Vichy:These people aren't interested in philosophy, they're ideologues.
This made me laugh. Nothing like a lecture from a nihilist.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Vichy:These people aren't interested in philosophy, they're ideologues. This made me laugh. Nothing like a lecture from a nihilist.
I might beg to differ with her nihilism, but she certainly seems fairly well-versed in philosophical issues. And she's at least partially right - I very much get the feeling that I am going in circles with ideologues who think that they already have all the answers, while I'm the one proclaiming that there are philosophical problems that need to be solved in libertarianism. A good deal of the premises that libertarians often take for granted may need to be re-evaluated, and the overtly deontological and axoimatic approach seems to fail for what seem like fairly obvious philosophical reasons to me. There are some ways in which it ultimately undermines itself, even when its wielders do not intend to endorse some of the reductio ad absurdums that ensue.
In addition:
(lol, nothing).
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Brainpolice:I might beg to differ with her nihilism, but she certainly seems fairly well-versed in philosophical issues.
And she's at least partially right - I very much get the feeling that I am going in circles with ideologues who think that they already have all the answers.
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."
Juan:The thing is, you are just another ideologue (as per Vichy's idiotic (and marxist?) definition).
I don't think he cares. I *suspect* Vichy and BP are filling space for Danny.
The first rule of online reputation management is "don't disturb the grave".
Brainpolice: I very much get the feeling that I am going in circles with ideologues who think that they already have all the answers
Firstly, this could either speak well or ill of your intellect. It would depend on your own subjective interpretation.
Secondly, you are in the metaphorical halls of the global intelligentsia of libertarian and capitalist thought. It is like being in the halls of Greek academia. If only the teachers [The Mises Institute professors] would visit the students [us] more often. That perhaps is one of my few complaints though it is a selfish one because they lead private lives and publish works. I digress. This is not a public forum filled with doubt and uncertainty. It is a forum filled with learned scholars convinced in their reason, sustained by their consciousness and compelled to act by their beliefs. If you want doubt and amateur speakers might I suggest Facebook groups. The Ron Paul group is full of disillusioned Constitutionalists, as if those scholars aren't conflicted enough.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Vichy: Juan: Danny:John Rawls Basically a social-democrat n'est-ce pas ? Rawls isn't a social democrat, he's a welfare liberal and there are important distinctions. For example, welfare liberals are interested in giving individuals their due as the criterion for a just society, whereas social democrats want to promote democratic society as the criterion of justice. Libertarians seem to be incapable of making any sort of distinctions between political philosophies, all they can see are anarchists and socialists. And, as for Brainpolice, you are totally wasting your time, you know? Look at how many people throw around the word 'a priori' with no understanding what it even means. These people aren't interested in philosophy, they're ideologues. You'd have as much luck arguing with anarcho-communists.
Juan: Danny:John Rawls Basically a social-democrat n'est-ce pas ?
Danny:John Rawls
Rawls isn't a social democrat, he's a welfare liberal and there are important distinctions. For example, welfare liberals are interested in giving individuals their due as the criterion for a just society, whereas social democrats want to promote democratic society as the criterion of justice.
Libertarians seem to be incapable of making any sort of distinctions between political philosophies, all they can see are anarchists and socialists.
And, as for Brainpolice, you are totally wasting your time, you know? Look at how many people throw around the word 'a priori' with no understanding what it even means. These people aren't interested in philosophy, they're ideologues. You'd have as much luck arguing with anarcho-communists.
Hehehe
From Rawls, the alleged social democrat, on the very first pages of A Theory of Justice:
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.
These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. No doubt they are expressed too strongly. In any event I wish to inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so how they can be accounted for.
Sounds like commie statist fascism, to me!!! Next thing you know, he'll be peddling the labor theory of value, handing out pamphlets on effective nirvana-fallaciousness, and sending people off for "re-education" if they won't "voluntarily" hand over their land to The People! Keep your hands off my property, zombie-liberal!
In all seriousness, though, it's really Wilderness and Liberty Students who hate freedom and humanity, since obviously they're the ones asking Klemm to become a sacrificial animal for the benefit of Tom and the holy market system. Where's a man's own life as the standard of value now?! Uh oh; looks like self-abrogation is on the menu -- like, literally. Sorry, Klemm, but we have this property system that we need to uphold, so we're going to need you to...uh...die on its behalf. Yep; eat death premises, Klemm; we'll thaw you out in the Spring!
Here with some thoughts of his own is Tom, who flew in all the way from his winter home in Hawaii to be here today! Hi Tom, here's the footage of Klemm freezing to death outside your cabin in order to respect your claim over it. Would you care to tell us what you think is going through his mind here?
"Sure thing, Danny. You see, what's happened here is that Klemm has been convinced that because we have a private property system that we take to be important, that means that nothing else could ever matter enough to outweigh the moral importance of the property system -- not even his own life! Imagine that! He's literally going to sit there and allow his body to slip into a hypothermic coma, eventually leading to death, because he doesn't want to smash my window and let himself in. It's remarkable, isn't it?"
Indeed it is, Tom. If only Klemm were a worse person, and cared less about justice, maybe he could have saved himself. But clearly, the demands of justice establish that when it's human lives on one hand and property rights on the other hand, there's only one thing we can choose: property rights. Otherwise, we all become communists.
"That's right, Danny. If Klemm broke my window and let himself into the house, he would save his life, but he would immediately slip into an irreversible state of confusion, since he would never ever be able to justify respecting anyone's right to anything ever again. He would stop believing that A is A, and he would immediately quit smoking and begin listening to Mozart. Because clearly, if it would be justified to break into my cabin to save his life, there would be no way for him to deny that he would be justified in breaking into my cabin for some iced tea. Barbarism, Danny."
That would be barbaric, Tom. To think; a man could never be secure in his iced tea again. I shudder at the thought.
"But hey; let's just take a moment to thank Klemm for sacrificing himself for the good of the private property system and the market economy. Without the brave sacrifices made by people like him, you and I could never enjoy our freedom today; we'd all be communists, asked to sacrifice ourselves for other things that are far less worthy."
Good point, Tom. Systems of ethics that insist that people sacrifice themselves for ideals and for others are sick except when they're ours. To freedom, Tom!
"To freedom, Danny!"
For Tom, my name is Danny; we'd like to thank the crew, our sponsors, and Klemm for his brave sacrifice for the greater good.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
liberty student: Juan:The thing is, you are just another ideologue (as per Vichy's idiotic (and marxist?) definition). I don't think he cares. I *suspect* Vichy and BP are filling space for Danny. The first rule of online reputation management is "don't disturb the grave".
Is Vichy really a nihilist? I rather love those kind of people. They are quaint like Marxists [not to say nihilist ARE marxists of course]. I guess I have a fashination with society's...well I don't want to say extremists or oddballs but they are so fundamentally different it is fascinating.
Vichy claims to be a nihilist. She got a lot of attention from Austro-libertarians in early May, I suspect because her avs are of cute Asian girls, and she's sorta exotic in a "I don't care about anything except my own ends" Klemm-ish sort of way.
That went sour once people started really getting to know her. For some reason though, she's still flitting around these forums after making it clear she thought little of most of us, and of libertarianism in general.
Is someone going to ask me what the second rule of online reputation management is?
Oh my goodness, what a treat! Hold off on switching to the next program, folks! Here to read us a passage from his classic, The Ethics of Liberty, is none other than Murray Rothbard!
"Thanks Danny. *Ahem.*
"If Crusoe, on the other hand, had known of the poison and eaten the mushrooms anyway—perhaps for “kicks” or from a very high time preference—then his decision would have been objectively immoral, an act deliberately set against his life and health. It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality). In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation. Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.
"Thanks for having me on, Danny; I really love participating in these sorts of things."
Our pleasure, Murray; we always enjoy having the most consistent thinkers on our show. And just to remind our viewers, you think that a man's life is axiomatically an appropriate standard of value, right?
"Of course, Danny; just as you and I are standing here!"
Just making sure. So there you have it, folks! The incomparable Murray Rothbard!
Donny with an A: From Rawls, the alleged social democrat, on the very first pages of A Theory of Justice: Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising. These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. No doubt they are expressed too strongly. In any event I wish to inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so how they can be accounted for.
But what is this justice? Is it natural law? If it be such and justice is 'uncompromising' then is it not compromised by postulating the boy who breaks into the cabin to sustain his life is committing an unjust act by trepassing onto the property of another? If it is true that the loss of freedom for the greater good is an unjust action then can we not convert that into saying the gain of one at the expensive of many is also unjust? If you are searching for equality in rights [ a noble effort which I think society should persue] then the example I keep hearing over this 'Klemm' who broke into a shack in order to sustain himself is an injustice towards the home owner. And since you presented a writer who believes justice should be 'uncompromising' then I suggest to you that you must not compromise in your hypothetical situation.
liberty student:Vichy claims to be a nihilist. She got a lot of attention from Austro-libertarians in early May, I suspect because her avs are of cute Asian girls, and she's sorta exotic in a "I don't care about anything except my own ends" Klemm-ish sort of way.
If she claimed to be a nihilist then I don't think she is one because establishing an objective definition or truth in this world is a no-no.
What's the second rule?
Laughing man, the key sentence there is, "No doubt they are expressed too strongly."
Laughing Man:What's the second rule?
"Don't piss off the grave digger."
Donny with an A: Laughing man, the key sentence there is, "No doubt they are expressed too strongly."
Is justice something that should be moderated? censored? And please, we need to establish what this justice means.
Laughing Man:If she claimed to be a nihilist then I don't think she is one because establishing an objective definition or truth in this world is a no-no.
How seriously can anyone take someone who claims to be completely amoral? (Don't answer this BP)
We can't even believe she is a nihilist, or that anything she writes is true, because if she was a nihilist, she would have no issue with lying.
Whenever she writes anything, I just laugh.
liberty student: Laughing Man:If she claimed to be a nihilist then I don't think she is one because establishing an objective definition or truth in this world is a no-no. How seriously can anyone take someone who claims to be completely amoral? (Don't answer this BP) We can't even believe she is a nihilist, or that anything she writes is true, because if she was a nihilist, she would have no issue with lying. Whenever she writes anything, I just laugh.
We're all allowed one standard deviation LS
Laughing man, Rawls is an intuitionist. Justice would be, in a broad sense, "Giving people their due" -- treating them in accordance with their intuitive moral importance. It's not quite as shakey as it sounds from that description, but it would probably be best to read his discussion of the issue if you're really interested in his views.
Laughing Man: liberty student:Vichy claims to be a nihilist. She got a lot of attention from Austro-libertarians in early May, I suspect because her avs are of cute Asian girls, and she's sorta exotic in a "I don't care about anything except my own ends" Klemm-ish sort of way. If she claimed to be a nihilist then I don't think she is one because establishing an objective definition or truth in this world is a no-no.
I'm so sure; active nihilism seems to be one of the themes that Ayn Rand riffed off of, so establishing an objective definition or truth in this world may not be implausible. While not being a nihilist myself, I've found Nietzsche & active nihilism to be rather interesting reads, as of late. Then again, the one position that I am always sure of is my own skepticism, & nihilism could be seen as the ultimate form of skepticism, methinks. It definitely gives one stuff to think about, at least.
Nitroadict:I'm so sure; active nihilism seems to be one of the themes that Ayn Rand riffed off of, so establishing an objective definition or truth in this world may not be implausible.
Well natural law must be an objective truth or else it fails to be the 'nature of Man'. Generally speaking though, if there be no objective truth in the world then that premise is an objective truth. There has to retain in the world some level of objectivity. Two hydrogens + one oxygen must equal water.
Nitroadict:While not being a nihilist myself, I've found Nietzsche & active nihilism to be rather interesting reads, as of late. Then again, the one position that I am always sure of is my own skepticism, & nihilism could be seen as the ultimate form of skepticism, methinks. It definitely gives one stuff to think about, at least.
Ergh, I greatly dislike Nietzsche for he merely postulates an unempirical beginning to Man. I mean it would not be so bad if he used reason but he denies that also. If you don't have empiricism and you don't have reason...then what the hell do you have? Plus his 'Thus spoke Zarathursa' (sp i know) is illogical in my views.
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