have to try for a change.

Do you think they enjoy being poor?

Well, people can be poor but still relatively rich compared to other people. As far as deriving happiness from wealth is concerned, relative wealth is more important than absolute wealth.

No, relative material equality is important. Relative material inequality may be culturally valued, but it is not in itself all that important to living a decent life. Being good at something is, but that "something" need not be accumulating fancier cars than everyone else.

But if you'd force people to be unable to have it better than their fellow man,

In terms of material wealth and power, yes.

then yeah, everybody would be mediocre, and that situation would presumably go on indefinitely.

I find your opinion that material wealth is the only way to distinguish yourself to be very narrow.

Because progress without entrepreneurship is such a common occurence?

Because entrepreneuership has ever depended on making entrepeneurs obscenely rich?

People fail because they choose not to care.

In a sense, yes... and slaves remained slaves because they "chose" not to escape.

The fact that it is theoretically possible to do otherwise is not sufficient.

It is a choice of either having fun now and work later for less return, or work today and have more fun tomorrow.

The problem is the distinction between "work" and "fun" itself, and in the quantity of work required for fun.

That was a bit random, wasn't it?

No, it wasn't. Every society restricts certain paths to success.

Not even. Mises has shown the information problem which predicted what happened to every planned economy in history, before the USSR was even around.

Mises depended on the notion that socialism cannot make use of market mechanisms, did not seriously consider other ways of figuring out what people want besides markets, and ignored the possibility that the most "efficient" solution may not in fact be the best one.

Because you're still being deterministic. If something does not cost a lot of money, poor people can do it just as well as rich people.

Poverty is not merely composed of material deprivation, but also of its consequences - greater stress, increased work, increased vulnerability to crime, worse access to schooling, etc.

No, that is a false dichotomy.

The capitalist can both retain ownership of his capital and not be dependent on it.

For one thing, "dependent" is a flexible term. While he may not be solely dependent upon his capital (I don't even think Marx himself would say that owners don't provide some labor value to the final product), his present economic standing can be dependent in at least some measurable part to his capital.

For another, it is only a false dichotomy if you cannot differentiate between the capitalistic side and the laboring side of an economic entity. I doubt you will say that the laboring side of the entity (that which truly earns what it recieves) is problematic, rather, the capitalist side (that which creates wealth through his control of capital) is where your gripe resides.

Now, if there exists a capitalist side that does create wealth because it controls the capital (and not through his own labor), it stands to reason that this side would require some labor to give the capital some sort of value.

This means that, to be a capitalist, or to maintain capitalist aspects, the economic entity must acquire labor that is not his own. Therefore there would be a meeting of two negotiators who possess something that the other definitely needs.

Otherwise there exists no capitalist (exploiter) - laborer (exploitee) relationship.

I did not say that labor has no bargaining chip.

The point is that the capitalist has more alternatives than the worker; he is (usually) much more materially secure, and can walk away from the bargain, or wait it out until there is a better one, with much more ease than the worker can.

In the end, the cost of labor and investment is largely standardized in the market, so there is no economic benefit in holding out on investment on the part of the capitalist.

For one thing, "dependent" is a flexible term. While he may not be solely dependent upon his capital (I don't even think Marx himself would say that owners don't provide some labor value to the final product), his present economic standing can be dependent in at least some measurable part to his capital.

For another, it is only a false dichotomy if you cannot differentiate between the capitalistic side and the laboring side of an economic entity. I doubt you will say that the laboring side of the entity (that which truly earns what it recieves) is problematic, rather, the capitalist side (that which creates wealth through his control of capital) is where your gripe resides.

Now, if there exists a capitalist side that does create wealth because it controls the capital (and not through his own labor), it stands to reason that this side would require some labor to give the capital some sort of value.

This means that, to be a capitalist, or to maintain capitalist aspects, the economic entity must acquire labor that is not his own. Therefore there would be a meeting of two negotiators who possess something that the other definitely needs.

Otherwise there exists no capitalist (exploiter) - laborer (exploitee) relationship.

You are missing the point. Of course the exploitation itself is dependent on there existing a capitalist-laborer relationship, but the exploitative nature of that relationship is not caused by the relationship itself; it is caused by the unequal starting positions of the bargainers.

In the end, the cost of labor and investment is largely standardized in the market, so there is no economic benefit in holding out on investment on the part of the capitalist.

Not necessarily; not every worker has the time to find the best deal, especially if she is already desperate. Furthermore, it is not as if the capitalist acts individually; when the price of labor is high, she will not be the only one to withhold investment.

libertarianism can be easily explained: libertarians are republicans who want to smoke pot.

Mises depended on the notion that socialism cannot make use of market mechanisms, did not seriously consider other ways of figuring out what people want besides markets, and ignored the possibility that the most "efficient" solution may not in fact be the best one.

Mises (and Neo Leonstein) referred to planned economies, which do not make use of market mechanisms.

Information assymetry problems are dealt with through guarantees or lower prices, with consumers delineating the discount line at which they will accept the risk of the product, or the premium they will pay for the guarantee against the risk.

Mises, when referring to planned economies and information assymetry was looking for the most efficient way of determining what people want. He assumed, as we must assume, that efficient, and therefore accurate, calculation of this trade-off of risk requires direct assessment by the interested actors.

In other words, to most accurately determine how the customer wants to handle risk, there must be direct market experience.

Therefore, Mises's entire analysis was a serious consideration of the ways in which to figure out what people want.

Well, this thread proved my hypothesis: most right-libertarians have no sense of humor whenever you start making fun of their ideology. Come on, can't anyone take a joke?
Not when it's not a joke. What you (and Huben, who is a total idiot) did is no different than the idiot xers saying that atheism was the cause of the holocaust and the horrors of communism.

Not necessarily; not every worker has the time to find the best deal, especially if she is already desperate. Furthermore, it is not as if the capitalist acts individually; when the price of labor is high, she will not be the only one to withhold investment.

Capital never sits unused, it is constantly shifted towards its best use.

If one capitalist declines to use his/her capital, then he simply lends it to someone who will.

libertarianism can be easily explained: libertarians are republicans who want to smoke pot.

This is the sort of insult that we are all supposed to get a huge laugh from.

This is the sort of insult that we are all supposed to get a huge laugh from.

that wasn't an insult. I was simply stating it like it is. I am actually very libertarian in my ideals. I, personally, do not smoke pot, but l don't see much of a problem with it.

Mises (and Neo Leonstein) referred to planned economies, which do not make use of market mechanisms.

So? I did not say planned economies, I said state socialism.

IIRC Mises did actually explicitly link the two, and had a (rather poor) argument for why they could not be separated.

Information assymetry problems are dealt with through guarantees or lower prices, with consumers delineating the discount line at which they will accept the risk of the product, or the premium they will pay for the guarantee against the risk.

Mises, when referring to planned economies and information assymetry was looking for the most efficient way of determining what people want. He assumed, as we must assume, that efficient, and therefore accurate, calculation of this trade-off of risk requires direct assessment by the interested actors.

In other words, to most accurately determine how the customer wants to handle risk, there must be direct market experience.

But this is not sufficient, either. It assumes that what consumers buy is the same thing as what consumers actually want.

There is obviously some truth to that assumption, but also glaring weaknesses. If commercial advertisements were replaced, in a state socialist society, with actually informative commercials, certain goods - fast food, cigarettes, etc. - would suffer greatly in sales.

Capital never sits unused, it is constantly shifted towards its best use.

If one capitalist declines to use his/her capital, then he simply lends it to someone who will.

Or uses it for present consumption, or lends it to someone who will, or simply invests it in something other than labor (which may help the consumer, but does not necessarily help the worker.)

that wasn't an insult. I was simply stating it like it is. I am actually very libertarian in my ideals. I, personally, do not smoke pot, but l don't see much of a problem with it.

I would venture to say that a good deal of the libertarians on here despise the republican party, and not simply because of their social authoritarian streak.

I would venture to say that a good deal of the libertarians on here despise the republican party, and not simply because of their social authoritarian streak.

Yes.

I would venture to say that a good deal of the libertarians on here despise the republican party, and not simply because of their social authoritarian streak.

well, you needn't have gotten offended because i'd meant no offense. i love libertarians. some of my best friends are libertarians. in fact, my dog is a libertarian! there's no reason for me not to like them!

libertarian is libertarian...republicans who want to smoke pot.

But this is not sufficient, either. It assumes that what consumers buy is the same thing as what consumers actually want.

No, it assumes that consumers make economic decisions based on what they want. If they buy something that they don't really want, it assumes that the resulting price will provide economic data as to the actual wants and utility judgements of the consumer.

There is obviously some truth to that assumption, but also glaring weaknesses. If commercial advertisements were replaced, in a state socialist society, with actually informative commercials, certain goods - fast food, cigarettes, etc. - would suffer greatly in sales.

We have reached a dead end on advertisement and your guesses as to what objectively appeals to people already.

Or uses it for present consumption, or lends it to someone who will, or simply invests it in something other than labor (which may help the consumer, but does not necessarily help the worker.)

How does the capitalist use the capital for present consumption?

What does a capitalist invest in that does not involve labor?

How do you seperate the worker from the consumer?

"libertarian is libertarian...republicans who want to smoke pot."---Crumpet Stone


and want to keep a separation between church and state, and want to use the military a little less freely, and want to have freedom over their own bodies in all ways (abortions, assisted suicide, smoke pot like you said), and want a smaller government


all in all, makes them as different from republicans as it makes them different from democrats

well, you needn't have gotten offended because i'd meant no offense. i love libertarians. some of my best friends are libertarians. in fact, my dog is a libertarian! there's no reason for me not to like them!

libertarian is libertarian...republicans who want to smoke pot.

Does your dog smoke pot and listen to interviews of Pat Buchanan?

Does your dog smoke pot and listen to interviews of Pat Buchanan?

LOL!

No, it assumes that consumers make economic decisions based on what they want. If they buy something that they don't really want, it assumes that the resulting price will provide economic data as to the actual wants and utility judgements of the consumer.

Yes, but that does not tell us anything certain about whether the consumer is actually satisfied.

Theoretically, for instance, the consumer could buy something that she does not want at all, but but thinks she wants - perhaps she is unaware as to the item's true nature.

We have reached a dead end on advertisement and your guesses as to what objectively appeals to people already.

We have? You've discussed it with others, I don't ever recall arguing it out with you.

Commercial advertisement for dangerous items are immoral simply because trying to manipulate people into doing dangerous things is immoral, even if you do not hold a gun to their heads.

How does the capitalist use the capital for present consumption?

By not investing it at all, but spending it on other things.

What does a capitalist invest in that does not involve labor?

In efficient use of labor rather than additional labor.

How do you seperate the worker from the consumer?

By observing that quite often they are of different classes, or in different locations.

"Does your dog smoke pot and listen to interviews of Pat Buchanan?"---Vittos the City Sacker



are you kidding? a dog wouldn't even play with Pat if you tied a steak around his neck. hmmmm.....not a bad idea.....if you get the rope tied tight enough

Wealth is the product of living one's life a certain way, and the right is to live one's life that way. Wealth is the product of a right.You are correct in that it is true that wealth is the product of a right, but it is a right that is granted by particular governments, and is not inherently a right. Therefore, there is no particular reason that governments, or societies, should grant such rights if it is not in their interests to do so.

Theoretically, for instance, the consumer could buy something that she does not want at all, but but thinks she wants - perhaps she is unaware as to the item's true nature.
And? If the consumer is not satisfied, the consumer will not purchase the item again.


Commercial advertisement for dangerous items are immoral simply because trying to manipulate people into doing dangerous things is immoral, even if you do not hold a gun to their heads.
Cars are dangerous. Thus, car adverts are immoral.

Hint: something is immoral IFF there is an initiation of force involved. Advertising does not qualify. Stop thinking that you are the nanny of everyone. Yes, that is PRECISELY what you think. Don't whine to me about your psychological state that I can easily grasp from your words--it's not my fault that you're transparent enough for me to see it.

You are correct in that it is true that wealth is the product of a right, but it is a right that is granted by particular governments, and is not inherently a right. Therefore, there is no particular reason that governments, or societies, should grant such rights if it is not in their interests to do so.
1. Societies are merely collections of individuals.
2. It is always in the interest of the individual to allow the accumulation of wealth, since it follows logically from the concept of property rights, which of course you acknowledge every time you post (self-ownership). Denial of it is a performative contradiction.

*loves the smell of apriorism in the morning*

1. Societies are merely collections of individuals.
2. It is always in the interest of the individual to allow the accumulation of wealth, since it follows logically from the concept of property rights, which of course you acknowledge every time you post (self-ownership). Denial of it is a performative contradiction.

*loves the smell of apriorism in the morning*Uh, no. I use my body, I do not own it. You do realize it's possible to use something without owning it, right? Since property rights are pseudofreedoms, I see no particular reason why societies should grant them.

Hint: something is immoral IFF there is an initiation of force involved.

Your posts usually do not merit response, but this stuck out for me.

I doubt that any of the people who make this claim actually believe it. If they really do, they are individuals who have abandoned any serious claim to moral decency. They are individuals, for instance, who think it would be morally acceptable to betray a friend, or to blackmail somebody, or to make a desperate person in need of money your slave, or to guilt somebody into serving you, or to prey on someone's insecurities and fears to get them to serve you, even though it is contrary to their welfare and desire.

None of these involve force. All of them are immoral. And this recognition has nothing to do with a "nanny" attitude and everything to do with believing in a society based on human dignity and mutual respect.

I should note that it does not follow from this attitude that all dangerous items should be banned. All it means is that no attempt should be made to encourage or pressure people into partaking of them. Information is one thing, manipulation another.

Your posts usually do not merit response,
....because you never have a response.


I doubt that any of the people who make this claim actually believe it.
I don't care what you doubt.


If they really do, they are individuals who have abandoned any serious claim to moral decency.
Prove it.


They are individuals, for instance, who think it would be morally acceptable to betray a friend, or to blackmail somebody, or to make a desperate person in need of money your slave, or to guilt somebody into serving you, or to prey on someone's insecurities and fears to get them to serve you, even though it is contrary to their welfare and desire.
Preying on someone's insecurities and fears--that's what socialism is all about. It's about telling people that the rich/wealthy/employers are the enemy who only want to kill all the workers with unsafe enviroments and kill the clients with unsafe products. Then the socialist tries to guilt people into serving others by saying "if you don't serve others, you're an immoral slavedriver!"

Don't you feel good knowing that you projected your own stance onto others?


None of these involve force. All of them are immoral.
That has yet to be demonstrated.


And this recognition has nothing to do with a "nanny" attitude and everything to do with believing in a society based on human dignity and mutual respect.
No, it has nothing to do with a society based on human dignity and mutual respect and everything to do with wanting to be a nanny to everyone. If it involved the former, you'd allow freedom of contract and interaction, rather than socialist nonsense.


I should note that it does not follow from this attitude that all dangerous items should be banned.
You said advertising them should be banned. Therefore, car adverts should be banned. Ginsu knife commercials should be banned. Etc.

Uh, no. I use my body, I do not own it.
You own it.


You do realize it's possible to use something without owning it, right?
Yes. But in this case, you also own it.


Since property rights are pseudofreedoms,
Prove it. Also, what basis have you for morality if there are no property rights? Hint: you haven't got one, so don't bother.

Uh, no. I use my body, I do not own it. You do realize it's possible to use something without owning it, right? Since property rights are pseudofreedoms, I see no particular reason why societies should grant them.

Well, then. If you don't own your body, then obviously someone else does. Which means they have the right to use your body, without your permission, because you have no rights to stop them from using something you don't own, for whatever purpose they choose.

How the hell can you NOT own your own body? It's yours, no one elses.

Jello, aren't you one of the many proponents of a womans right to choose? Because that happens to be one of the primary arguments FOR the right to have an abortion. Its' the womans body, therefore she has the right to decide. Her body, she owns it. I don't, you don't, her family doesn't, nor does the church and certainly not the government.

Your body, your life, you own it. A very simple and very basic precept of property ownership and individual rights.

You own it.

Yes. But in this case, you also own it.According to the law, yes. According to reality, no.

Prove it. They are freedoms granted by societies with basis neither in objectivity nor in consistency.

Also, what basis have you for morality if there are no property rights? Hint: you haven't got one, so don't bother.Basically a modified version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in the same situation.

Well, then. If you don't own your body, then obviously someone else does. Which means they have the right to use your body, without your permission, because you have no rights to stop them from using something you don't own, for whatever purpose they choose.No, it's the opposite. Nobody has the right to own anything unless such a right is granted by societies or governments. Since I am arguing that such a right shouldn't be given, nobody owns anything. They do, however, have the right to use things, and since my body is in a perpetual state of use by myself (till I die), I have the right to use it. This doesn't imply exclusive use, other people are allowed to use my body, provided their use for it doesn't interfere with my own.

How the hell can you NOT own your own body? It's yours, no one elses.Why does something have to be the exclusive property of an individual?

Jello, aren't you one of the many proponents of a womans right to choose? Because that happens to be one of the primary arguments FOR the right to have an abortion. Its' the womans body, therefore she has the right to decide. Because she is using it, yes. If she doesn't want to keep the fetus, the fetus is interfering with her rights of use. If she does want to keep the fetus, it is not. (This is an instance of someone else using your body as long as their use doesn't interfere with yours. There aren't many.)

Her body, she owns it. I don't, you don't, her family doesn't, nor does the church and certainly not the government.

Your body, your life, you own it. A very simple and very basic precept of property ownership and individual rights.A simply and basic precept of one concept of property ownership and individual rights. Individual rights can be (and are) separate from property ownership (since the latter is not a right, but individual rights are.)

Basically a modified version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in the same situation.

That is actually the logical conclusion of the Golden Rule in its ordinary form. I do not desire that others act towards me as if I were their mirror image; rather, I desire that they act to fulfill my preferences, even if my preferences are different from theirs. Thus, if I do unto them as if I were doing unto myself, I am not doing unto them as I would have them do unto me.

The Golden Rule, at least in most of its varieties, ends up collapsing into preference utilitarianism, and suffers from the same flaws.

That is actually the logical conclusion of the Golden Rule in its ordinary form. I do not desire that others act towards me as if I were their mirror image; rather, I desire that they act to fulfill my preferences, even if my preferences are different from theirs. Thus, if I do unto them as if I were doing unto myself, I am not doing unto them as I would have them do unto me.I know, but if you say simply the Golden Rule to people, you get responses like 'But what if I like to be spanked?'

The Golden Rule, at least in most of its varieties, ends up collapsing into preference utilitarianism, and suffers from the same flaws.Well, there are short-term preferences, and there are long-term preferences, as well as short and long-term conseqences and capacities. People can't do things that are beyond their capacities to do, including their capacities to live with the consequences, so I think the Golden Rule is a little bit more than just preference utilitarianism. With that said, I can see how other people might not want to or be able to have the Golden Rule as the basis of their morality.

I doubt that any of the people who make this claim actually believe it. If they really do, they are individuals who have abandoned any serious claim to moral decency. They are individuals, for instance, who think it would be morally acceptable to betray a friend, or to blackmail somebody, or to make a desperate person in need of money your slave, or to guilt somebody into serving you, or to prey on someone's insecurities and fears to get them to serve you, even though it is contrary to their welfare and desire.

None of these involve force. All of them are immoral.

That has yet to be demonstrated.

have i ever mentioned how much i love libertarians? i mean, honestly, how many ideologies are there that can so easily get their adherents to give up on even pretending to be decent human beings? even stalinists and fascists try to pretend like its all for some greater good.

Well, there are short-term preferences, and there are long-term preferences, as well as short and long-term conseqences and capacities. People can't do things that are beyond their capacities to do, including their capacities to live with the consequences, so I think the Golden Rule is a little bit more than just preference utilitarianism.

I don't follow. Preference utilitarianism recognizes the duration of preferences, just as it recognizes their intensity and quantity; all of those are supposed to be taken into account. It's true that most people can't live according to preference utilitarianism, but the same is true of the Golden Rule.

It's true that the Golden Rule is more than preference utilitarianism, but not in its implications so much as in its foundation. It is a more intuitive notion, one with almost universal acceptance.

With that said, I can see how other people might not want to or be able to have the Golden Rule as the basis of their morality.

I don't want to. What if the "other" is a bigot? Should I respect her bigoted desires the same way I respect my non-bigoted ones?

According to the law, yes. According to reality, no.
According to reality, too.


They are freedoms granted by societies with basis neither in objectivity nor in consistency.
Prove it.


Basically a modified version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in the same situation.
That assumes that you own yourself. Good going--you've stolen the concept!


No, it's the opposite. Nobody has the right to own anything unless such a right is granted by societies or governments.
Prove it.


Since I am arguing that such a right shouldn't be given, nobody owns anything. They do, however, have the right to use things,
Where do they get that right if they do not own themselves? Oh that's right--they can't. Great job! You've screwed yourself over.


and since my body is in a perpetual state of use by myself (till I die), I have the right to use it. This doesn't imply exclusive use, other people are allowed to use my body, provided their use for it doesn't interfere with my own.
And since this isn't possible, making such a statement is, of course, absurd.


Why does something have to be the exclusive property of an individual?
Your eyes aren't exclusively in your head? Did you fail biology and human anatomy?


A simply and basic precept of one concept of property ownership and individual rights. Individual rights can be (and are) separate from property ownership (since the latter is not a right, but individual rights are.)
No, you cannot separate them. Individual rights are property rights. They are indissoluable.

have i ever mentioned how much i love libertarians? i mean, honestly, how many ideologies are there that can so easily get their adherents to give up on even pretending to be decent human beings?
Wow--think you could have presented an argument to go with that? Oh that's right--stalinists like you just kill their opponents. How'd'ya like that?

Next time, you might want to come up with a real argument rather than just a smear. It will help you IMMENSELY.

I doubt that any of the people who make this claim actually believe it. If they really do, they are individuals who have abandoned any serious claim to moral decency. They are individuals, for instance, who think it would be morally acceptable to betray a friend, or to blackmail somebody, or to make a desperate person in need of money your slave, or to guilt somebody into serving you, or to prey on someone's insecurities and fears to get them to serve you, even though it is contrary to their welfare and desire.

Libertarians also take a stance against fraud.

It is also important to note that most libertarians believe that it is immoral for an external entity to forcefully maintain loyalty between friends, or forcefully uphold obligations between two unrelated individuals, not that those are actually moral acts.

All of them are immoral.

To quote the king of useless posts: "Prove it."

have i ever mentioned how much i love libertarians? i mean, honestly, how many ideologies are there that can so easily get their adherents to give up on even pretending to be decent human beings? even stalinists and fascists try to pretend like its all for some greater good.

To echo my previous post: libertarians believe it is up to the person to be what they, you, or society considers a "decent human being".

Libertarians also take a stance against fraud.

blackmailing your grandmother requires neither force nor fraud, merely knowledge.

Libertarians also take a stance against fraud.

It is also important to note that most libertarians believe that it is immoral for an external entity to forcefully maintain loyalty between friends, or forcefully uphold obligations between two unrelated individuals,

There are limits to the rightful sovereignty of that external entity, but that is a separate question from the morality of the act.

I could see an argument saying that prohibiting advertisement would have the effect of restraining free speech, and as such the state should not do it; fine. That does not change my conclusion that a system which provides vast incentives to manipulate people is a system that is highly flawed.

not that those are actually moral acts.

In what sense are they not?

To quote the king of useless posts: "Prove it."

They are all abuses of power. They are situations where an imbalance of power permits you to harm or exploit another human being, and because you have a moral obligation to treat them as beings with human dignity and moral worth, not as mere means to your ends, you cannot morally do so.

blackmailing your grandmother requires neither force nor fraud, merely knowledge.
And having knowledge isn't immoral. Nor is telling others what you know. Nor is offering not to share your knowledge in exchange for something.

And having knowledge isn't immoral.

No, it isn't.

Nor is telling others what you know.

It can be. Telling a murderer where her intended victim is hiding is immoral. Revealing something that will severely embarass or harm another is immoral, unless there is some compelling reason to do so.

Nor is offering not to share your knowledge in exchange for something.

Yes, it is. It is simple exploitation. If there is a good reason to reveal the information, you should reveal it regardless of whether or not you are paid. If there is not, you shouldn't reveal it even if you are not paid not to do so. To make your non-revelation contingent on payment is an abuse of power.

They are all abuses of power. They are situations where an imbalance of power permits you to harm or exploit another human being, and because you have a moral obligation to treat them as beings with human dignity and moral worth, not as mere means to your ends, you cannot morally do so.
Prove it. Don't presume your conclusion in your statement--actually create some sort of logical series of statements that defends your position.

There are limits to the rightful sovereignty of that external entity, but that is a separate question from the morality of the act.

Very true.

In what sense are they not?

Blackmailing, betrayal, enslavement?

I suppose they are immoral because we have innate emotional reactions and conditioned social behaviors that cause us to define them as such.

They are all abuses of power. They are situations where an imbalance of power permits you to harm or exploit another human being, and because you have a moral obligation to treat them as beings with human dignity and moral worth, not as mere means to your ends, you cannot morally do so.

Often in those cases, the imbalance of power is as much the fault of the exploitee, as the exploiter.

Although your moralistic argument has the beautiful appearance of common sense.

It can be. Telling a murderer where her intended victim is hiding is immoral.
No, it isn't.


Revealing something that will severely embarass or harm another is immoral,
No, it isn't.


Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.


It is simple exploitation.
No, it isn't.

You just keep making unsupported assertions, and I'll just keep gainsaying you.


If there is a good reason to reveal the information, you should reveal it regardless of whether or not you are paid. If there is not, you shouldn't reveal it even if you are not paid not to do so. To make your non-revelation contingent on payment is an abuse of power.
No, it isn't.

Prove it. Don't presume your conclusion in your statement--actually create some sort of logical series of statements that defends your position.

Purely "logical series of statements" generally tend to be irrelevant to morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-Ought_Problem) - at least without starting moral propositions, which are never fully justified logically.

Typically, so-called "solutions" to this problem, including the ones you tend to indulge in, amount to mere equivocation.

Blackmailing, betrayal, enslavement?

I suppose they are immoral because we have innate emotional reactions and conditioned social behaviors that cause us to define them as such.

That is an explanation, not a justification.

Often in those cases, the imbalance of power is as much the fault of the exploitee, as the exploiter.

This does not really alter the morality of the act. Human dignity is inalienable.

Edit: Though in such cases, my problem would not be as much with the imbalance of power as it would be with the abuse of it.

Purely "logical series of statements" generally tend to be irrelevant to morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-Ought_Problem)
Except I didn't reference is/ought. Try again.


- at least without starting moral propositions, which are never fully justified logically.
They are justified apodictically.


Typically, so-called "solutions" to this problem, including the ones you tend to indulge in, amount to mere equivocation.
No they don't.

This does not really alter the morality of the act. Human dignity is inalienable.
You don't have the right to have dignity. You can make a fool of yourself. Ergo, you do not have such a right.

No, it's the opposite. Nobody has the right to own anything unless such a right is granted by societies or governments. Since I am arguing that such a right shouldn't be given, nobody owns anything. They do, however, have the right to use things, and since my body is in a perpetual state of use by myself (till I die), I have the right to use it. This doesn't imply exclusive use, other people are allowed to use my body, provided their use for it doesn't interfere with my own.

The difference is that, unlike with material goods, the connection of use between you and your body is complete and inalienable.

If I use a field, I could conceivably permanently leave it, and if I did, I would have no right to it. If I use a well, another could conceivably use it without infringing upon my use, and I would have no right to stop her. But I cannot leave my body even temporarily, let alone permanently, and it is impossible to use another's body without conceivably infringing upon their use of it - unlike a well, a body has a multitude of uses, pretty much all of which are essential to human needs and freedom.

Thus, the rights of use, applied to oneself, imply everything that self-ownership implies.

Except I didn't reference is/ought. Try again.

Both self-evident logical propositions and empirical fact are in the realm of "is."

Neither can lead to "ought."

They are justified apodictically.

No moral proposition is self-evident.

That is an explanation, not a justification.

I suppose you have a justification? You were the one berating the morality of libertarians.

This does not really alter the morality of the act. Human dignity is inalienable.

C'mon now, you know better than that, human dignity is no more inalienable than that of an insect.

I suppose you have a justification? You were the one berating the morality of libertarians.

They are immoral because they do not properly recognize the worth and dignity of others.

Our recognition of that dignity is indeed tied to our natural emotions and social conditioning, but this does not bother me; what matters is that it is intuitive, and thus it has the character, though not the truth value, of a self-evident proposition as far as people for whom it is intuitive go.

C'mon now, you know better than that, human dignity is no more inalienable than that of an insect.

An insect does not have "dignity" in the moral sense; it does not have the qualities that make a human one of the set of beings that cannot (justly) be treated in certain ways.

...This doesn't imply exclusive use, other people are allowed to use my body, provided their use for it doesn't interfere with my own.



And how would this be? Give me an example. (And don't say anything about reproduction; fetuses are not sentient until Week 19; before then, they are parasitic lumps of associated cells.)

Both self-evident logical propositions and empirical fact are in the realm of "is."

Neither can lead to "ought."
Once again, I didn't say anything about is/ought. Please kill your strawman.


No moral proposition is self-evident.
Didn't say it was. But they are justified via apriorism in the sense of it is a priori true that you own yourself. It all goes from there.

Hint: you really need to brush up on your reading comprehension ability.

They are immoral because they do not properly recognize the worth and dignity of others.
You're confusing morality and aesthetics.

They are immoral because they do not properly recognize the worth and dignity of others.

Our recognition of that dignity is indeed tied to our natural emotions and social conditioning, but this does not bother me; what matters is that it is intuitive, and thus it has the character, though not the truth value, of a self-evident proposition as far as people for whom it is intuitive go.

OK

An insect does not have "dignity" in the moral sense; it does not have the qualities that make a human one of the set of beings that cannot (justly) be treated in certain ways.

And what qualities would those be, and how do they make us inseperable from our dignity?

Once again, I didn't say anything about is/ought. Please kill your strawman.

No, I did, in response to your request for a logical set of statements that prove the point.

If the is-ought barrier holds true, and it is also true that self-evident logical propositions are in the realm of "is", then neither self-evident logical propositions nor anything stemming from them can be used to justify a moral "ought."

Didn't say it was. But they are justified via apriorism in the sense of it is a priori true that you own yourself. It all goes from there.

It is absolutely not a priori true that you own yourself, unless you wish to equivocate about "ownership."

If it were really a priori true that you own yourself, then it would be pointless to speak of protecting self-ownership as some sort of moral imperative.

And what qualities would those be, and how do they make us inseperable from our dignity?

It is not that the qualities make us inseparable from our dignity, rather that our dignity is founded in those qualities, and if those qualities are inseperable from us, then our dignity is similarly inseperable from us.

The exact qualities are basically the ones that define personhood - rationality, autonomy in the "free will" sense, and sentience.

You're confusing morality and aesthetics.

They are, vaguely, the same kind of thing; they are both expressions of taste and value.

That said, we intuitively separate them, and for good reason; perhaps the clearest illustration of this is that while our aesthetic tastes apply to what we experience, our moral tastes tend to apply universally.

No, I did, in response to your request for a logical set of statements that prove the point.
Ok, but that doesn't have anything to do with is/ought. Try again.


It is absolutely not a priori true that you own yourself,
Yes it is.


If it were really a priori true that you own yourself, then it would be pointless to speak of protecting self-ownership as some sort of moral imperative.
No it wouldn't.

When you have more than something I can just gainsay, let me know. Your simplistic prose is, well, pedestrian.

They are, vaguely, the same kind of thing; they are both expressions of taste and value.

That said, we intuitively separate them, and for good reason; perhaps the clearest illustration of this is that while our aesthetic tastes apply to what we experience, our moral tastes tend to apply universally.
And you have an aesthetic problem with blackmail, not a moral one. No one has the right to not have bad things about them not known. So you are confusing aesthetics with morality.

Ok, but that doesn't have anything to do with is/ought. Try again.

Read the whole thing.

If the is-ought barrier holds true, and it is also true that self-evident logical propositions are in the realm of "is", then neither self-evident logical propositions nor anything stemming from them can be used to justify a moral "ought."

Yes it is.

How so?

No it wouldn't.

When you deny that if we have x quality, we cannot simultaneously be denied x quality, you have passed into lunacy.

Edit: I suppose you could claim that the rights of self-ownership are an a priori truth, but you have not even demonstrated that.

Read the whole thing.
I did.


How so?

From Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

Whether or not persons have any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course of argumentation (propositional exchange). Justification – proof, conjecture, refutation – is argumentative justification. Anyone who were to deny this proposition would become involved in a performative contradiction, because his denial would itself constitute an argument. Even an ethical relativist, then, must accept this first proposition, which has been accordingly referred to as the a priori of argumentation.

...it follows from the a priori of argumentation that everything that must be presupposed in the course of an argumentation – as the logical and praxeological precondition of argumentation – cannot in turn be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming thereby entangled in an internal (performative) contradiction. Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating propositions, but rather constitute a specific human activity. Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the standing room occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything and expect the other party to convince himself of the validity of this proposition or else deny it and propose something else, unless his and his opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and standing rooms were already presupposed and assumed as valid. In fact, it is precisely this mutual recognition of the proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in his own body and standing room which constitutes the characteristicum specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one may not agree regarding the validity of some specific proposition one can agree nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees.

Moreover, this right to property in one’s own body and its standing room must be considered a priori (or indisputably) justified by proponent and opponent alike. For anyone who wanted to claim any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent would already have to presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over their respective body and standing room simply in order to say "I claim such and such to be true, and I challenge you to prove me wrong." [So much for John Rawls’ claim, in his celebrated Theory of Justice, that we cannot but "acknowledge as the first principle of justice one requiring an equal distribution (of all resources)," and his comment that "this principle is so obvious that we would expect it to occur to anyone immediately." What I have demonstrated here is that any egalitarian ethic such as this proposed by Rawls is not only not obvious but must be regarded instead as absurd, i.e., as self-contradictory nonsense. For if Rawls were right and all resources were indeed equally distributed, then he literally would have no leg to stand on and support him in proposing the very nonsense that he does pronounce.]

Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to engage in argumentation and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments, if one were not allowed to own (exclusively control) other scarce means (besides one’s body and its standing room). For if one did not have such a right, then we would all immediately perish and the problem of justifying rules – as well as any other human problem – simply would not exist. Hence, by virtue of the fact of being alive, property rights to other things must be presupposed as valid, too. No one who is alive could possibly argue otherwise.


When you deny that if we have x quality, we cannot simultaneously be denied x quality, you have passed into lunacy.
And how PRECISELY am I doing that?


Edit: I suppose you could claim that the rights of self-ownership are an a priori truth, but you have not even demonstrated that.
You never asked. You just made some blatant assertion, against which I simply chose to gainsay.

I did.

And chose to ignore it.

Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the standing room occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything and expect the other party to convince himself of the validity of this proposition or else deny it and propose something else, unless his and his opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and standing rooms were already presupposed and assumed as valid.

This is obviously equivocation.

It does indeed require that "both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies."

It does not require the extra word that is slipped into the next sentence, that "his and his opponent's right to exclusive control over their respective bodies... were already presupposed and assumed as valid."

The fact of exclusive control is not the same thing as the right to exclusive control.

It is quite obvious that I can control something I have no right to control, and that someone can recognize this control without recognizing my right to it. I can accept that slave-owners used force to control their slaves without accepting that they had a right to do so.

In fact, it is precisely this mutual recognition of the proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in his own body and standing room which constitutes the characteristicum specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one may not agree regarding the validity of some specific proposition one can agree nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees.

Again, a factual claim, one that has nothing to do with morality. I can grant that my opponent has control over (or identity with) her mind, and thus can meaningfully disagree with me, without accepting that she ought to have such control.

See why I brought up is-ought?

[So much for John Rawls’ claim, in his celebrated Theory of Justice, that we cannot but "acknowledge as the first principle of justice one requiring an equal distribution (of all resources)," and his comment that "this principle is so obvious that we would expect it to occur to anyone immediately." What I have demonstrated here is that any egalitarian ethic such as this proposed by Rawls is not only not obvious but must be regarded instead as absurd, i.e., as self-contradictory nonsense. For if Rawls were right and all resources were indeed equally distributed, then he literally would have no leg to stand on and support him in proposing the very nonsense that he does pronounce.]

Does he give a page number for this Rawls quote, out of curiosity? I'm doubting his interpretation.

Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to engage in argumentation and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments, if one were not allowed to own (exclusively control) other scarce means (besides one’s body and its standing room). For if one did not have such a right, then we would all immediately perish and the problem of justifying rules – as well as any other human problem – simply would not exist. Hence, by virtue of the fact of being alive, property rights to other things must be presupposed as valid, too. No one who is alive could possibly argue otherwise.

More equivocation, of the same sort as before.

"Exclusive control" may imply ownership, but not the rights of ownership (which he and you are trying to prove), merely the fact of ownership (which, any sane person would grant, exists). Of course, attaining necessities does not require ownership, either, but that is another discussion.

And chose to ignore it.
Nope.


This is obviously equivocation.
Nope.


It does indeed require that "both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies."

It does not require the extra word that is slipped into the next sentence, that "his and his opponent's right to exclusive control over their respective bodies... were already presupposed and assumed as valid."
It does, otherwise you have a performative contradiction.


The fact of exclusive control is not the same thing as the right to exclusive control.
In the case of the body, it is.


It is quite obvious that I can control something I have no right to control,
Yes, which just proves his point.


and that someone can recognize this control without recognizing my right to it. I can accept that slave-owners used force to control their slaves without accepting that they had a right to do so.
Yes. So what?


Again, a factual claim, one that has nothing to do with morality.
Yet it has everything to do with morality. For without self-ownership, you have no valid basis for morality. None. Period.


I can grant that my opponent has control over (or identity with) her mind, and thus can meaningfully disagree with me, without accepting that she ought to have such control.
Then you'd have to demonstrate that there would be some other way for the thoughts to get there.


See why I brought up is-ought?
No, since it doesn't apply.


Does he give a page number for this Rawls quote, out of curiosity? I'm doubting his interpretation.
I'm not caring that you doubt it.


More equivocation, of the same sort as before.
Except it isn't.


"Exclusive control" may imply ownership, but not the rights of ownership (which he and you are trying to prove), merely the fact of ownership (which, any sane person would grant, exists).
Exclusive control of the body does. It is you. Without your body, there is no you. And without the right of ownership of you, someone else could own you or remove parts of you without your consent and there isn't thing-one that could be done.

Only if you enjoy strawmen and lies. But that's all socialists have to offer.

I was just cruising this thread to see if it was at all interesting, but I have to say that this made my day.

Irony is so sweet.

It does, otherwise you have a performative contradiction.

What's the contradiction?

In order for me to argue with someone, I must assume that she is controlling her own vocal cords and mind. If I did not assume this, on what basis would I make the connection between her and the argument? I would be arguing, but pointlessly; the act of argument rationally requires that there be someone with which to argue. I'm willing to grant this (though I might quibble that this merely demonstrates that I must assume that someone is controlling her mind and vocal cords, not that she is.)

Now, you and Hans-Hermann Hoppe want me to take a second step; you want me to say that because I acknowledge that she in fact has such control I must assume she has a right to such control. This is nonsense. There is no necessary connection; "is" does not mean "ought." You have not yet explained why I should bat an eyelash at, say, using a mind control machine to control her actions. All this would do is change the fact; it would no longer be rational to me to argue with her, because she would be under my control.

Her qualities are altered. But you have yet to demonstrate that a right is violated.

I should note that even if it does require accepting the right to self-ownership of the person with whom I am arguing, it does not require accepting anyone else's right to self-ownership.

In the case of the body, it is.

Why?

Yes, which just proves his point.

No, it disproves it. I can acknowledge that someone or something is someone else's property without accepting the owner's right to that property.

Yet it has everything to do with morality. For without self-ownership, you have no valid basis for morality. None. Period.

Let's say this is true (it's not). Why can't I say that what one ought to do is bring about a circumstance where there are no "oughts"?

Then you'd have to demonstrate that there would be some other way for the thoughts to get there.

What "other way"? I have already granted that she has control over her mind; that is a perfectly legitimate way for "the thoughts to get there." What I need not grant is that she ought to have such control over her mind. It's true that once she lacks such control, it would be pointless to argue with her, but so what?

No, since it doesn't apply.

Every relevant argument Hoppe invoked rested either on a logical leap from "is" to "ought" or on an ambiguous term that can imply either.

I'm not caring that you doubt it.

If you quote another's argument in support of yours, you should be prepared to defend it.

Exclusive control of the body does. It is you. Without your body, there is no you.

Yes, but self-ownership implies a good deal more than that required for my existence.

I could exist, for instance, without having control over my limbs and vocal cords; I do in fact exist without having control over my heart beat and a large number of other bodily functions. Certainly, I could exist if someone were compelling me to do something at gunpoint. (That is the second point of equivocation in the self-ownership argument; control in the "free will" sense over one's actions does not translate into non-coercion. Someone being robbed can always choose to be shot instead of giving up her money.)

And without the right of ownership of you, someone else could own you or remove parts of you without your consent and there isn't thing-one that could be done.

So?

And how would this be? Give me an example. (And don't say anything about reproduction; fetuses are not sentient until Week 19; before then, they are parasitic lumps of associated cells.)Most uses of another's body would require them to alter their use consentually. There are a couple of exceptions. For instance, if someone is standing in such a way that I can hide behind them and be blocked from view by another person who might be looking for me. Naturally, I would want the person I am hiding behind to stay there, but I don't need their permission to stand behind them and use them as something to hide behind.
I do realize that it's a silly example, but you asked for one.

I don't follow. Preference utilitarianism recognizes the duration of preferences, just as it recognizes their intensity and quantity; all of those are supposed to be taken into account. It's true that most people can't live according to preference utilitarianism, but the same is true of the Golden Rule.

It's true that the Golden Rule is more than preference utilitarianism, but not in its implications so much as in its foundation. It is a more intuitive notion, one with almost universal acceptance.Of course, all of the preferences of a particular individual aren't necessarily possible to know, either.

I don't want to. What if the "other" is a bigot? Should I respect her bigoted desires the same way I respect my non-bigoted ones?Not in the same way, no. Naturally the Golden Rule would not mean that the person who is 'doing unto others' need to do so in a way that is beyond her capacity. I should think doing unto others in this case would be beyond yours. :)

The difference is that, unlike with material goods, the connection of use between you and your body is complete and inalienable.

If I use a field, I could conceivably permanently leave it, and if I did, I would have no right to it. If I use a well, another could conceivably use it without infringing upon my use, and I would have no right to stop her. But I cannot leave my body even temporarily, let alone permanently, and it is impossible to use another's body without conceivably infringing upon their use of it - unlike a well, a body has a multitude of uses, pretty much all of which are essential to human needs and freedom.

Thus, the rights of use, applied to oneself, imply everything that self-ownership implies.I am fine with the things that self-ownership implies, it is the concept of ownership itself that I reject.

Prove it.I have yet to hear an objective, consistent justification of the rights of ownership. I can only assume that one doesn't exist.

That assumes that you own yourself. Good going--you've stolen the concept!No, again, it assumes that I have the rights of use - which I do.

Prove it.Ownership is granted by societies and governments because without societies and governments, you simply have the right to use. Ownership is much more than the right to use.

Where do they get that right if they do not own themselves? Oh that's right--they can't. Great job! You've screwed yourself over.All species have the instinct to live, and in order to live they must use resources. If I am living alone on a deserted island, I will do so, too.

And since this isn't possible, making such a statement is, of course, absurd.No, it's called being consistent. You should try it sometime.

Your eyes aren't exclusively in your head? Did you fail biology and human anatomy? They are exclusively in my head, but that doesn't mean I have the right to use them exclusively. If it's possible for someone else to find a way to use them that doesn't infringe upon or interfere with my use of them, they have the right to do so.

No, you cannot separate them. Individual rights are property rights. They are indissoluable.Of course you can. Individual rights exist, whether they are legal or not. Property rights do not exist, except in a legal capacity.

I was just cruising this thread to see if it was at all interesting, but I have to say that this made my day.

Irony is so sweet.
And what is ironic about the truth?

What's the contradiction?
You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

Game. Set. Match.

You. Lose.


Now, you and Hans-Hermann Hoppe want me to take a second step; you want me to say that because I acknowledge that she in fact has such control I must assume she has a right to such control. This is nonsense. There is no necessary connection; "is" does not mean "ought."
I fail to see why you keep bringing that up when it has nothing to do with anything. Do you just liking bringing up irrelevancies? Do you enjoy red herrings? I'm getting the feeling that you do.


Her qualities are altered. But you have yet to demonstrate that a right is violated.
On the contrary: I have.


I should note that even if it does require accepting the right to self-ownership of the person with whom I am arguing, it does not require accepting anyone else's right to self-ownership.
Since other people are so using their own bodies, it follows naturally. Unless, of course, you don't grasp logical consequences--which it seems that you do not.


Why?
Your body is yours always. It's not external to you. It's not something you have to actually go out and get--it's there as a given always. There are always processes happening in you. Always work being done. Always data being processed. The metaphyisical fact of your existence coupled with purposeful actions on your part (movement, the attempt to sustain your life either by your efforts or by letting someone know that you need something, such in the case of an infant crying) create the condition.


No, it disproves it.
Prove it.


I can acknowledge that someone or something is someone else's property without accepting the owner's right to that property.
Self-contradictory.


Let's say this is true (it's not).
It is.


Why can't I say that what one ought to do is bring about a circumstance where there are no "oughts"?
You're the only one bringing up that. You get to answer it. Of course, you'll be arguing with yourself and talking about something that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, i.e. a red herring.


What "other way"?
Precisely.


I have already granted that she has control over her mind; that is a perfectly legitimate way for "the thoughts to get there." What I need not grant is that she ought to have such control over her mind.
Then you need to find another way for the thoughts to get there.


Every relevant argument Hoppe invoked rested either on a logical leap from "is" to "ought" or on an ambiguous term that can imply either.
Prove it.


If you quote another's argument in support of yours, you should be prepared to defend it.
I should?


Yes, but self-ownership implies a good deal more than that required for my existence.

I could exist, for instance, without having control over my limbs and vocal cords; I do in fact exist without having control over my heart beat and a large number of other bodily functions. Certainly, I could exist if someone were compelling me to do something at gunpoint. (That is the second point of equivocation in the self-ownership argument; control in the "free will" sense over one's actions does not translate into non-coercion. Someone being robbed can always choose to be shot instead of giving up her money.)
And?


So?
So you thus admit that without self-ownership, there is no valid basis at all for morality. None.

I have yet to hear an objective, consistent justification of the rights of ownership.
Liar.


No, again, it assumes that I have the rights of use - which I do.
Where does that right come from?


Ownership is granted by societies and governments
Prove it.


because without societies and governments, you simply have the right to use.
Where does that right come from?


All species have the instinct to live, and in order to live they must use resources. If I am living alone on a deserted island, I will do so, too.
That doesn't answer where the right to use comes from. Answer the question. Don't just beg your own question.

If you demand of me that I justify my stance, you'd damned well better justify yours. Or else you're a hypocrite.


No, it's called being consistent.
That's a laugh. You wouldn't know what that is even if you took a good shit.


They are exclusively in my head, but that doesn't mean I have the right to use them exclusively.
Then demonstrate how someone else can use them. Now.


Of course you can.
Of course you can't. Individual rights are property rights.

That doesn't answer where the right to use comes from. It comes from my capacity to use things.

Then demonstrate how someone else can use them. Now.If it were possible for them to, then they could. Simply because it is currently impossible doesn't mean that it always will be.

You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

Game. Set. Match.

You. Lose.


So then, are you linking right to use to the ability to use? If you are, then we can presume that rights are fundamentally pointless.

What is the problem with exchanging "punch someone" with "use your vocal cords"? By punching someone without asking permission first, we are presuming the right to do so, making our denial of that right a contradiction.

What occurs in situations where merely talking (or yelling for help) results in punishment?

It comes from my capacity to use things.
I can use your body, therefore I have the right to. Hey--you just endorsed slavery!


If it were possible for them to, then they could. Simply because it is currently impossible doesn't mean that it always will be.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.

So then, are you linking right to use to the ability to use?
I'm linking the fact that we each have direct and undeniable control over our own bodies with the right of self-ownership.


If you are, then we can presume that rights are fundamentally pointless.
That would be a non sequitur.


What is the problem with exchanging "punch someone" with "use your vocal cords"?
You tell me.


By punching someone without asking permission first, we are presuming the right to do so, making our denial of that right a contradiction.
How interesting. Too bad for you that I'm not saying anything like that.

I'm linking the fact that we each have direct and undeniable control over our own bodies with the right of self-ownership.

And if some use of our body will result in punishment exceeding the utility of the use?

You tell me.

How interesting. Too bad for you that I'm not saying anything like that.

Alright, here we go, either state that we have the natural right to punch others or explain what is wrong with this statement:

"You must presume that you have the right to punch someone. Otherwise, you must get permission to do it. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction."

And if some use of our body will result in punishment exceeding the utility of the use?
Please re-phrase.


Alright, here we go, you explain what is wrong with this statement:
Why? It's your statement--you explain what's wrong with it. Don't foist your crap on me.

Please re-phrase.

We both agree that a person has ultimate control over his vocal cords, but if he/she is told not to speak, under punishment of death, does he still have the right to use his vocal cords?

Why? It's your statement--you explain what's wrong with it. Don't foist your crap on me.

I say that, if we use that for a justification for natural rights, then natural rights are pointless. It implies that we have a natural right to punch people, but we obviously won't allow the right to punch people.

In the end, the problem is with your equivocation of control with right to use. You do have control over whether you attempt to punch someone, but by libertarian credo, you shouldn't have the right.

And it was your statement to begin with.

We both agree that a person has ultimate control over his vocal cords, but if he/she is told not to speak, under punishment of death, does he still have the right to use his vocal cords?
Yes. That someone can trample on your rights doesn't mean you don't have them. To suggest otherwise is a flagrant non sequitur.


I say that, if we use that for a justification for natural rights, then natural rights are pointless.
Natural rights in what precise sense?


It implies that we have a natural right to punch people,
Prove it.


In the end, the problem is with your equivocation of control with right to use.
Prove that there is such an equivocation.

And no, it wasn't my statement to begin with.

Prove it.

And no, it wasn't my statement to begin with.

You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction. (trying to prove the contradiction of assuming control over something without the right to use it)

You must presume that you have the right to punch someone. Otherwise, you must get permission to do it. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

You are in a sticky situation (although you will never admit it), and you must do one of three things:

1. Admit that punching someone in the face is a natural right, and should always be allowed because of it.

2. Admit that what you call natural rights are nothing more than capabilities, that true "rights" are obligations between people, and as such are not contingent on whether one presumes they have the right.

3. Explain what is the difference between your and my statements, and why that difference states that punching someone isn't a natural right.

You are in a sticky situation
Prove that I am.

Prove that I am.

Now see, that is funny.

EDIT: But I cannot prove that it was funny, it was just my subjective opinion.

You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

There are so many problems with this that it's hard to know where to begin.

Well, firstly, you wish to make an individual, circumstantial judgment both applicable to all people and to all circumstances, whatever the relevant factors that may interfere. Your position thus misses potential positions that would acknowledge the legitimacy of self-control in this circumstance but would not extend it universally:

1. Utilitarianism. If my current self-control over my body maximizes the greater happiness (as it could theoretically in this case), then I am justified in it; no contradiction. If, however, it were to occur that the greater happiness needed to be pursued by violating someone's self-control, then there is nothing logically incoherent about saying that in that circumstance, it need not be respected.
2. A simple denial of moral relevance in this case. I could argue that everything done to the body by anyone is acceptable. It is not wrong for me to use my vocal cords and mind, but it is also not wrong for another to seize control of them. This does mean that two people can be both justified in in doing things that oppose each other, but this is a problem that your moral theory certainly does not solve, with its assertion that morality is irrelevant if there is no initiation of force.

"Ownership" does not merely imply the right to use, it implies the exclusive right to use, the right to use at the expense of everyone else's right to use. Do not equivocate between the two; it is a common failing of right-wing libertarians.

And you're still failing to distinguish between "is" and "ought." Honestly, you repeat again and again that it's irrelevant, but you prove again and again that it is. The fact that I do use my vocal cords does not mean that I ought to use my vocal cords. It isn't even true that it means I must assert that I have a right to use my vocal cords; I can, after all, claim that while I do in fact use my vocal cords, it is morally wrong for me to do so. (This is a slightly subtler application of is-ought; the fact that I am a person who uses my vocal cords does not mean that I ought to be such a person, or even that I must claim that I ought to be such a person.) This makes me morally imperfect, not logically incoherent. Nor is it true that my mere assertion makes it true. Even if I would need to assert it in accordance with my use of my vocal cords (and I wouldn't), the fact that I accept that I have a given right does not mean that I do in fact have that right, no more than stealing requires that I in fact have the right to steal.

Since other people are so using their own bodies, it follows naturally. Unless, of course, you don't grasp logical consequences--which it seems that you do not.

But I am not having an argument with them, so this control of theirs is irrelevant to me.

Your body is yours always. It's not external to you. It's not something you have to actually go out and get--it's there as a given always. There are always processes happening in you. Always work being done. Always data being processed. The metaphyisical fact of your existence coupled with purposeful actions on your part (movement, the attempt to sustain your life either by your efforts or by letting someone know that you need something, such in the case of an infant crying) create the condition.

Is-ought. If there were a way to alienate the self from the body, you have not demonstrated that we ought not to do so, merely that it would change the circumstances. And if all self-ownership requires is that we respect that which is necessarily true, it is irrelevant to morality.

Self-contradictory.

Laughable. I can accept that someone is doing something she has no right to do. If I cannot, the whole concept of "rights" is pointless.

You're the only one bringing up that. You get to answer it. Of course, you'll be arguing with yourself and talking about something that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, i.e. a red herring.

I was pointing out an example of a logically coherent moral position that would advocate violating self-ownership even if it is in fact required for morality. That is directly relevant to your argument.

Then you need to find another way for the thoughts to get there.

No, I don't. I agree on the facts; the thoughts get there through the connection between her and her mind. I disagree on the right; there is nothing to say that she ought to have such a connection.

I think the reason you do not understand the relevance of is-ought is that you do not understand is-ought yourself.

Prove it.

That's what I've been doing.

I should?

If you want to be intellectually honest, yes. Which, of course, you don't; like a toddler, you loudly insist that you are right and that everyone else "loses", and are unwilling to seriously consider any other point of view.

And?

Merely that a denial of self-ownership does not imply a denial of my right to exist.

So you thus admit that without self-ownership, there is no valid basis at all for morality. None.

No, I don't.

Now see, that is funny.

EDIT: But I cannot prove that it was funny, it was just my subjective opinion.

heh

watch out though, talking to bawaa for much longer can start to have serious impacts on your mental health.

Now see, that is funny.
Only if you think that your desire to have me argue against your strawman is funny. If that's the case, I'd question your sense of humor.

heh

watch out though, talking to bawaa for much longer can start to have serious impacts on your mental health.
Awwwwww....poor baby.

Only if you think that your desire to have me argue against your strawman is funny. If that's the case, I'd question your sense of humor.

I think it is your refusal to see what is plainly obvious, actually.

There are so many problems with this that it's hard to know where to begin.
Except that there are no problems.


Well, firstly, you wish to make an individual, circumstantial judgment both applicable to all people and to all circumstances, whatever the relevant factors that may interfere.
Of course.


Your position thus misses potential positions that would acknowledge the legitimacy of self-control in this circumstance but would not extend it universally:
No it doesn't.


1. Utilitarianism.
Is bullshit.


2. A simple denial of moral relevance in this case.
Then you'd have to demonstrate it.


I could argue that everything done to the body by anyone is acceptable. It is not wrong for me to use my vocal cords and mind, but it is also not wrong for another to seize control of them.
One wonders how this is metaphysically possible.


"Ownership" does not merely imply the right to use, it implies the exclusive right to use, the right to use at the expense of everyone else's right to use.
That presumes that others have the right to use it.


Do not equivocate between the two;
I haven't.


it is a common failing of right-wing libertarians.
No it isn't.


And you're still failing to distinguish between "is" and "ought."
No I'm not. You're the one bringing it up when it doesn't apply.


But I am not having an argument with them, so this control of theirs is irrelevant to me.
Then you are the one not extending it universally. How does it feel to project?



Is-ought.
Prove it.


If there were a way to alienate the self from the body,
Which there isn't.


Laughable.
Not in the least.


I can accept that someone is doing something she has no right to do.
Then you admit to self-ownership. Thus, your position is self-contradictory. You can't even grasp that--how sad.


I was pointing out an example of a logically coherent moral position that would advocate violating self-ownership even if it is in fact required for morality.
No, you were not. You were bringing up something that is not at all related to the argument.


No, I don't.
Absolutely you do need to demonstrate that there is another way for thoughts to occur. If you do not, you have no metaphysical basis for even raising the possibility. So please--demonstrate.


I think the reason you do not understand the relevance of is-ought is that you do not understand is-ought yourself.
Except that I do, and you do not.


That's what I've been doing.
No, you've been arguing against something of your own creation.



If you want to be intellectually honest, yes.
And since I have been, your claim is flawed. However, like a toddler you insist that if you repeat something that makes it true.


Merely that a denial of self-ownership does not imply a denial of my right to exist.
Actually, it does. Without self-ownership, you have no right of existence because it is your existence. It's intertwined.


No, I don't.
Then provide the basis for morality without self-ownership.

Why can't you people EVER do that? Is it too much to ask that you back your claims?

I think it is your refusal to see what is plainly obvious, actually.
You're seeing things which aren't there. Hallucinations can be medically dealt with.

I can use your body, therefore I have the right to. Hey--you just endorsed slavery!Not at all. To paraphrase your argument: Since other people have the capacities to use their own bodies, it follows naturally that slavery is unacceptable. Otherwise, I am not applying the principle universally.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.How so?

Not at all. To paraphrase your argument: Since other people have the capacities to use their own bodies, it follows naturally that slavery is unacceptable.
Sorry, but you can't use MY argument to support YOUR position, since you DENY my position. Otherwise, you're stealing the concept.


How so?
You're arguing that since we haven't proven otherwise, it must be true. Textbook AfI.

Sorry, but you can't use MY argument to support YOUR position, since you DENY my position. Otherwise, you're stealing the concept.I can use the basis of your argument for my own. Your argument doesn't go wrong on its first step, it goes wrong later down the line. Since I agree with the first step, I am perfectly capable of using it in my argument.

You're arguing that since we haven't proven otherwise, it must be true. Textbook AfI.No, I'm arguing that human rights transcend current technological barriers. It doesn't matter if it's ever possible for someone else to use my eyes in a way that doesn't interfere with my use of them for them to have the right to do so when it becomes possible.

I can use the basis of your argument for my own.
No you can't, since you haven't demonstrated the "right to use".


No, I'm arguing that human rights transcend current technological barriers.
No, you're grasping at metaphysically impossible straws.


It doesn't matter if it's ever possible for someone else to use my eyes in a way that doesn't interfere with my use of them for them to have the right to do so when it becomes possible.
What gives them that right? Why can't you answer that?

Then you'd have to demonstrate it.

No, I wouldn't.

Honestly, what is so hard for you to understand? You are trying to demonstrate self-ownership. I have shown that the premises which you claim lead to self-ownership do not lead to self-ownership at all; they are also consistent with various statements that deny self-ownership. I don't need to prove them, because I am not advancing any moral theory, I am attacking your argument for yours.

You may say that utilitarianism "is bullshit," but you have not proved that, you have merely asserted it. You have not yet given a sound argument for why self-ownership should be accepted over utilitarianism. Whether or not I think utilitarianism is a decent moral theory (for what it's worth I have my problems with it), it still is perfectly consistent with someone claiming that they have a right to self-control in a given circumstance (when arguing with you) but not always (and thus no inalienable right to self-ownership.) Since the only argument you have advanced is one depending on a logical leap between that given circumstance and every given circumstance, that is a perfectly legitimate objection.

One wonders how this is metaphysically possible.

How is it not? Perhaps a better way of putting it would be, I have the right to try to control myself, but not to actually control myself, and everyone else has the same right regarding me.

You have not yet demonstrated that your notion of rights is more valid than that notion of rights.

That presumes that others have the right to use it.

It does, but you have not yet demonstrated that we should not presume that. You have not proven anything.

Then you are the one not extending it universally. How does it feel to project?

I do hold that moral principles should be universalized, but I do not delude myself by holding that it is a position founded in logic.

Which there isn't.

Okay, let's say you're right. How, then, can anyone's right to self-ownership be violated? If all it means is that I cannot morally alienate another's self from her body (as your argument implies), and I in fact cannot do so, then you cannot use self-ownership as a justification for any right that can in fact be violated (say, property rights, or the right to bodily autonomy, or the right to not be a slave, or the right not to be killed, and so on.)

Then you admit to self-ownership. Thus, your position is self-contradictory. You can't even grasp that--how sad.

Is-ought. I admit that she does in fact possess the capabilities implied by ownership; I deny that this has anything to do with rights.

Absolutely you do need to demonstrate that there is another way for thoughts to occur. If you do not, you have no metaphysical basis for even raising the possibility. So please--demonstrate.

If violating self-ownership is impossible, then self-ownership is irrelevant to morality, and you cannot use it to justify opposing something that is possible (theft and murder, for instance.) For if I cannot violate self-ownership, how can you say that I am in fact violating it?

If violating self-ownership is possible, then the right to self-ownership cannot merely be based on the fact of self-ownership. For if I can in fact alienate her from her mind, then the mere fact that right now her mind is not alienated from herself does not mean that I ought not to alienate it.

Either way, you are wrong.

Actually, it does. Without self-ownership, you have no right of existence because it is your existence. It's intertwined.

You mean self-ownership cannot be violated without the person whose self-ownership is violated ceasing to exist?

So I can do anything to another person, as long as I do not make her cease to exist?

Then provide the basis for morality without self-ownership.

Why can't you people EVER do that? Is it too much to ask that you back your claims?

Morality. Is. Not. Provable.

The basis for my morality is founded in human dignity; human beings are part of a set of beings with certain qualities entitling them to moral worth. I am obligated to grant them consideration as such.

What gives them that right? Why can't you answer that?

You haven't demonstrated any right, either.

You are confusing my exercise of self-ownership in a certain circumstance with my acceptance of the right to self-ownership in that circumstance. You are confusing my acceptance of the right to self-ownership in that circumstance with the actual existence of the right to self-ownership in that circumstance. You are confusing the actual existence of the right to self-ownership in that circumstance with the actual existence of the right to self-ownership in all circumstances.

And, stubbornly, you refuse to see this; you persist, making exactly the same fallacies as before after they have been clearly pointed out to you. You are not making an argument, you are merely repeating yourself.

Only if you think that your desire to have me argue against your strawman is funny. If that's the case, I'd question your sense of humor.

It just gets funnier when you tell me I am arguing against a strawman when I am using your words with a minor subsitution, and even given you ample opportunity to explain why the substitution is not valid.

Unless you explain why the substitution of "punch someone" for "use your vocal cords" is invalid, then I can say that I am refuting your argument to the letter.

No you can't, since you haven't demonstrated the "right to use". I don't need to, Hans Hermann Hoppe already did. (And thank you for posting the argument.)

"Whether or not persons have any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course of argumentation (propositional exchange). Justification – proof, conjecture, refutation – is argumentative justification. Anyone who were to deny this proposition would become involved in a performative contradiction, because his denial would itself constitute an argument. Even an ethical relativist, then, must accept this first proposition, which has been accordingly referred to as the a priori of argumentation.

...it follows from the a priori of argumentation that everything that must be presupposed in the course of an argumentation – as the logical and praxeological precondition of argumentation – cannot in turn be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming thereby entangled in an internal (performative) contradiction. Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating propositions, but rather constitute a specific human activity. Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the standing room occupied by their bodies"

The last sentence is where he goes wrong. Simply because one person has the right use their vocal cords, etc. in a particular instance does not mean that they have the right to use them exclusively.

No, you're grasping at metaphysically impossible straws.And you are attacking an irrelevant part of my argument.

What gives them that right? Why can't you answer that?It is the logical continuation of the right to use, but not to exclusive use.

No, I wouldn't.
Actually, you would. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You can't just state something is possible and expect people to believe you. It didn't work for Anselm, and it won't work for you.


Honestly, what is so hard for you to understand? You are trying to demonstrate self-ownership. I have shown that the premises which you claim lead to self-ownership do not lead to self-ownership at all;
You've demonstrated no such thing.


You may say that utilitarianism "is bullshit," but you have not proved that, you have merely asserted it.
And that should disturb you why, given your lack of evidence for any of your claims?


How is it not?
How is it metaphysically possible for someone to intrude on your thoughts or directly insert themselves into your thoughts?


It does, but you have not yet demonstrated that we should not presume that.
I have.


You have not proven anything.
I have. You're merely projecting your own failings to me.


I do hold that moral principles should be universalized, but I do not delude myself by holding that it is a position founded in logic.
You've yet to prove that it is a delusion.


Okay, let's say you're right. How, then, can anyone's right to self-ownership be violated?
Goalpost shifting. First you ask how someone can alienate the self from the body, i.e. split the two. Have a self without a body/body without a self. Now you're asking how can self-ownership be violated. Two different concepts, little one. Don't equivocate.



Is-ought.
Prove it.


If violating self-ownership is impossible, then self-ownership is irrelevant to morality,
Prove it.


If violating self-ownership is possible, then the right to self-ownership cannot merely be based on the fact of self-ownership.
?


You mean self-ownership cannot be violated without the person whose self-ownership is violated ceasing to exist?
No.


Morality. Is. Not. Provable.
Yes. It. Is. Despite. Your. Delusion. That. It. Is. Not.


The basis for my morality is founded in human dignity;
Where do you get that from? It's not properly basic, so you will have to justify it. And without self-ownership, you cannot.

It just gets funnier when you tell me I am arguing against a strawman when I am using your words
You're not using my words.

Unless you demonstrate that you're using my words and using them correctly in context, you're using a strawman.

heh

watch out though, talking to bawaa for much longer can start to have serious impacts on your mental health.

Prove it.

I don't need to,
Yes, you do, since you deny Hoppe.

Now prove that there is such a thing as the right to use WITHOUT presupposing self-ownership. Hint: you can't, so don't try.

You haven't demonstrated any right, either.
Yes, I have.

Now then, do you have anything other than your whining?

*snip*

Enough. This was amusing for a while, but it is pointless to continue; you barely even pretend to be interested in rational argument, and I am not interested in arguing with irrational people.

Enough. This was amusing for a while, but it is pointless to continue; you barely even pretend to be interested in rational argument,
You have yet to present a rational argument. All you have are blatant assertions, which I need do nothing more than gainsay.

Yes, you do, since you deny Hoppe.I deny the conclusion of his argument, not the initial steps.

Now prove that there is such a thing as the right to use WITHOUT presupposing self-ownership. Hint: you can't, so don't try.Uh, Hoppe's argument in favor of self-ownership begins with the fact that people have the capacities to use their vocal cords, brains, etc. Therefore, the right to use my vocal cords precedes the right to self-ownership, and not the other way around.

I deny the conclusion of his argument, not the initial steps.
You can't have the initial steps, since it all works together.


Uh, Hoppe's argument in favor of self-ownership begins with the fact that people have the capacities to use their vocal cords, brains, etc. Therefore, the right to use my vocal cords precedes the right to self-ownership, and not the other way around.
Wrong. They are intertwined.

I consider liberalism (the correct name of this ideology) to be outdated and contrary to our quality of life, and contrary to sustainable development.

So, basically, the Libertarian party of the U.S. is right-wing libertarianism. What's left-wing libertarianism all about?
Anarchism.

Libertarian socially, authoritarian economically.
If economic matters are voted on by everyone in the commune (or hypothetical country, whatever), how is that authoritarian?

Only if you enjoy strawmen and lies. But that's all socialists have to offer.
Socialists gave freedom to the people of Europe in the 20th century. More freedom than we ever had before.

The power difference is largely in your head, you know. If you believe in yourself and the good you're selling (ie your labour), then you may well walk out of an interview thinking "Well, you guys are gonna miss out" rather than "Oh, poor little me didn't get the job".

Why don't you have a better paying job, if it's that easy?

Parents wouldn't always be unavailable if we didn't have all these damn taxes. They have to spend so much time slaving away to pay for the welfare/warfare state, they have no time to rear their children properly.
That's pure bullshit. Back in the days when your disastrous ideology was tried, everyone was working 12-hour days for slave wages.

The warfare state is the result of the incestuous relationship between corrupt big businesses and their political allies. As Dwight Eisenhower would say, the military-industrial complex. As long as the collusion of the state and business - rather than the total separation of the two - continues, we can only expect more wars like Iraq.
Complete separation of business and state is a practical impossibility. Getting rid of regulations won't stop the corporations demanding more global lebensraum, hell they demanded plenty of it back in the 19th century.

You're not using my words.

Unless you demonstrate that you're using my words and using them correctly in context, you're using a strawman.

In response to the Hans Hermann-Hoppe quote, Soheran posted:

It does not require the extra word that is slipped into the next sentence, that "his and his opponent's right to exclusive control over their respective bodies... were already presupposed and assumed as valid."

You replied that it does necessitate the assumption of the right, or there is a performative contradiction. Soheran asked you to explain the contradiction and you responded:

You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

Game. Set. Match.

You. Lose.

Then I used a little reductio ad absurdum, using your words, and stated:

You must presume that you have the right to punch someone. Otherwise, you must get permission to do it. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction

This seems to be a nonsensical result, as it legitimizes the right to use force, which is the one thing that you have said is immoral.

When I implied that you either had to admit your statement was incorrect, that the right to use force is legitimized, or to explain why my substitution of actions was invalid, you asked me to prove it.

You have explained that you gainsay statements that have no backing, but I provided ample reasoning, which you completely ignored.

So now, I will give you the chance to explain away the contradiction:

How did I take you out of context? Was my switch of actions invalid? How can we legitimize the right to action by simply assuming that we can do it, when that legitimizes the use of force?

Prove it.

i refuse on the grounds of self-preservation

Then I used a little reductio ad absurdum,
But you didn't, since you changed the context from use not affecting someone else's use of his/her body/use not affecting someone else's self-ownership to use affecting someone else's use of his/her body/use affecting someone else's self-ownership. It is THAT which caused the strawman.

You. Lose.

You can overcome your problem by ridding your "example" of the context change.

But you didn't, since you changed the context from use to use affecting someone else's use/use affecting someone else's self-ownership. It is THAT which caused the strawman.

Circular. You cannot assume self-ownership in the argument with which you intend to prove it.

Circular.
No, it's not. Not unless you want to say that the a priori is circular. Do you wish to say that?

You can't have the initial steps, since it all works together.No. His argument started from an initial premise (that the person I am arguing with has control over their vocal cords, etc.) to reach the conclusion that this implies self-ownership. I pointed out that his initial premise does not lead to that conclusion.

Wrong. They are intertwined.So then the right to use comes from the right of self-ownership which comes from the right to use? That's circular logic.

But you didn't, since you changed the context from use not affecting someone else's use of his/her body/use not affecting someone else's self-ownership to use affecting someone else's use of his/her body/use affecting someone else's self-ownership. It is THAT which caused the strawman.

This is obviously circular. You are using the assumption of self-ownership to logically prove the assumption of self-ownership.

But I wil roll with it and use some more of your words:

That someone can trample on your rights doesn't mean you don't have them. To suggest otherwise is a flagrant non sequitur.



I also found this while looking for that previous quote:

I'm linking the fact that we each have direct and undeniable control over our own bodies with the right of self-ownership.

It seems that, if your actions are determined in large part by another's self-ownership, that we don't have "undeniable control over our own bodies".

*snip*
Aren't you in favour of property rights? Or do you just disagree with BAWAAKnights' justification of them?

Aren't you in favour of property rights? Or do you just disagree with BAWAAKnights' justification of them?

I believe that there should be property rights, but I don't believe they were natural. Government should provide them as a matter of securing freedom and dignity.

Furthermore, I feel that everything that I create is an extension of me, I don't want a part of me taken away at gunpoint.

And I am convinced that I have never made a more thorough refuting of any argument than I have made of BAAWA's.

This is obviously circular



That's circular logic.



Circular.


The rationalist/a priori nonsense is like that. Wait, you mean that when someone who has an interest in "demonstrating" a particular conclusion gets to pick the initial assumptions (a priori "knowledge") from which to derive that conclusion, the initial assumptions are actually constructed to be most favorable for deriving said conclusion, if not just completely circular outright?!?!?!

Never would have seen that coming.

Actually, I wish I could invent my own evidence; classes and such would be a whole hell of a lot easier (edit: even if entirely useless).

**clears throat and slinks back into shadows**

I believe that there should be property rights, but I don't believe they were natural. Government should provide them as a matter of securing freedom and dignity.
Doesn't this allow for a slippery-slope justification of other rights not viewed as natural, such as say a right to be happy? This is not a natural right - but the government could conceivably enforce it. If the right to property is natural, this can be avoided. I am not of course saying the justifications BAAWA has given are appropriate, but he could simply be attacking the concept from the wrong angle.

The rationalist/a priori nonsense is like that. Wait, you mean that when someone who has an interest in "demonstrating" a particular conclusion gets to pick the initial assumptions (a priori "knowledge") from which to derive that conclusion, the initial assumptions are actually constructed to be most favorable for deriving said conclusion, if not just completely circular outright?!?!?!
If the premises are correct, so is the conclusion. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Or wait, is inductive reasoning somehow innately superior?

Doesn't this allow for a slippery-slope justification of other rights not viewed as natural, such as say a right to be happy? This is not a natural right - but the government could conceivably enforce it. If the right to property is natural, this can be avoided. I am not of course saying the justifications BAAWA has given are appropriate, but he could simply be attacking the concept from the wrong angle.

I don't think that there are any natural rights (at least not by any definition that is meaningful). I think that they are necessarily a trade-off which of course could be a slippery slope, but if the trade-off is contractarian by nature, then we can hope that people get the trade-off they prefer.

The rationalist/a priori nonsense is like that. Wait, you mean that when someone who has an interest in "demonstrating" a particular conclusion gets to pick the initial assumptions (a priori "knowledge") from which to derive that conclusion, the initial assumptions are actually constructed to be most favorable for deriving said conclusion, if not just completely circular outright?!?!?!

Well, no. There are certain kinds of a priori knowledge - the basic assumptions of logic, for instance (x and not x cannot coexist, etc.)

The error comes in when you pretend that certain premises are self-evident when they are clearly not.

Well, no. There are certain kinds of a priori knowledge - the basic assumptions of logic, for instance (x and not x cannot coexist, etc.)

The error comes in when you pretend that certain premises are self-evident when they are clearly not.
Exactly. Basically, if the premises of an argument are correct, the conclusion cannot be incorrect.

Exactly. Basically, if the premises of an argument are correct, the conclusion cannot be incorrect.

assuming it's a deductive argument and there isn't a problem with an inference somewhere

I don't think that there are any natural rights (at least not by any definition that is meaningful). I think that they are necessarily a trade-off which of course could be a slippery slope, but if the trade-off is contractarian by nature, then we can hope that people get the trade-off they prefer.
I suppose not - in a society where all rights were contractarian, like you say, this would be no issue for me. It's that most are not of this nature. Hence the desire for certain rights to be natural.

assuming it's a deductive argument and there isn't a problem with an inference somewhere
Naturally. It's simply silly to claim deductive reasoning is lacking somehow due to this though - each form of logic has an inherent weakness - that doesn't mean they are not appropriate.

Here is the basic argument for libertarianism as I see it.
1. you own yourself
2. so you own your labor
3. so you own the product of your labor
This argument covers the social side (you own yourself government cant regulate beyond protecting others self-ownership)
and the economic side (you own your labor and therefore your property)

My first question is where do the socialist libertarians come from? How do they accept the first premise but deny the conclusions? If the government owns your labor and the product of your labor how do you own yourself? Or would you deny that you do own yourself?

My second question is where is the flaw in my argument? (I'm not saying its perfect but I think its very solid.)

"Man recoils from trouble - from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, &c. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted - it can hardly be called absurd."

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-Bastiat, Definition of Government

If the premises are correct, so is the conclusion.



Humans breathe oxygen
Oxygen is a gas
Chlorine is also a gas
---------------------------------
Therefore, humans must also be able to breathe chlorine


Edit: ...what Free Soviets said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11779591&postcount=189)


Or wait, is inductive reasoning somehow innately superior?


Empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) is innately superior.

Humans breathe oxygen
Oxygen is a gas
Chlorine is also a gas
---------------------------------
Therefore, humans must also be able to breathe chlorine

Wrong. You never said humans breathe gas...

A correct form of this would be A) Humans breathe oxygen B) Oxygen is a gas => C) Humans breathe a gas.



Empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) is innately superior.
Nonsense. It's predictive in nature.

I suppose not - in a society where all rights were contractarian, like you say, this would be no issue for me. It's that most are not of this nature. Hence the desire for certain rights to be natural.

That is why arguments for natural rights are always moralistic fallacies.

I suppose not - in a society where all rights were contractarian, like you say, this would be no issue for me. It's that most are not of this nature.

It's impossible for any society to be of that nature. The very notion of a contract assumes certain rights.

Hence the desire for certain rights to be natural.

What you are getting at here seems to be "inviolable." Certain rights can be inviolable without being inviolable because they are natural.

The error comes in when you pretend that certain premises are self-evident when they are clearly not.

Sure; and when an individual has a particular agenda to push, instances of such pretending are highly likely and far more frequent. The Austrian "school" (and so, I presume, Hoppe) reject observation/empiricism entirely; all of their premises are "self-evident" regardless of any notion of reality. Why? Because this is most convienient to their purposes, of course, and has nothing to do with any real quest for knowledge. This is the basic failure of the (radical) rationalist view that they adopt: desire to push an agenda leads to the creation of nonsense out of thin air.

At the very least, the empiricist's focus on observation of reality stands as a check against such a tendency, as reality exists as it does regardless of my own personal opinion as to the matter (no matter how many blood vessels I burst with mental strain, the sky is still blue).

*snip*
Have you even read what Mises has to say on praxeology?

What you are getting at here seems to be "inviolable." Certain rights can be inviolable without being inviolable because they are natural.
How so exactly?

Here is the basic argument for libertarianism as I see it.
1. you own yourself

I'll give you this, but not on a logical basis; it is founded in a subjective appraisal of human dignity. And I'd say that is not an absolute right.

2. so you own your labor

You own yourself, which means you have the right to choose how and whether to apply your labor.

3. so you own the product of your labor

Doesn't follow from the premises. You own yourself, thus you control your labor; you do not control its effects ("product"). What you make is not you.

In fact, I would say that owning the "product of your labor" in the right-libertarian sense tends to end up violating (1); it makes some people the servants of others, denying them the meaningful autonomy and human dignity that go hand in hand with self-ownership.

That said, there is a good to be found in a lack of alienation between the laborer and her product; it does not have the strength of self-ownership, but it is not something to be recklessly discarded, either. Capitalist society alienates the two just as much as socialism would, though; the worker does not own her product, it is taken by the capitalist. I think this is the inevitable consequence of any society with a complex, large-scale economy and a division of labor.

My first question is where do the socialist libertarians come from? How do they accept the first premise but deny the conclusions? If the government owns your labor and the product of your labor how do you own yourself? Or would you deny that you do own yourself?

The government might own the product of your labor, but it does not own you and does not own your labor. Those are yours. And the government is highly democratic, and organized to meet the collective needs of the population.

My second question is where is the flaw in my argument? (I'm not saying its perfect but I think its very solid.)

Between (2) and (3). Freedom of labor disposal does not translate into the right to own the product of one's labor.

Wrong. You never said humans breathe gas...

A correct form of this would be A) Humans breathe oxygen B) Oxygen is a gas => C) Humans breathe a gas.


Please forgive my lack of expertise in drawing pictures. Nonetheless, the larger point is that the premises can be absolutely true, but the conclusion still need not necessarily follow. The argument is sound only if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them.


Nonsense. It's predictive in nature.


It is also based on observation of reality, which exists as it does regardless of what I think, thus making it far more difficult for one to push a special agenda.

Please forgive my lack of expertise in drawing pictures. Nonetheless, the larger point is that the premises can be absolutely true, but the conclusion still need not necessarily follow. The argument is sound only if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them.
Well of course - therefore the person constructing an argument must take care in doing so.

It is also based on observation of reality, which exists as it does regardless of what I think, thus making it far more difficult for one to push a special agenda.
Poor observation of reality plus the fact that phenomena are by no means ex necessitate repeatable weaken it though with regard to economics. It's useful for the natural sciences, sure, but it's validity weakens if applied to social sciences. Humans are not automatons. Don't be fooled - reality can easily be misconstrued, meaning inductive reasoning too suffers from weaknesses.

How so exactly?

Even a pure utilitarian could make the argument that giving society the power to do certain things to an individual would end up decreasing happiness more than increasing it, and is thus unjustified.

What you have done is given a practical argument (slippery slope) for natural rights; that is not an argument for natural rights so much as it is for treating certain rights as if they were natural, that is, making certain rights inviolable.

Even a pure utilitarian could make the argument that giving society the power to do certain things to an individual would end up decreasing happiness more than increasing it, and is thus unjustified.
How do humanists justify their reasoning then? I am not all that clued up on philosophy, yet.

How do humanists justify their reasoning then?

"Humanist" in what sense?

This is RIGHT Libertarianism.

Left (or Socialist or Communist or whatever) Libertarianism is very different.
i hope fascism doesn't GET the same,
the SAME ethimologies

"Humanist" in what sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism More or less in this sense.


What you have done is given a practical argument (slippery slope) for natural rights; that is not an argument for natural rights so much as it is for treating certain rights as if they were natural, that is, making certain rights inviolable.
Missed this part... so what then would be the basis of making a right as if it were natural? Are the only arguments appropriate for this utilitarian ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism More or less in this sense.

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought.

"Broad category" indeed. Too broad to give you a good answer.

What exactly are you looking for?

Have you even read what Mises has to say on praxeology?

http://www.mises.org/epofe/prefengl.asp


People nurture some confused ideas about a "unified science" that would have to study the behavior of human beings according to the methods Newtonian physics resorts to in the study of mass and motion. On the basis of this allegedly "positive" approach to the problems of mankind, they plan to develop "social engineering," a new technique that would enable the "economic tsar" of the planned society of the future to deal with living men in the way technology enables the engineer to deal with inanimate materials.


Apparently, my desire to acquire knowledge in an objective manner is really just nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize and dominate my fellow man. Yeah, that's a great way to start: invent some nonsense strawman to demonize those who think differently from you.

*takes a moment to crush some throats underneath his heel*


Human action invariably aims at the attainment of ends chosen. Acting man is intent upon diverting the course of affairs by purposeful conduct from the lines it would take if he were not to interfere. He wants to substitute a state of affairs that suits him better for one that suits him less. He chooses ends and means. These choices are directed by ideas.


Mr. Mises himself, however, has no particular agenda to push. Nope.


The objects of the natural sciences react to stimuli according to regular patterns. No such regularity, as far as man can see, determines the reaction of man to various stimuli.


Mr. Mises has never observed a neurosurgical operation, apparently. In an anatomy class I took, we watched a filmed surgical procedure to remove a tumor from a woman's brain. Part of the procedure includes maping the functions of the exposed area of brain, so that the surgical team can minimize the risk of mistake or injury. Simply application of a small electrical probe meant that the surgical team could make her happy, sad, talk in slurred speech, be unable to or change the way she sees, smell, tastes, etc. Not only can the surgical team apply direct stimulus and get the desired reaction, but they can also do so in a standardized and predictable manner across a wide range of individuals (exact sizes of certain areas of individual's brains and such will vary, of course, but the overall means and value of the technique appears universal).

Our own senses are nothing more than electrical signals that interact with our brains, just like that surgeon's probe. Our brains, as far as we an tell the seat of conciousness, is nothing more than a collection of neurons, molecules, atoms...physical stuff which obey the physical and natural laws. As such, they obviously react to stimulus in a predictable and regular manner. Otherwise, saving that woman's life by removing the tumor would have been far to dangerous or even impossible.

To be more blunt, the fact that I can insert a screwdriver into my brain and twist it around really good and probably lose my conciousness and my free will demonstrates the inherent fallacy of Mr. Mises assumption; my conciousness and my free will are both directly tied to the physical world and natural processes. That object that gives me the ability to exercise freedom and will "reacts to stimuli according to regular patterns."

Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that those "regular patterns" can indeed be predicted.


Different individuals, and the same individual at various periods of his life, react to the same stimulus in a different way.


And....? Obviously, as circumstances of situations change, the reaction will change. :eek: Look! When I mix chemicals A and B together, it does X, but when I mix chemicals A and C together it does Y instead! Obviously, chemical processes cannot be predicted and the study of chemistry is useless.


As there is no discernible regularity in the emergence and concatenation of ideas and judgments of value, and therefore also not in the succession and concatenation of human acts,


Please explain the existance of political parties, nations, states, and any other large groups whereby many different individuals come to highly similar, if not the same, conclusions with "discernible regularity" in regards to "ideas and judgements of value."

Just more bogeymen looking to tell you what to do?


History needs to be interpreted by theoretical insight gained previously from other sources.


The subjectivism that embodies the necessary bias in Mr. Mises approach is contained in those four words: "intrepreted by theoretical insight."

"I will discover truth by mixing in my own subjective intrepretation in order to gain the result that I desire." That's really all that I'm hearing.

"Broad category" indeed. Too broad to give you a good answer.

What exactly are you looking for?
Would secular humanism be narrow enough? Essentially any non-utilitarian justification for inviolable rights.

Missed this part... so what then would be the basis of making a right as if it were natural?

Well, that depends on the moral theory you hold to.

Why are you concerned over people requiring you to sacrifice so many of your rights?

Are the only arguments appropriate for this utilitarian ones?

No, not really. But if you accept that rights do not derive from nature in some sense (that is, they are not intrinsic), you must argue that they serve some end that justifies adding them. Vittos said they protect freedom and dignity; others have argued that they serve utilitarian ends. If your justification is strong enough, you could argue that a policy of abridging upon those rights will always interfere with the just ends upon which they are based, instead of just usually, thus making them inviolable.

Would secular humanism be narrow enough?

There are secular humanist utilitarians.

Essentially any non-utilitarian justification for inviolable rights.

Well, there's always Kant's Categorical Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative).

Apparently, my desire to acquire knowledge in an objective manner is really just nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize and dominate my fellow man. Yeah, that's a great way to start: invent some nonsense strawman to demonize those who think differently from you.

*takes a moment to crush some throats underneath his heel*
How does this invalidate that positivism was indeed used in such a way? He is demonstrating a use of it with regard to economics he disapproved of. I think you deliberately misinterpret him.


Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that those "regular patterns" can indeed be predicted.
We are talking about simple neurological reactions here - how can we predict the behaviour of individuals within a society? When he refers to stimuli he refers to those within a society, not in the sense that you mentioned. Biologists such as Steven Pinker have argued that all attempts to predict human behaviour have failed. Determinism is silly.

And....? Obviously, as circumstances of situations change, the reaction will change. :eek: Look! When I mix chemicals A and B together, it does X, but when I mix chemicals A and C together it does Y instead! Obviously, chemical processes cannot be predicted and the study of chemistry is useless.
And if a human A is in situation X, they will unfailingly resort to a certain type of behaviour? Like an automaton? Are you seriously a determinist?


Please explain the existance of political parties, nations, states, and any other large groups whereby many different individuals come to highly similar, if not the same, conclusions with "discernible regularity" in regards to "ideas and judgements of value."
So then certain ideas just arise naturally in a specific succession, much like physical phenomena? He isn't referring to the ideas and judgments of value of the individuals. He is referring to the ideas and judgments themselves.

The subjectivism that embodies the necessary bias in Mr. Mises approach is contained in those four words: "intrepreted by theoretical insight."

"I will discover truth by mixing in my own subjective intrepretation in order to gain the result that I desire." That's really all that I'm hearing.

It makes perfect sense if you consider this too:

Historical events are always the joint effect of the cooperation of various factors and chains of causation. In matters of human action no experiments can be performed.
He is referring to the importance and relevance attached to certain factors. Historians do actually interpret history in this way. They draw on empiricism, a priori theory and their own understanding of the events.

Why are you concerned over people requiring you to sacrifice so many of your rights?
I am not so concerned about this as I am concerned about the logical justification of certain rights.

No, not really. But if you accept that rights do not derive from nature in some sense (that is, they are not intrinsic), you must argue that they serve some end that justifies adding them. Vittos said they protect freedom and dignity; others have argued that they serve utilitarian ends. If your justification is strong enough, you could argue that a policy of abridging upon those rights will always interfere with the just ends upon which they are based, instead of just usually, thus making them inviolable.
So it's essentially just a matter of how you define their end ultimately?

There are secular humanist utilitarians.
I suppose they believe that these rights are essential to serve utilitarian ends?

Well, there's always Kant's Categorical Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative).
I'll give that a look.

I am not so concerned about this as I am concerned about the logical justification of certain rights.

The problem is that all systems of rights are fundamentally rooted in cultural inclinations. If you are looking for some objective, or "natural" justification for a system of rights, you will look forever, or end up defending and untenable position.

So it's essentially just a matter of how you define their end ultimately?

It is essentially just a matter of what you, or society in general, desires as their ends.

I'll give that a look.

It is immensely important. It also appears to make perfect sense on the surface, but is baseless when you separate yourself from those "cultural inclinations" that I referred to earlier.

The problem is that all systems of rights are fundamentally rooted in cultural inclinations. If you are looking for some objective, or "natural" justification for a system of rights, you will look forever, or end up defending and untenable position.
Unless you can discover universal laws of human values I suppose - which is something I doubt that can be done.

It is essentially just a matter of what you, or society in general, desires as their ends.
So a libertarian society I suppose would view personal freedom as its end? I see how this would work, but what I dislike about it is if the given society suddenly changes what it views to be the end.

It is immensely important. It also appears to make perfect sense on the surface, but is baseless when you separate yourself from those "cultural inclinations" that I referred to earlier.
Just from skim-reading it I can see why.

So a libertarian society I suppose would view personal freedom as its end? I see how this would work, but what I dislike about it is if the given society suddenly changes what it views to be the end.

We like absolutes and passing judgement upon other systems and societies, but as long as they are representative of the culture of their respective citizenry, there is nothing we can really say about it.

We like absolutes and passing judgement upon other systems and societies, but as long as they are representative of the culture of their respective citizenry, there is nothing we can really say about it.
So long as I can logically justify the system of rights I support, I suppose it'll have to do.

Here is the basic argument for libertarianism as I see it.
1. you own yourself
2. so you own your labor
3. so you own the product of your labor
This argument covers the social side (you own yourself government cant regulate beyond protecting others self-ownership)
and the economic side (you own your labor and therefore your property)

My first question is where do the socialist libertarians come from? How do they accept the first premise but deny the conclusions? I'm not certain that socialist libertarians accept the first premise, at least not always. I don't accept the concept of self-ownership, and that is what BAAWAKnights was trying to prove. (See page 9 (on a 15-posts-per-page layout) for his argument).

So long as I can logically justify the system of rights I support, I suppose it'll have to do.Which system of rights do you support, and on what basis?

I'm not certain that socialist libertarians accept the first premise, at least not always. I don't accept the concept of self-ownership, and that is what BAAWAKnights was trying to prove. (See page 9 (on a 15-posts-per-page layout) for his argument).

Do you not accept it as a natural right, or do you not accept it at all?

I quite like self-ownership as a positive right.

Which system of rights do you support, and on what basis?
To put it bluntly, a live and let live system of rights - ie rights conferred upon the basis of self-preservation and freedom. For instance, the right to have sexual relations with a man and not be prosecuted for it by some random majority. The basis should be self-evident.

This is obviously circular.
No, it is not.


You are using the assumption of self-ownership to logically prove the assumption of self-ownership.
No, I am not.


It seems that, if your actions are determined in large part by another's self-ownership, that we don't have "undeniable control over our own bodies".
Non sequitur. If you do not have undeniable control over your own body, then someone (or something) else does. But you do have undeniable control over your own body. And simply because there are some actions which would violate someone else's rights doesn't mean that we don't have undeniable control over our own bodies, since we individually are the ones making the decisions to act!

Well, no. There are certain kinds of a priori knowledge - the basic assumptions of logic, for instance (x and not x cannot coexist, etc.)

The error comes in when you pretend that certain premises are self-evident when they are clearly not.
Like "we have the right to human dignity".

Sure; and when an individual has a particular agenda to push, instances of such pretending are highly likely and far more frequent. The Austrian "school" (and so, I presume, Hoppe) reject observation/empiricism entirely;
WRONG!

We Austrians are perfectly fine with empiricism where it should be--the hard sciences.

Next time--don't strawman. It kills your argument.

Non sequitur. If you do not have undeniable control over your own body, then someone (or something) else does. But you do have undeniable control over your own body. And simply because there are some actions which would violate someone else's rights doesn't mean that we don't have undeniable control over our own bodies, since we individually are the ones making the decisions to act!

Tell me where I am misinterpreting you:

You have said:

1. Self-ownership and natural right to action are linked to undeniable self-control.

2. Therefore we have the right to do anything we have undeniable control over.

3. We do have undeniable control over whether we punch someone.

4. We don't have the right to punch someone.

Tell me where I am misinterpreting you:
I've already done that. I'm not going to repeat myself.

WRONG!

We Austrians are perfectly fine with empiricism where it should be--the hard sciences.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Mises to say that he dismisses reality. I am not sure why so many people do so - they simply don't understand the nature of a priori theory. If the premises of a theory are accurate, and it is interpreted logically, it may well reflect reality.

Europa Maxima,

If you have been paying attention to the thread, could you tell me how my last post misinterprets BAAWA?

Europa Maxima,

If you have been paying attention to the thread, could you tell me how my last post misinterprets BAAWA?
This thread is enormous, and I have not paying close attention to your little debate - care to give any links to relevant posts?

This thread is enormous, and I have not paying close attention to your little debate - care to give any links to relevant posts?

This thread is enormous, and I have not paying close attention to your little debate - care to give any links to relevant posts?

This started it:

You must presume that you have the right to use your vocal cords. Otherwise, you must get permission to use them. But since you do not ask such, you presume that you have the right to do so, all the while denying that there is such a right. Stolen concept. Performative contradiction.

Game. Set. Match.

You. Lose.

My first response:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778416&postcount=139

Then in order:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778774&postcount=141
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778799&postcount=142
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778843&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=145
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=146

After some bickering, I summed up the argument so far:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=174

And on it went:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=176
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=180

That previous one is important because he had just stated that one does not have the right to punch someone else, even though they have control over themselves, because it would remove someone else's right to self ownership. To which I pointed out that he said one does not lose rights just because someone "tramples" on them. He ignored it.

To sum it up he made this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=222

And I tried to sum up my interpretation of his argument here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778863&postcount=225



That is a lot to read just to analyze someone else's argument, and it may be largely pointless due to BAAWA's contentiousness.

Europa Maxima,

If you have been paying attention to the thread, could you tell me how my last post misinterprets BAAWA?
Now you have to attempt to get someone else to do your own work? How cowardly!

Now you have to attempt to get someone else to do your own work? How cowardly!

I have found no place where I have misinterpreted you or where you have corrected me. I was hoping that someone else could confirm this for me.

From what I see, BAAWAKnights mentions that you have changed the context from using one's own body for an action which doesn't harm anyone to a context in which the opposite is true. What he seems to mean is that you are inflicting harm upon them without their consent. It is no longer a victimless action, so to speak. The problem I see with this is that given his definition of self-ownership, what would hinder you from using your body in such a manner as you specified, if you have complete and undeniable control over it?

From what I see, BAAWAKnights mentions that you have changed the context from using one's own body for an action which doesn't harm anyone to a context in which the opposite is true. What he seems to mean is that you are inflicting harm upon them without their consent. It is no longer a victimless action, so to speak. The problem I see with this is that given his definition of self-ownership, what would hinder you from using your body in such a manner as you specified, if you have complete and undeniable control over it?
The rights of other people. Here's the thing: that you have complete and undeniable control of your body does not mean that you can't infringe upon others' rights. To state such is a non sequitur. But vittos baby doesn't grasp that. He thinks that just because you CAN do something that you MUST do something. How wrong and stupid he is.

The rights of other people. Here's the thing: that you have complete and undeniable control of your body does not mean that you can't infringe upon others' rights. To state such is a non sequitur. But vittos baby doesn't grasp that. He thinks that just because you CAN do something that you MUST do something. How wrong and stupid he is.
Essentially that is what I inferred as well - that the rights of others would act as a natural limitation.

Out of curiosity, are you a newer nation of Disraeliland's? I've been wondering where he vanished off to.

The rights of other people. Here's the thing: that you have complete and undeniable control of your body does not mean that you can't infringe upon others' rights. To state such is a non sequitur. But vittos baby doesn't grasp that. He thinks that just because you CAN do something that you MUST do something. How wrong and stupid he is.

So this part of my summation of your argument is incorrect:

Self-ownership and natural right to action are linked to undeniable self-control.

as I accounted for:

3. We do have undeniable control over whether we punch someone.

4. We don't have the right to punch someone.

Essentially that is what I inferred as well - that the rights of others would act as a natural limitation.

Except that is incompatible with his justification for natural rights.

He states that natural rights are established in ones undeniable control over his/her actions. If you control your action, you have the right to do it. He also states that another's self-ownership prevents someone from having the right to do so, yet doesn't deny their undeniable control over their actions, thereby denying that control over action provides the right.

I would agree that another's rights act as a limitation on your rights, but that would mean that rights are established by other's obligation, not your control over your actions.

EDIT: Which of course means that for natural rights to exist, there must be some natural compulsion for others to obligate themselves to allow you to do something. This seems very unlikely.

Like "we have the right to human dignity".

Which I never said was self-evident.

Of course, if you had paid the slightest attention to my argument, you would know that already.

Essentially that is what I inferred as well - that the rights of others would act as a natural limitation.
Right, but that doesn't mean of course that you can't swing your arms in a motion with fists. It just means that if you do happen to hit someone without that person first hitting you purposefully, you've violated that person's rights.


Out of curiosity, are you a newer nation of Disraeliland's? I've been wondering where he vanished off to.
No, I'm not.

Which I never said was self-evident.
You've alluded to it. Of course, if you had paid the slightest attention to your own argument, you would know that already.

You've alluded to it.

I have never said anywhere that it is self-evident. I deny that it is self-evident, though I might argue that it is a natural notion of human beings that is found fairly universally, in one form or another.

What you are doing is crafting a straw man argument, which of course is your second favorite tactic, after ludicrous leaps of logic.

Except that is incompatible with his justification for natural rights.

He states that natural rights are established in ones undeniable control over his/her actions. If you control your action, you have the right to do it. He also states that another's self-ownership prevents someone from having the right to do so, yet doesn't deny their undeniable control over their actions, thereby denying that control over action provides the right.

I think what he's trying to get at is that while punching someone in the face infringes upon one of their rights, mere self-ownership does not (that is, the relevant distinction here is not "undeniable control" but rather whether the domain of the right infringes upon another's undeniable control).

Of course, this does not really get him out of the problem, for if the rights of self-ownership mean that others cannot do certain things over which they have undeniable control, the infringment goes both ways; there is a conflict between the right to punch and the right to self-ownership, and he has not yet given a good reason why the right to self-ownership should supercede the other.

All that is assuming the quite absurd notion that "undeniable control" of something gives you rights, which is mere equivocal nonsense; the fact that I have undeniable control of something does not mean that I have the right to maintain that undeniable control.

Of course, this does not really get him out of the problem, for if the rights of self-ownership mean that others cannot do certain things over which they have undeniable control, the infringment goes both ways; there is a conflict between the right to punch and the right to self-ownership, and he has not yet given a good reason why the right to self-ownership should supercede the other.

Which is what I have been saying all along. One's right to self-ownership implies the right to punch, which comes in to conflict with another's self-ownership.

If we assume self-ownership is a natural right based on our "undeniable control" over ourselves, then it renders the naturalness of a right completely meaningless, and establishes rights in terms of the resolution of the conflict of possible rights.

All rights become natural, but only those obligations that others abide are allowed by government.

It is much simpler to assume that are not natural at all, but are socially constructed obligations between people.

All that is assuming the quite absurd notion that "undeniable control" of something gives you rights, which is mere equivocal nonsense; the fact that I have undeniable control of something does not mean that I have the right to maintain that undeniable control.

It completely ignores the nature of rights as obligations between people.

Do you not accept it as a natural right, or do you not accept it at all?

I quite like self-ownership as a positive right.Self-ownership can be a positive right, however for me to agree to this would be inconsistent with my rejection of ownership as a concept. I am willing to agree to much of what self-ownership implies on the basis of use. Perpetual use of one's own body (or of anything) does not imply exclusive use, however, much of what is implied by exclusive use can be protected by perpetual use.
With that said, if a society wishes to grant self-ownership, that's fine, as rights are created by people.

To put it bluntly, a live and let live system of rights - ie rights conferred upon the basis of self-preservation and freedom. For instance, the right to have sexual relations with a man and not be prosecuted for it by some random majority. The basis should be self-evident.I don't have a particular issue with this; the problem is when one's own freedom clashes with the freedoms of others.

Right, but that doesn't mean of course that you can't swing your arms in a motion with fists. It just means that if you do happen to hit someone without that person first hitting you purposefully, you've violated that person's rights.
More or less the inference I made. Other than self-interest and the Golden Rule though, what would inhibit another person a priori from violating another's rights? I believe this is the point Vittos is trying to make. I am more inclined to a natural rights position as is yours but I am not qualified as of yet to enter this debate, so I will leave it at this and observe henceforth.

It is much simpler to assume that are not natural at all, but are socially constructed obligations between people.
All else failing, indeed it is.

I don't have a particular issue with this; the problem is when one's own freedom clashes with the freedoms of others.
For instance?

I have never said anywhere that it is self-evident. I deny that it is self-evident, though I might argue that it is a natural notion of human beings that is found fairly universally, in one form or another.
Then it is self-evident.

What you're doing is saying something and then denying that you're saying it. That's called "lying".

Then it is self-evident.

What you're doing is saying something and then denying that you're saying it. That's called "lying".

You really don't know what you're talking about at all, do you?

Loving your children is fairly universal across human beings; this does not make it self-evident that children deserve to be loved.

For an obvious example of why this logic fails, consider a rational and autonomous species whose members did not love their children and lacked both the social and the natural tendencies to altruism found in human beings. Truths that are actually self-evident - notions of logic - would be accepted by the members of such a species, but most of the moral "truths" most of us accept, and that are found fairly universally across human societies, would not be accepted.

We might call someone who refuses to respect anyone else depraved, but it would be a stretch to call her irrational.

You really don't know what you're talking about at all, do you?
I do. I know that you're simply lying and that I've demonstrated it.

Enjoy wallowing in your own ineptness.

For instance?Well, to give an example, one might be someone yelling through a bullhorn on the street, the sound of which enters your house. Is their freedom of speech more important than your peace and quiet?