Veritas Veritatum. - All Comments

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:11:08 GMT

It's metaethics, so the long-windedness is unfortunately difficult to avoid. R&DU's two books are relatively to the point though, as is Veatch's.

The biggest problem for self-ownership is that it is of the form of a categorical imperative, and that it makes use of universalizability (see Hoppe's defence of it for instance.) Universalizability cannot suffice on its own to get the result we want it to have.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Stephen Forde — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:51:33 GMT

I don't see how this "[mode of analysis] has a better justification than the so-called axiom of self-ownership." I'm not disagreeing. It just isn't apparent to me.

I've mostly read Hoppe and Rothbard, but I've become a little more interested in the neo-Aristotilean approach as a result of it repeatedly coming up on the mises.org forum. I read Rasmussen's "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End". I've started reading Plauch's "Chapter 2: Eudaimonia, Virtue, and the Right to Liberty". Unfortunately though, I find these kinds of works tedious and long-winded, unlike the succinct and pithy style of Rothbard and Hoppe. Are there any neo-Aristotilean works that are straight to the point, so to speak?

And how is this approach superior to the traditional self-ownership axiom?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:04:48 GMT

Henry Veatch's Aristotle: A contemporary appreciation and Rational Man, as well as Rand's Virtue of Selfishness. They're oriented mainly towards non-philosophers. A primer in metaethics might be needed to understand R&DU's works or Veatch's discussion of more advanced topics.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

liberty student — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:52:30 GMT

What is preferred basic material?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:30:19 GMT

It's well worth reading, even if it is advanced, difficult material.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wombatron — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:54:44 GMT

I still haven't read any book-length material by Rasmussen and Den Uyl, but their essays and the references I've seen in Geoffery's dissertation chapters leave me very intrigued, especially their use of Ayn Rand's thought.

re: Good for me, but not for you?

TokyoTom — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:38:06 GMT

For as long as we have a corporations tax, I am afraid we'll just have to live with enduring distinctions between "profit" and "non prift" activities - and the best that we can hope for is to educate that both are equally preference-maximizing activities.

re: Good for me, but not for you?

Chris Q. — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:09:57 GMT

I agree with most your points.

For the lefties, especially here in Europe, money and profit are vulgar words that should be avoided. Using them will erode their well established role as the politicians that care.

As for the comment about non-profits. Why is this a problem?

What right does anyone have to demand profit, or anything else for that matter, from companies?

re: Good for me, but not for you?

cant — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:44:24 GMT

All not-for-profit corporations should be abolished. Wikipedia and Mozilla foundation and others should be turned into for-profit corporations. (Mozilla actually made millions of dollars)

Non-profit corporations are highly corrupt, and most of the wealth goes to the owners.