GilesStratton:No, I believe in an objective system of ethics, but I don't think that the objective system of ethics I believe to be correct matters the slightest in regard to a stateless society.
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: GilesStratton:No, I believe in an objective system of ethics, but I don't think that the objective system of ethics I believe to be correct matters the slightest in regard to a stateless society. I'm afraid I still don't see what you're getting at. I mean, what you say doesn't sound very...consistent.
I'll put it another way: might makes is.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:Do you realize that's not a valid construction in english ? IOW, your sentence is meaningless.
English* and yes, I do.
GilesStratton:I'll put it another way: might makes is.
not true; a moral person, who is stronger than a given weaker person, might well act in keeping with natural law. this is what being moral is. allowing ones reason to guide what ones does, rather than ones instinct,(to fight and grab)
so to enlarge on the point,
positing immoral individuals, might determines outcomes
positing moral individuals, reasoned self interest in conformity with natural law determines outcomes
positing a mix is obviously the challenge
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:not true; a moral person, who is stronger than a given weaker person, might well act in keeping with natural law. this is what being moral is. allowing ones reason to guide what ones does, rather than ones instinct,(to fight and grab)
Yes, but then you've added another assumption, without it your argument falls apart: namely that the moral person is stronger. Now, if I remove that assumption, your argument breaks down, on the other hand, if I remove the moral assumption the argument still holds. So all you've demonstrated is that might is what matters, even though those who possess the might may well be moral.
And without the state it is not in man's nature to act like savages and to fight and grab, peaceful cooperation is more economic and rational, and all individuals but those with exceedingly high time preference will act in such a manner.
GilesStratton:English* and yes, I do.
GilesStratton: Now, if I remove that assumption, your argument breaks down,
perhaps not since a weak person who is moral would not break natural law any more than a stronger person.
(though he may have a greater risk of being a victim, than the stronger.)
GS:And without the state it is not in man's nature to act like savages and to fight and grab,
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: Now, if I remove that assumption, your argument breaks down, perhaps not since a weak person who is moral would not break natural law any more than a stronger person. (though he may have a greater risk of being a victim, than the stronger.)
So now we're positing that people always follow their moral code? That just doesn't hold water.
Juan: GS:And without the state it is not in man's nature to act like savages and to fight and grab, That's an unwarranted assumption. Fact is, the state is the outcome of people fighting and grabbing. Sounds as if you've got cause and effect backwards.
No, it's not. The state is the result of a monarch monopolizing public opinion by means of appeals to egalitarian sentiment.
I believe he was trying to express, "The strong survive." But then again, maybe not.
no, perhaps you arent understanding me because you feel my point is too slight. im not trying to say anything earthshattering,.
im just saying that the mark of a moral person, one who does keep to a moral code, is that even if he is the stronger, he wont use that advantage even if there would not be adverse social effect.
it may be as you say that moral people are non-existant, or that a given person is only moral at certain times, and then when they fall to temptation then ther are immoral for those durations. but this is taking the convo a whole other place.
i am simply saying that a might is everything approach is necessarily lacking, since it does not touch on morality, which is the cornerstone to human 'society'.
you can view me as making an appeal for you to steer clear of being overly reductive,
strength might be key and up there, but rationality and morality should be cornerstones of your thinking too.( i kind of assume that they are already , and you just slipped in over stating that might dictates outcomes principle.)
a simple example wherein we abstract from reality, lets say the german people slaughtered the jews in their midst. lets say the americans did not. lets say the americans and germans had an equal *might* advantage over the jews. lets assume for sake of argument that the redistribution of the property of jews amongst the respective populaces would have provided material benefits(i.e. there is motive) this would be a suitable demonstration that mere *might calculus* as it were does not tell the whole story of what happens.
JohnBostwick:I believe he was trying to express, "The strong survive." But then again, maybe not.
this is brilliant, I'm using this.
You have no clear definition from you of a state from what you say. As long as a group of people use aggression to assert power over property without defining geographical boundaries or uniform laws they are not a state under your definition.
So if I gather an army and start wiping out people and expropriating property under arbitrary law, laws that only apply to victims or no law while defining no borders I would not be a state by your definition. If I replace the population with my soldiers who have different norms and customs what happens with the previous geographic customs and norms. If anarchy can exist without the moral principle of property rights then you can have an entity within anarchy that performs exactly like a state in the sense that it can use coercion and aggressive force over others without being a "state". Was Nazi Germany a state when it arbitrarily applied laws to specific people and claimed their borders to be indefinite while not being globally recognized.
To me anarchy is a condition in which there is no authoritative coercion.
This condition only exist if you are not coerced.
It is maintained only through the defense of your property. Once you cannot defend that property you are then under the coercion of others and there is no longer anarchy. This is the only sound definition of anarchy.
The state is wrong because it uses aggression to coerce others to their will. Not because they have arbitrary borders which they and only they define. Not because they have some law that they declare right because they think it is. Any individual or group who uses coercion is no different than the state. When you have coercive rule over an individual by outside parties whether they are a party of one or by a party of many, it makes no difference.
Here is a formula for achieving freedom where a high education is not required. N represents the power of non aggressors and believers in property rights. A is the power of aggressors and violators of property rights. Power is defined by any means to assert control whether it is by persuasion, violence, incentives or anything else that is used to assert control.
If N > than A you have freedom. If both A and N = 0 you have freedom. If just A = 0 you have freedom.
Ultimately, it comes down to who has the most power. If the aggressors have the most power than we have tyranny anything else is freedom. The free market can provide greater power than tyranny. If non aggressors become complacent and cede their power to aggressors(state or otherwise) than the non aggressors are screwed.
Byzantine: I maintain a monopoly on rules for my property and if you don't abide by them, then I'll kick you out. Does this mean I run a "statist" household?
I maintain a monopoly on rules for my property and if you don't abide by them, then I'll kick you out. Does this mean I run a "statist" household?
Statist bastard!
CorporateGhost:I was wondering if libertarianism can only happen in a society in witch the average Joe understand the principals of sound economics like the business cycle theory,the forces of the market and its relation to the scarcity of resources,the impossibility of economic calculation in socialism,the complexity of the structure of capital and the dangers of central planing.
I don't think that full knowledge of these things is required per se, but there exists certain precondition that must be fulfilled before a free society can come about.
What is required is that people come to view laissaz-faire capitalism as the moral and practical (of course the moral is the practical) way to organize society. If people don't believe that laissaz-faire capitalism is moral it will never be achieved.
People have both practical and moral problems with capitalism, and before these objections are shown to be false we can never hope for a change. Even if the state were to collapse tomorrow a new state would take its place since people still would be statists.
When a capitalist order has been established it still requires, for its continued existence that people continue to view it as moral.
Juan: JohnBostwick:I believe he was trying to express, "The strong survive." But then again, maybe not. I think his point is : despite that, in theory, might does not make right, in practice it doesn't matter. Which sounds to me like an attempt to subscribe to some variety of amoralism and at the same time believe in natural rights. But I admit I'm just guessing.
I'm not trying to subscribe to amoralism, in case you don't remember, I'm a Christian. Nonetheless, you weren't too far off, I believe in an objective system of morality, however, any state of affairs that exists does so not because of "right" but because of might.
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