Of course I define prosperity in terms of utility; i.e., maximization of utility requires freedom; that's a classic Libertarian definition that you should be quite familiar with.
JCFolsom: First off, who are "the people"? The majority? Does the benefit of a simple majority of 51% then permit the exploitation and abuse of the other 49%? Surely, you are forcing the minority into something, otherwise you would not need to argue that the violation of natural rights is necessary to do it.
First off, who are "the people"? The majority? Does the benefit of a simple majority of 51% then permit the exploitation and abuse of the other 49%? Surely, you are forcing the minority into something, otherwise you would not need to argue that the violation of natural rights is necessary to do it.
I certainly do not propose a majoritarian democracy as the complete solution; nor have I even begun to discuss a solutions. The statement is simply that maximization of utility does not necessarily coincide with natural rights.
JCFolsom: Secondly, by what do you mean prosperity? Material wealth? An abundance of stuff? Central heating? What is prosperity? Is it good if the people are wealthy but live in fear of being violated for the "prosperity" of the "people"?
Secondly, by what do you mean prosperity? Material wealth? An abundance of stuff? Central heating? What is prosperity? Is it good if the people are wealthy but live in fear of being violated for the "prosperity" of the "people"?
By prosperity I mean utility maximization; obviously this means nothing, but is another way of stating the problem.
JCFolsom: Finally, as more of a comment (though I admit my questions are somewhat rhetorical), it always amuses me when people have the unmitigated hubris to think that they, or anyone, can determine what is best for everyone else. You think that somehow, through a measure of some hazily objective idea like prosperity, you can quantify the subjective goods and evils of which life consists. Utilitarian philosophies seem inevitably to lead to monstrous conclusions, justifying any abuse for the common good. If there is a tyrant that did not justify himself so, I have not heard of him.
Finally, as more of a comment (though I admit my questions are somewhat rhetorical), it always amuses me when people have the unmitigated hubris to think that they, or anyone, can determine what is best for everyone else. You think that somehow, through a measure of some hazily objective idea like prosperity, you can quantify the subjective goods and evils of which life consists. Utilitarian philosophies seem inevitably to lead to monstrous conclusions, justifying any abuse for the common good. If there is a tyrant that did not justify himself so, I have not heard of him.
I never said at any time that I would support determining what is best for everyone else. I am as much a classic liberal as anyone here; Liberty is the only way, of course, to maximize utility. There is no measure of an objective idea like prosperity. This is obviously an impossible tasks. But there are things a government or ruling body or society can do, which, while violating natural rights, are necessarily best for the people. Think back to the drop of a man's blood curing all disease. If he withholds it, under the NAA you could do nothing about it. But obviously society would be better off (would anyone disagree?) with all disease being cured. The point is that strict enforcement of the NAA is not necessarily utility maximizing. It is not a be-all end-all, although lazy acamedics often wish it could be.
You make an odd value judgement: maximum utility is more important than allowing individuals to control their own lives. If you determined that mass slavery under the guide of wise central planners was the best method to reach maximum utility, would you support it?
What if an individual writes books saying that everyone needs to slow down, work less, and medidate. Should that person be locked away? If people listen to him and choose to act upon his words, it might be impossible to reach maximum utility.
You can call an individual's desire to control his own life "unhealthy". I'd venture to say that your desire to control other individuals' lives is much worse.
edit: typos
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
miksirhc:I certainly do not propose a majoritarian democracy as the complete solution; nor have I even begun to discuss a solutions. The statement is simply that maximization of utility does not necessarily coincide with natural rights.
I never said anything about democracy, I just said majority. Methinks doing what one thinks benefits the most people does good for the greatest number, if not necessarily the greatest good. I think one could easily make the argument that democracy does anything but creating the greatest good for the greatest number. Most people have trouble running their own lives, much less everyone else's.
miksirhc:By prosperity I mean utility maximization; obviously this means nothing, but is another way of stating the problem
As you acknowledged in this statement, those different words for what you take as the same thing are not yet defined. I was asking for a definition. This is one of the major barriers to your argument: someone has to define what utility/prosperity means before you can violate a person's right for its sake. Who gets to do that? What gives them the right to do that?
miksirhc:I never said at any time that I would support determining what is best for everyone else. I am as much a classic liberal as anyone here; Liberty is the only way, of course, to maximize utility.
This statement is directly contradicted by your example:
miksirhc:Think back to the drop of a man's blood curing all disease. If he withholds it, under the NAA you could do nothing about it. But obviously society would be better off (would anyone disagree?) with all disease being cured. The point is that strict enforcement of the NAA is not necessarily utility maximizing.
I am reminded of a quote from William Pitt, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Who says that all disease being cured is truly the best thing for everyone? My personal religious beliefs tell me that suffering, particularly of this sort of impersonal physical suffering, can be good for the evolution of the spirit. In the Matrix, a rather philosophical film, it was said that the first simulation the computers made for people was a paradise. People started killing themselves en masse, because struggle and suffering are part of what give life meaning.
Even if you reject such arguments, though, the implications of your argument are dire, indeed. What if, to cure all disease, you didn't need a drop of his blood, you needed all of it? Would we be justified in killing him? What if we didn't need just his blood, but his whole family's? What if we needed to exsanguinate 100 people? 1,000? Where does it end? Who decides?
There are no definitive answers to these questions. If we accept the idea, as you have, that the ends justify the means, than no horror is barred us. Utilitarian ethics, in the end, boil down to no ethics at all.
miksirhc:The end, ultimately, must be prosperity for the people. Any other end is sadistic.
I do not see how liberty could be considered sadistic. Regardless, I find this to be a non-issue. Everything shows that if our natural rights are protected from government, society is better off.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
On the contrary, my only value judgment is that maximizing utility, i.e., prosperity for the people, should be the goal of any society. Do you not agree with this? You are making the value judgment when you say that natural rights, a purely artificial construct, are more important than the well-being of the people. That to me is despicable. Mises thought so too.
Mass slavery under the guide of wise central planners cannot be the best method to reach maximum utility. Therefore I would not support it. Of course, the means have negative results in themselves which must be considered. One cannot justify statism in the name of 'maximizaiton of utility'; the means deployed would themselves have negative consequences. But the argument lies not in support of 'natural rights' a concept which does not exist, but in the fact that maximization of utility requires freedom to work; governments are too ignorant to make correct decisions on a large scale basis.
As for the person writing books, of course that person shouldn't be locked away. But the point that there is a loss of utility in every action; force is not required to harm utility. Thus every action must weigh two respective situations for their effect on utility. No action can apodictically increase utility, and thus Pareto optimality is inachievable. Getting rid of all aggression does not therefore necessarily correspond with Pareto optimality.
I did not call an individual'sdesire to control his own life was unhealthy. I called your obsession with the artificial notion of 'rights' unhealthy; by focusing on some value judgment that 'rights' are important, you lose the entire strength of the argument. What must be done is best for the people, the most freedom is best for the people; therefore we want the most freedom. To say it the other way around is idiotic. It is your venture to uphold 'natural rights' over the well-being (the utility) of the people during all situations that is bad.
On the contrary, my only value judgment is that maximizing utility,
Just another note: I am as much a Libertarian as you are, I am a minarchist. I am not attempting to justify fascism here, only attempting to argue that utility maximization must be the utmost goal; 'natural rights' must at best be a means to that end. Understand?
JCFolsom:Methinks doing what one thinks benefits the most people does good for the greatest number, if not necessarily the greatest good. I think one could easily make the argument that democracy does anything but creating the greatest good for the greatest number. Most people have trouble running their own lives, much less everyone else's.
Right, this is why we define Utility as being similar to freedom. Democracy is majoritarian in nature, and thus is not the solution. Freedom is the solution, but not because of 'natural rights'. It's because its best for the people.
JCFolsom:This statement is directly contradicted by your example:
On a large scale, liberty is important because a state cannot choose the ends or the means for those ends. The choice must lie with the individual in order to have maximization of utility. Of course, apart from this statement, all measurements of utility are estimates and cannot actually be measured; they are ordinal and not cardinal numbers. The immense majority of people would believe that saving the lives of millions is more desirable than the utility gained from a man avoiding a pinprick.
JCFolsom:Who says that all disease being cured is truly the best thing for everyone? My personal religious beliefs tell me that suffering, particularly of this sort of impersonal physical suffering, can be good for the evolution of the spirit. In the Matrix, a rather philosophical film, it was said that the first simulation the computers made for people was a paradise. People started killing themselves en masse, because struggle and suffering are part of what give life meaning.
Absurd. Simply absurd. Suffering is good? Perhaps that's why you're an anarcho-capitalist :).
JCFolsom:, the implications of your argument are dire, indeed. What if, to cure all disease, you didn't need a drop of his blood, you needed all of it? Would we be justified in killing him? What if we didn't need just his blood, but his whole family's? What if we needed to exsanguinate 100 people? 1,000? Where does it end? Who decides?
I believe it is possible to compare homogeneous quanities utility wise and to obtain an estimate which can aid in decisions. If an action would save the lives of a million people, we would be justified in killing up to 999,999 people as long as we were absolutely sure that those 1 million would be saved. In the vast majority of situations, we can never be sure, and thus the act of killing 999,999 would be immoral in such a case.
JCFolsom:If we accept the idea, as you have, that the ends justify the means, than no horror is barred us. Utilitarian ethics, in the end, boil down to no ethics at all.
The ends justify the means so long as the means do not outweigh the good done by the end. Utilitarian ethics are not ethics; you are right; they are the rational determination of what is best for society. This is mises.org. Think reason, not morals.
miksirhc:Just another note: I am as much a Libertarian as you are, I am a minarchist. I am not attempting to justify fascism here, only attempting to argue that utility maximization must be the utmost goal; 'natural rights' must at best be a means to that end. Understand?
Oh, I understand! I understand that your arguments lead only to libertarianism ONLY because you believe that will have the greatest possible utility. If someone could demonstrate to you that utility (whatever you mean by that) was indeed maximized by fascism, you would be advocating for fascism.
miksirhc:The immense majority of people would believe that saving the lives of millions is more desirable than the utility gained from a man avoiding a pinprick.
Indeed! Of course, that assumes that they aren't the ones suffering the "pinprick" (which, as demonstrated below, need not be at all minor for you to still advocate for it).
miksirhc:Absurd. Simply absurd. Suffering is good? Perhaps that's why you're an anarcho-capitalist :).
Actually, I'm something of a Geolibertarian. And despite your derision, it is up to individuals to determine whether or not they prefer to be in pain, or are indifferent to it, or wish to avoid it, not for you to make that decision for them. Certainly, you are in no position to evaluate whether suffering will be to the net bad or good of a person. They will act for themselves as their preference dictates and their means allow.
miksirhc:I believe it is possible to compare homogeneous quanities utility wise and to obtain an estimate which can aid in decisions. If an action would save the lives of a million people, we would be justified in killing up to 999,999 people as long as we were absolutely sure that those 1 million would be saved. In the vast majority of situations, we can never be sure, and thus the act of killing 999,999 would be immoral in such a case.
So, the worth of humans can be judged by simple numbers, eh? Charming, just charming. Are you sure you would hold uncertainty to be "immoral" (funny, given your statement below)? What if there was a 95% chance that 1,000,000 people could be saved by the sacrifice of, say, 500,000? Is that a sacrifice worth making? How about a 99% chance? Must it be certain? What is ever certain?
miksirhc:The ends justify the means so long as the means do not outweigh the good done by the end. Utilitarian ethics are not ethics; you are right; they are the rational determination of what is best for society. This is mises.org. Think reason, not morals.
Thank God that I have you, oh he of the 4 or something more posts than me, to instruct me on what I should write about in the Mises forums! Because morality is the opposite of reason. Obviously.
To be perfectly fair, Chris (it is Chris, right?) is taking Mises' position on this one. It's just one that people don't always agree with. Many libertarians agree that libertarian forms of social organization do maximize utility, but that even if there were a system which could bring about greater utility (though it would need to violate individuals' rights in order to do this), the libertarian system would be preferable because the alternative would not properly respect the idea that individuals are ends in themselves, and should not be sacrificed against their will for ends which are not their own. As Nozick points out, when someone is used for the benefit of others, she doesn't get some overbalancing good to compensate her for her troubles. Many libertarians believe that using someone in this way is wrong, and not merely inefficient when seen as a social practice. There's no contradiction there. You might reject it, on the grounds that the best society is the one in which individuals are generally the best off (Rawls might have something to say about that, but you could amend your view to capture Rawls' objection without conceding to any rights-based view), but you wouldn't prove the natural rights position wrong. To do that, you'd need to establish that individuals don't have intrinsic value, on the basis of which they are entitled to being treated a certain way, independently of the consequences of that treatment for social utility.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Why the unhealthy obsession with 'rights'? My stance on government or the lack thereof is that whatever societal arrangement occurs it should maximize utility. Utility can be diminished without harming the abstract artificial construct of 'rights'. Something is bad if it decreasese the overall utility of the society, irrespective of whether or not it violates one of your 'rights'. Something is justified if it increases utility; if it makes the people better off. Your 'rights' are artificial constructs that don't refer to anything innate.
You've already proved you cannot even make a proper distinction between deontology and teleological ethics, so why on earth should anyone take your word that rights are "constructs"? You jabber on about rights being non-existent. Yet why should anyone believe in this artificial construct you call "utility maximization"? I guess the fact that interpersonal comparisons of utility and the ordinality thereof flew right over your head, eh (it deprives your view of the so-called rationality you'd like it to possess)?
Perhaps, compared on large abstract terms; but even under the liberal (and I mean socialist) society we have now, everybody is better off than they would have been without it altogether. That could be used to argue for almost anything. Maximization of utility must be the goal.
Why must it be the goal? My point is that a comparison between a libertarian society and a liberal one might show the former to be pareto-optimal, but not the later. Naturally, you're beginning to realize just how arbitrary utilitarianism itself is.
Fact is, you're envisaging a complete neglect by natural rights theorists of the consequences. I already pointed out that teleological ethical theories are not the same as deontological ones, and even that the former merely stipulate that more matters than just consequences. It remains to be demonstrated why "utility" has some overriding importance that liberty, as the basis of natural rights, does not. A society can have no goals, can have no direction apart from the individuals forming it, and to say some individuals matter more than others is nonsense. A proof of the principle of utility so far has not been forthcoming. You speak with the guise of an omniscient central planner, as if one must automatically agree with utility being the highest moral principle.
miksirhc,
I'm afraid your argument is built around a core which isn't entirely unlike to the emotional blackmail used by some activists, f.e. the "it's for the children" kind. Basically, if you just form your personal doxa about ethics then fine, just base it on what's best for the people. Or anything else. But if you want to formulate an epistemé of ethics I fail to see how could it be built around so shaky, logically unsound, only emotionally moving concepts as "best" and "for the people".
Not that I'm a big fan of natural rights either, because I fail to see how would they protect the non-rational actors or those who are labelled so. It was a favourite trick of the Soviets to lock their opponents into mental asylums. I'm not sure how natural rights would protect against that. But that's an entirely different kind of argument. Your argument just tries to reduce the opposing view to something emotionally upsetting and then appeal to the common human motive that people don't want to appear cruel.
So I rather like the use the following two methods for ethics:
1) Because values are subjective, even if something benefits 1000 people and harms only 1 we cannot know whether that harms that 1 man more than a thousand times than it benefits others. Even the questions is wrong as preferences aren't cardinal. Therefore the only safe route is Pareto-optimality. Voluntary transactions are Pareto-optimal and basically nothing else I can think of is.
As for your cancer treatment example, 1) voluntarily selling the cure is Pareto-optimal, even giving it away for free is 2) keeping it is Pareto-optimal 3) either forcing the owner to keep it or to not keep is not Pareto-optimal.
2) Looking at the opposite of the situation. What if someone rents a house, renewing a contract year by year for 30 years and emotionally starts to feel it's his even if it isn't, gets attached to it, is it wrong if the owner does not renew it in the 31st year? Well it looks quite sad. This is the case when you have to look at the opposite of the situation. Who would have the right to force the owner not to do so and by what objective measures, and how would not many other tenants be able to take immoral advantage of it. As for your example what if he defends the cure with arms? Would you authorize anyone to use armed force against property if it's the best of the people? Do you have any objective measures that leave no room for judgement? If yes how flexibly they can be adapted to the dizzying complexity of life? If not wouldn't you just created a perfect excuse for any kind of arbitrariness and corruption?
OTOH the very example is so unreal that it's similar to the question that whether it's right to kill an elephant who plays a piano. Elephants don't play piano, period, next question. Everbody has his price unless you want to make him do something that's against his principles.Those who have principles against curing people don't work on cures, period. Thus it only needs a bit of psychology to make the bloke sell the cure - perhaps you don't offer money directly, you rather pay a uni to offer him tenure or pay some newspapers to praise him or offer a very good lab and a team of assistants or anything like that.
There is this Russian guy who solved the Fermat suspicion and he did not want to trave lto Spain to receive the prize because he said he isn't interested in money even though he is poor. OK, no problem, if they really want to meet him then they shouldn't offer the money, rather spend that money on buying every book of math available and offer that. Or a free ticket & costs covered for every math conference up to the sum of the prize? Surely he would jump on that. Everybody has their price unless it's doing something against their principles, you just have to figure out that price, which isn't necessarily money directly but something money can buy.
Miksirhc, I know you have a lot of points to respond to from other members, but could you try to address my last post when you get a chance?
Ego:If you determined that mass slavery under the guide of wise central planners was the best method to reach maximum utility, would you support it?
Yes, but that is imposible. Mass slavery is not utility maximizing; it is the complete opposite. Maximum utility means the allowance of satisfaction of wants of the individual, each individual must choose his own end and the means for getting there. No central planner can determine what wants an individual must have; therefore liberty, of course, is the answer. But 'natural rights' are not the reason why fascism is bad. It's bad for the people because it's bad for the people. That's a tautology, but it is the truth. 'Natural rights' don't enter into the equation anywhere. You can argue that a system of full NAA enforcement is utility maximizing; I would say that it isn't.
Ego:What if an individual writes books saying that everyone needs to slow down, work less, and medidate. Should that person be locked away? If people listen to him and choose to act upon his words, it might be impossible to reach maximum utility.
That person shouldn't be locked away, but the point is that he has affected somebody in a negative way by doing so. Every action has negative repurcussions. Of course, maximum utility is the goal, and it is impossible. The point is that every action has negative effects which decrease somebody's utility, whether or not 'rights' are violated. Thus, every action is not Pareto optimal and there is no such thing as a pure Pareto optimal society. This means that in any societal arrangement utilities can still be harmed as long as people act. Therefore, every decision must weigh two respective utilities; those harmed against those benefited; the question of to whom and how much the power should be to make these decisions is far more complicated.
Ego:You can call an individual's desire to control his own life "unhealthy". I'd venture to say that your desire to control other individuals' lives is much worse.
I was not calling an individual's desire for liberty unhealthy, only your obsession with 'natural rights' over pragmatic concerns. What is 'much worse' is the fact that you uphold your 'natural rights' over what is best for the people, over utility maximization.
Inquisitor: Yet why should anyone believe in this artificial construct you call "utility maximization"? I guess the fact that interpersonal comparisons of utility and the ordinality thereof flew right over your head, eh (it deprives your view of the so-called rationality you'd like it to possess)?
Utility maximization is an artificial construct, but it relates to something very real and tangible: prosperity for the people. Rather, utility is simply another way of stating a tautological argument; what is best for the people is best for the people. Utility only defines best. Of course, liberty maximization for the most part coincides with maximization of utility.
The flaw with natural rights is that supports of NR uphold their rights over what is best for the people, defined however it may be. I have no problem with people supporting natural rights because they are what is best for the people, because they maximize utility. That is a different argument that I would be glad to have. If the goal is to provide the best society, one must hold that the best society maximizes utility for its people; the argument is in how utility is defined and the consequences of that train of thought. So answer the question: Do you argue for natural rights because they are 'natural' or because they provide prosperity (utility maximization)? Do you want what is best for the people, or do you want natural rights, or do you think that natural rights are what is best for the people? If that is the case, then you are as Utilitarian as I am.
Inquisitor: I guess the fact that interpersonal comparisons of utility and the ordinality thereof flew right over your head, eh (it deprives your view of the so-called rationality you'd like it to possess)?
Oh yes, I've read Rothbard's Towards a Reconstruction of Welfare Economics (is that the title)? And please, would you make a point instead of citing some words and sounding smart? Contrary to your belief, everyone other than yourself is not an idiot. Perhaps all my ideas are completely wrong. But at least by arguing in a rational, unemotional way, you would be able to strengthen your argument and to test it? Why the condecension? We are on the same side in the grand scheme of things.
About Interpersonal comparisons of utility, I think the core of Rothbard's argument simply boils down to the statement that there is no way to apodictically know whether an action increases total utility or not. This is true. Even voluntary exchanges (which Rothbard says increases utility) have utility-decreasing effects for third parties (buying corn raises the price of corn which is a negative externality for other corn buyers). But does that mean we shouldn't attempt to estimate utility? Absolutely not. Does it mean that an action which has terrible, terrible, effects cannot be measured against an action that has incredible effects for nearly all? Of course not. Every act is an estimation; no act is Pareto optimal, but that is not an excuse not to act.
Inquisitor: Why must it be the goal? My point is that a comparison between a libertarian society and a liberal one might show the former to be pareto-optimal, but not the later. Naturally, you're beginning to realize just how arbitrary utilitarianism itself is.
What we want what is best for the people. Utility maximization is just another way of saying what is best for the people. Define utility how you want to. Of course utilitarianism is arbitrary, but natural rights must be grounded in something. They must exist because they cause prosperity. If natural rights caused death on a massive scale, would you still support them? Of course not. You support them because you believe that they will lead to prosperity. I just want you to admit this.
Inquisitor:A society can have no goals, can have no direction apart from the individuals forming it, and to say some individuals matter more than others is nonsense. A proof of the principle of utility so far has not been forthcoming. You speak with the guise of an omniscient central planner, as if one must automatically agree with utility being the highest moral principle.
Again, define utility however you want to. A proof would look like this:
1. The goal of any arrangement of society must be what is best for the people. This is a value judgment, but one worth making. It does not imply that a totalitarian government is necessary to know what is best for the people. It only says that what we desire is prosperity. It does not define prosperity.
2. Men act in order to remove human wants. When man acts, he improves his situation in life. This improvement in his situation is defined as utility. No 'proof' of its existence is necessary, it is simply a definition.
3. In order to act, man must have 1) the freedom to do so, and 2) the means to do so. Thus, a maximization of utility coincides with a maximization of both freedom and means; of both freedom from oppression and of substantive freedoms.
miksirhc: I think that it is purely idiotic for one's aim to be the fulfillment of so-called 'natural rights'. Argumentation ethics or whatever, the justification doesn't even matter. By holding this as your goal, you avoid holding the idea that the best government (or lack thereof) should be what is best for the people (maximization of the utility, or however you want to define it). You necessarily hold that it is better to hold on to your moral ideals than to look at what is best for the population. How can you choose a philosophy which says that what provides the most prosperity for the people is not necessarily the best thing? This is not meant as a justification for statism, nor does it mean that natural rights can't have a place. The truth is that you can still support natural rights, but it must be because pure adherence to the non-agression axiom is what is best for the people. It does not necessarily mean statism; you can define 'what is best for the people' in various different ways. What you cannot do is say that natural rights are best for the people because it is an end in itself. The end, ultimately, must be prosperity for the people. Any other end is sadistic. The means may be natural rights; but in certain cases the enforcement of the non-agression axiom is not necessarily the best thing for the people. So where does that leave you?
I think that it is purely idiotic for one's aim to be the fulfillment of so-called 'natural rights'. Argumentation ethics or whatever, the justification doesn't even matter. By holding this as your goal, you avoid holding the idea that the best government (or lack thereof) should be what is best for the people (maximization of the utility, or however you want to define it). You necessarily hold that it is better to hold on to your moral ideals than to look at what is best for the population. How can you choose a philosophy which says that what provides the most prosperity for the people is not necessarily the best thing?
This is not meant as a justification for statism, nor does it mean that natural rights can't have a place. The truth is that you can still support natural rights, but it must be because pure adherence to the non-agression axiom is what is best for the people. It does not necessarily mean statism; you can define 'what is best for the people' in various different ways. What you cannot do is say that natural rights are best for the people because it is an end in itself.
The end, ultimately, must be prosperity for the people. Any other end is sadistic. The means may be natural rights; but in certain cases the enforcement of the non-agression axiom is not necessarily the best thing for the people. So where does that leave you?
Because what is right is right no matter what the end is.
Fortunately, Anarchism is both the most prosperous goal and the morally correct one. What's the beef?
-----
Even as an Anarchist who quite enjoys separating sides and getting to the correct avenue. I really don't understand this quabble. If natural rightists want to justify libertarianism vis-a-vis natural rights, then fine. If utilitarian libertarians want to justify it through rule utilitarianism then fine as well.
Same ends, different roads.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
No, you're conflating the good with that people desire. Unless you actually provide a proof of this, it remains an open question. So no, it is not tautological. It is very much disputable.
I want what is the good, the morally correct... that is not necessarily the same as what is "best" for the people, as in satisfying their desires. This may seem heinous to you, but it is because you are automatically equating utility maximization with the good. I hold that though the consequences do matter, that things other than them limit what one may do to other individuals.
Given that we're discussing utilitarianism, I thought at least the terminology pertinent to the subject could be evoked, and I definitely reserve the right to question your understanding of the topic if you incorrectly conflate certain notions. I'm not trying to sound smart - I don't need to - nor do I believe that anyone but myself is an idiot.
The point is, at best you're left with guesswork. There is no scientific precision involved of the sort most utilitarians like to claim for themselves. There is absolutely no way of measuring just how much utility is gained or lost from a certain activity, and even worse than that, no way of knowing in advance whether a policy will fail or succeed, causing even greater utility losses than it sought to prevent. It is not an ethic of here and now, it is vague and up in the air. Utilitarians seem to think their felicific calculations render their theory more precise and "scientific" than other ethical theories, when in fact they do not. Rule utilitarianism is the exception, but it is in the end no different from natural rights theory.
Or they can be grounded in liberty and autonomy... again, this is something that must be proven and is not a mere tautology. Although Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" is no fallacy at all, it does at least point out that any ethicist must first prove that whatever they argue is good is in fact the good.
1. The goal of any arrangement of society must be what is best for the people. This is a value judgment, but one worth making. It does not imply that a totalitarian government is necessary to know what is best for the people. It only says that what we desire is prosperity. It does not define prosperity. 2. Men act in order to remove human wants. When man acts, he improves his situation in life. This improvement in his situation is defined as utility. No 'proof' of its existence is necessary, it is simply a definition. 3. In order to act, man must have 1) the freedom to do so, and 2) the means to do so. Thus, a maximization of utility coincides with a maximization of both freedom and means; of both freedom from oppression and of substantive freedoms.
Only if in 1) I accept that the maximization of utility is one and the same as what is the "good". I certainly have no problem with saying that I place lower value on "the best" if this involves violating the autonomy of some just to satisfy the immoral preferences of others. Again, it must be demonstrated that utility maximization is the ultimate moral end.
And that is where your argument will fail to hold water with the true Libertarian. To a Libertarian, the ends never justify means that violate ones natural rights. The protection of those natural rights is the utmost goal. Approaching "maximum utility" is but a side effect or bonus.
This is an irrational, unreasoned argument. How is the evil of the means measured? How is the "good done by the end" measured? These are necessarily subjective. There is no way to "rationally" determine such things. Good is a subjective, moral determination, and therefore not rational. You are simply making a subjective comparison of one version of morality, the "good done by the end," with another, the notion that natural rights must be protected.
You've refused to answer the question often posed to you in this thread: Where do you draw the line? What happens when the quest for maximum utility broaches one's natural rights? In your cancer cure example, you advocate using violence to coerce the inventor to release the cure. From this, one can infer that, from your point of view, violence against one is acceptable to save the lives of millions. That is but one example. What if, instead of cancer, it was some mystery disease that only affected five people? Would violence against the inventor still be acceptable? What if this mystery disease was non-fatal, but caused a great deal of suffering in millions of people? In five? What if the violence needed for the cure was against 100, rather than one? 1,000? One less than those suffering or dying?
The entire basis for your argument is that you claim that it is possible to rationally quantify the good and evil of a particular action and how it would affect every other individual. Then using this information, you claim justification for the abuse of some for the good others.
As you said in your initial post in this thread,
miksirhc:The end, ultimately, must be prosperity for the people. Any other end is sadistic. The means may be natural rights; but in certain cases the enforcement of the non-aggression axiom is not necessarily the best thing for the people. So where does that leave you?"
I would answer with this: The end, ultimately, must be the protection of every individual's natural rights. Any other end is arbitrary and sadistic. A benefit of such protection may be prosperity for all individuals, but it may not. In many cases the observance of the non-aggression axiom will not result in the betterment of every single individual, but it will never harm a single individual.
Miksirhc, you claim liberty happens to lead to the most prosperity and is thus the best 'organization' of a society, which is why you agree with it. But if liberty had negative results and, say monarchy, had the best results, then you would believe in monarchy. Inquisitor says this is folly because the monarchy is not the morally correct position, which I believe is rooted in the fact that some would have their rights violated, and thus made worse off, for the benefit of others.
So Mikcirhc, how do you define "people" or "society"? You say liberty leads to the best, and imply monarchy does not, but only because it is best for the "people". Does not this reasoning imply that some within a society may have their rights, and thus their own prosperity, sacrificed for the betterment of others? Or maybe better put, at what point would those that would be forced to sacrifice prosperity for the betterment of another be considered part of the "people", and thus have a negative impact overall? I, and I believe others, are making the assumption that the "prosperity" you speak of is immediately diminished once any rights are coercively removed; what is best is what is moral, and not by coincidence.
For one to say they believe in NR because it leads to the most prosperity and for another to say they believe in NR because it is moral, is essentially saying the same thing in my mind. Inquisitor, you make the point that if something not rooted in freedom would result in a more prosperous society then you would not be for it. I think one can make the arguement that you would not be for it because it really does not make society more prosperous because a loss of freedom is a loss of prosperity. Just because someone perceives a loss in a particular freedom as an increase for society does not mean it is the case. Freedom is an ends, it is wealth itself, not a means to wealth.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
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