liberty student: Lilburne: I wouldn't ask a statist such a useless question, or try to prove him wrong by trying to derive "ought" from "is". I might, however, ask him whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" and showing him that he is actually promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement. If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary. Bravo! Bravo!
Lilburne: I wouldn't ask a statist such a useless question, or try to prove him wrong by trying to derive "ought" from "is". I might, however, ask him whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" and showing him that he is actually promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement. If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.
I wouldn't ask a statist such a useless question, or try to prove him wrong by trying to derive "ought" from "is".
I might, however, ask him whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" and showing him that he is actually promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement.
If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.
Bravo! Bravo!
LS I think your'e lost. Not that I disagree with Lilburne, quite possibly I don't, but I know you don't know what you're talking about that's for sure. You've slipped into becoming a tool of the communists quite possibly, but how would you know it or not.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Here's the article I was talking about. Quite interesting and from I've learned from what these terms mean "agent-relative", "subjectivist" (I knew this latter term quite well before I came to this forum cause I was in a forum that professed being subjectivists and some of them had gotten to the point in which if I asked them: "If you saw a person being murdered would you say that is wrong?" the answers from a few of them would be explicitly, "No, I can't say if that is wrong or not.")
Article:
Another sticking point pertains to the view held by both the neoclassicists and the Misesians that we always act rationally, a claim that doesn't mesh well with my own philosophical conclusions. (Mises actually says this in one place but takes it back at another.) But perhaps my most important reservations have to do with the subjective theory of value. As I eventually came to understand it, this theory isn't quite the same as ethical subjectivism in the field of philosophy, although students of Austrian economics often speak as if it were.
For example, in an issue of Austrian Economics Newsletter, Don Balente says that the Austrian approach is most distinct from mainstream economics in its thorough emphasis on the individual decision maker as the focus of scientific analysis. Yet with the values and motives of individuals being entirely subjective it is impossible for an analyst to pass judgment on the optimality of the individual's chosen actions.
This is surely tantamount to ethical or moral subjectivism that if consistently applied would, in my view, thoroughly undermine the decidedly normative claims in favor of individual liberty, as well as any other moral judgments.
My solution hinged on the nature of individual what I learned was being called agent-relative values. This position holds that when people try to figure out what is right for them (what to wear, what to aim for in life, how to deal with others, etc.), they can come up with correct or incorrect answers and many possibilities in between. Not just anything will do; i.e., it is not possible for a person, as subject, to create the right answer for himself ex nihilo. The answer must be discovered in relation to our human individuality and the world. So, yes, for different individuals, the right answers might vary greatly but there are still right and wrong answers for any particular individual in a particular situation.
It is a bit like medicine: some general principles must be observed by everyone, but specific therapies and cures may vary in their utility from person to person, and sometimes drastically so. Values need to fit the person for whom they are of value. This is completely consistent with the fact that there are facts: objectively knowable aspects of reality that must be taken into account in each case.
I suspect that the subjective theory is motivated in part by the seemingly reasonable assumption that if what's right for someone to do is entirely subjective, others cannot know what that right thing is and therefore cannot pretend to be competent to force them to do that right thing. Subjectivism thus appears to be a bulwark against authoritarianism and tyranny.
Alas, if no one can judge what is right, no one can judge what is wrong, either! No one can say that it is wrong to push other people around without any justification! From a subjectivist stance nothing whatever can be said against it. All a person could say is, Well, I subjectively find your brutalizing of that innocent person to be appalling, but of course, on your own subjective values it may be perfectly acceptable. It's the subject's call, so to speak. I once debated this question with Milton Friedman, who said that if anyone could know what is right, that would authorize him to coerce others to follow suit. Some Popperian and existentialist classical liberals also claim this.
I believe the answer is that in order to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, one must do it voluntarily. No moral credit can come to someone who is coerced into doing the right thing, nor blame to someone who is coerced to do what is wrong. As Kant put it, "Ought implies can." But even aside from the question of moral credit or blame, there is the question of whether values are even truly attainable when they are imposed from without by force. Rand argued that an attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes.
If you force someone to marry the 'right' woman, will he be as happy with that woman as he would have had he chosen her on his own? If you force someone to pursue the 'right' career against his wishes, will he pursue it with the same gusto and dedication had he chosen it on his own? Such 'best' outcomes are possible only if the original act of coercion is followed by voluntary acceptance and choosing of the alleged good, as opposed to bitter and resentful submission. If the person is never free to choose 'the good' at any point - good by his own judgment and choice - but has it constantly thrust upon him, his moral and reasoning capacity is essentially ripped away. Yet for human beings this capacity is the means of survival and flourishing.
It isn't that what is good for another person cannot be known, at least sometimes. It's that imposing it by force can easily cause harm to the person being forced precisely because the actual re-quirements of human well-being are thereby treated as irrelevant. Coercion is destructive because it violates our ability to be moral, choosing, rational agents - the very ability that enables us to attain values to begin with.
Compelling others to do one's bidding thus makes sense only when one is dealing with persons who have not yet achieved much capacity for moral choice for example, very young children. And even in the case of children, it's best to foster their independent decision-making as much as possible so that they may develop the moral skills needed to flourish as self-responsible adults.
On this view, it is certainly possible to justify freedom for individual decision-making even if an outsider might reasonably judge that such-and-such decision (e.g., being drunk all the time) is wrong, while another (e.g., showing up on time for a job interview at a company you want to work for) is right. An individualism grounded in a theory of objective values thus supplies us with most of what we need to fend of authoritarianism, whereas the theory of subjective values can all too easily pave the way for the bad guys."
------
There's more to the article and it's a bit long. I haven't read it all, but this caught my eye. It's in line with what I've learned over the years so I thought it would be a good summary piece to post.
Laughing Man: Lilburne: Laughing Man, you're hijacking a thread that was created from your almost hijacking another! Well he is saying something that is completely irrational. I feel the subjective urge to delve deeper into this dileema, so don't criticize my subjective preferences! Gosh! It's almost like you are trying to establish what is objectivitly good and bad on these forums
Lilburne: Laughing Man, you're hijacking a thread that was created from your almost hijacking another!
Laughing Man, you're hijacking a thread that was created from your almost hijacking another!
Well he is saying something that is completely irrational. I feel the subjective urge to delve deeper into this dileema, so don't criticize my subjective preferences! Gosh! It's almost like you are trying to establish what is objectivitly good and bad on these forums
I don't know what's going on with Lilburne here. It's like everybody needs a hug group or something. I think your discussion with lam. is on-point of what this thread is about. At least Lam. came out and said how the NAP might possibly not be applicable in certain situations - at least he's trying to meet the topic of the OP.
wilderness:LS I think your'e lost.
Or, perhaps I am seeing more clearly than you. I've certainly not become dogmatic about values the way you have.
It's tough when people evolve past your way of thinking, I know. But you can either keep up, or be left behind. Some minds are only capable of accepting ideas as dogma, others are able to reason around ideas to advance them.
So far, I've seen plenty of attacking (even this response, in which you don't even claim to know if you agree, only to make a claim about my understanding which you obviously cannot support as more than conjecture) but you haven't made a compelling case for your position.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: wilderness:LS I think your'e lost. Or, perhaps I am seeing more clearly than you. I've certainly not become dogmatic about values the way you have. It's tough when people evolve past your way of thinking, I know. But you can either keep up, or be left behind. Some minds are only capable of accepting ideas as dogma, others are able to reason around ideas to advance them. So far, I've seen plenty of attacking (even this response, in which you don't even claim to know if you agree, only to make a claim about my understanding which you obviously cannot support as more than conjecture) but you haven't made a compelling case for your position.
I asked you a question - how would you know if communism came your way or not?
As for your post above I think your overanalyzing this and being too emotional obviously. As for my brief comment about "I think you're lost" that was a brief comment that is questioning your assumptions and then I laid out a question to get a feel for what your assuming. Obviously you didn't answer the question because of some emotional or intellectual need of yours - who knows. So quit with the non sequiturs and actually address the points. Cause your looking more like the troll than I.
It's obvious that you and Lilburne are using terms dishonestly. I've figured it out with Lilburne that I think what he's trying to say is quite a lot different than the real meanings of the common knowledge terms he uses. So address the semantics that have blown this out of proportion or lay off.
Besides the fact that it is essentially Austrian economics 101: a man who gives in to coercion in a transaction prefers the state of affairs where the threat won't be realized, assuming the honestly of the coercer, compared to a world where the thread, again assuming the honestly of the coercer, will, and hence makes a psychic profit in the transaction.
Now compare to a transaction where there was no force. Would the coerced party still act the same?
To darkness I condemn you...
wilderness:I asked you a question - how would you know if communism came your way or not?
And I chose to ignore it. You're not entitled to make your case under inquisition. You've already made claim to know what I do and do not know before any further questioning. Make your case.
wilderness:As for your post above I think your overanalyzing this and being too emotional obviously.
Likely another set of claims you cannot back up.
wilderness:As for my brief comment about "I think you're lost" that was a brief comment that is questioning your assumptions and then I laid out a question to get a feel for what your assuming.
"I think you're lost" is not a question. It is a statement. You're trying to undermine me in debate, by indicating I don't know what I am talking about. The burden on you is to prove that. Also, "you're lost" could be seen as an attempt to personalize the discussion as you have recently been wont to do.
wilderness:Obviously you didn't answer the question because of some emotional or intellectual need of yours - who knows.
Still unable to make your point, now you infer that I am being irrational as a further means to undermine my position which you claim to know better than myself. Will a proof be forthcoming?
wilderness:So quit with the non sequiturs and actually address the points.
Indeed.
wilderness:Cause your looking more like the troll than I.
You're the one calling people liars and accusing them of lying when they disagree with you, in many cases, without substantively addressing their position. You're also the one carrying the debate across threads, and promoting it where it has no relevance to the topic at hand. I've never asked you to engage in debate on this topic with me, and yet you seem to feel I owe you some explanation.
But again, since you claim to know my position better than I, it does seem somewhat redundant for you to want to debate it with me, yes?
wilderness:It's obvious that you and Lilburne are using terms dishonestly.
You have failed to prove that.
wilderness:I've figured it out with Lilburne that I think what he's trying to say is quite a lot different than the real meanings of the common knowledge terms he uses.
In other words, he's better educated on the topic.
wilderness:So address the semantics that have blown this out of proportion or lay off.
You responded to me first in this thread. You responded to me first in the union thread. You responded to me first in the roads thread.
Who should lay off?
quote from article above that lays out the semantics gone overboard:
" As I eventually came to understand it, this theory isn't quite the same as ethical subjectivism in the field of philosophy, although students of Austrian economics often speak as if it were.
This is surely tantamount to ethical or moral subjectivism that if consistently applied would, in my view, thoroughly undermine the decidedly normative claims in favor of individual liberty, as well as any other moral judgments."
So what seems to be going on here is a use of ethical subjectivism thinking it's the same as the Austrian economics subjective value - but it's not. To cross over ethical subjectivism into politics or philosophy to be more precise is to not understand the terms ethical subjectivism that have been used in philosophy for some time and to change it's meaning with a lack of knowledge on what that concept actually means. Cause it most definitely means anything goes and when a person murders another person a witness adhering to ethical subjectivism can't object to the murderer. The E.S. can state they don't feel that's appropriate, but the E.S. person can't lay objection to the murderers own ethical subjectivism - it is not a crime in E.S. It can't be a crime in E.S. Cause the murderers feelings according to E.S. are his own subjective valuation and can't be called wrong nor right. They just are the murderers own ethical subjective feelings.
L.S. I started to read your post, but I'm not reading the rest of it. You've obviously got something emotional going on or something - I question it, but obviously idk - hence it's a question. It's not worth my time to digress to child's play. So whatever else you may have said - maybe you said something actually productive - idk. I did see that "I call people lies when I disagree with them" - and yet that's an unfounded assertion by you hypocrite. I never said it's because I disagree with him. I said it's lying on his part to assert that simply because somebody thinks these rationally thinking people are somehow to blame for all the world's woes. You've gone down a path in this forum that is unbecoming and completely irrational. So go spittoon in somebody elses can until you want to talk a bit more civilized.
I simply asked if you would know if communism came to you or not, and your under 'the gun' or something and can't answer it and have turned all the points I've brought up into your little sand box rant.
wilderness:L.S. I started to read your post, but I'm not reading the rest of it.
I wrote it to you, I didn't write it for you.
wilderness:You've obviously got something emotional going on or something - I question it, but obviously idk - hence it's a question.
You claimed to know what I don't know. I'm still waiting on a proof for that.
wilderness:It's not worth my time to digress to child's play
Now is not the time to get squeamish.
wilderness:So whatever else you may have said - maybe you said something actually productive - idk.
Hollow magnanimity, beaten like a drum, sounding the retreat.
liberty student: wilderness:L.S. I started to read your post, but I'm not reading the rest of it. I wrote it to you, I didn't write it for you.
well god in heaven!
liberty student: wilderness:You've obviously got something emotional going on or something - I question it, but obviously idk - hence it's a question. You claimed to know what I don't know. I'm still waiting on a proof for that.
Well if you don't know it, then who else knows? I obviously don't.
liberty student: wilderness:It's not worth my time to digress to child's play Now is not the time to get squeamish.
worms do that, are you getting squeamish? Now who's the one projecting? Are you being a hypocrite?
liberty student: wilderness:So whatever else you may have said - maybe you said something actually productive - idk. Hollow magnanimity, beaten like a drum.
Hollow magnanimity, beaten like a drum.
deer skin covered?
liberty student: Hollow magnanimity, beaten like a drum, sounding the retreat.
yes the immaturity is funny. your king of hill - go and beat your chest for all the world to see, I don't hang out with brutes
Edit: You know you could have private messaged me this instead of trolling yet another thread with your rants. I brought up two topics in this thread and another thread and you keep hijacking them! I'm trying to get back on topic - can you stay on topic!
Lilburne, would you say that the subjectivity of NAP is at the level of epistemology or metaphysics? If you're saying it's metaphysically subjective, I would agree, as there's no "God" to deem what NAP should be for all possible creatures in the Universe. But I think you and I would agree there's epistemological objectivity (that all similar creatures that can think do think the same logical and emotional references in regards to NAP)? Or am I misunderstanding your position?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
wilderness: yes the immaturity is funny. your king of hill - go and beat your chest for all the world to see, I don't hang out with brutes Edit: You know you could have private messaged me this instead of trolling yet another thread with your rants. I brought up two topics in this thread and another thread and you keep hijacking them! I'm trying to get back on topic - can you stay on topic!
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
wilderness: " As I eventually came to understand it, this theory isn't quite the same as ethical subjectivism in the field of philosophy, although students of Austrian economics often speak as if it were. For example, in an issue of Austrian Economics Newsletter, Don Balente says that the Austrian approach is most distinct from mainstream economics in its thorough emphasis on the individual decision maker as the focus of scientific analysis. Yet with the values and motives of individuals being entirely subjective it is impossible for an analyst to pass judgment on the optimality of the individual's chosen actions. This is surely tantamount to ethical or moral subjectivism that if consistently applied would, in my view, thoroughly undermine the decidedly normative claims in favor of individual liberty, as well as any other moral judgments."
Aww, does ethical subjectivism undermine your pet philosophy? Reject all propositions which result in uncomfortable consequences, that's how philosophy is done!
Notice how the above quotation doesn't provide an argument against ethical subjectivism, but merely points out the consequences of a consistent application in the hope that, due to the uncomfortable nature of said consequences, an actual argument will not be necessary.
Ethical subjectivism does undermine natural law ethics, but it does not mean that value systems are worthless or unnecessary. Individual liberty and social cooperation can be very persuasive arguments. That is ultimately all you can do with normative statements: persuade. The individual already has his deeply held values; show him that liberty and cooperation are most consistent with those values, as well as excellent means to attaining his goals.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
ladyattis: (that all similar creatures that can think do think the same logical and emotional references in regards to NAP)
(that all similar creatures that can think do think the same logical and emotional references in regards to NAP)
Is this saying that all sentient beings will value the NAP equally?
wilderness:Is there an action you can point out and call the NAP?
No. The NAP calls for refraining from certain actions. It is not an action itself, nor does it call for action.
laminustacitus:When a transaction is done under the threat of coercion, each party still recieves a positive net sum of psychic profits. The threat of coercion enters into the transaction itself: I now value the watch, and my well-being more than my tie. Hence, it does not change the structure of voluntary transactions; rather, it just changes what is being traded during the trade.
When I trade my tie for your watch, we both gain what desire more. If we trade, we both gain, while if we refrain from trading, we both remain exactly the same. When I threaten you, however, you are no longer making the choice between a gain and rmaining the same. Rather, you are deciding between two losses. While it's certainly a value judgement, there's no gain. You already have your well being. I'm offering you nothing.
zefreak: ladyattis: (that all similar creatures that can think do think the same logical and emotional references in regards to NAP) Is this saying that all sentient beings will value the NAP equally?
No, but that even a sociopath can conceive how NAP would work and even possibly to his/her advantage.
JackCuyler: wilderness:Is there an action you can point out and call the NAP? No. The NAP calls for refraining from certain actions. It is not an action itself, nor does it call for action.
at least some pertinent responses but I digress...
Can you say that such and such a person is adhering to the NAP by pointing out their "refraining"? Meaning somebody might not be able to name the NAP, but we'll assume this particular person knows what the NAP is. Can say such a person point out that when somebody is not being aggressive and they can accurately state, "They are therefore adhering to an NAP position?"
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap