People often use the term "should". One says something "should be this way" and another disagrees and says it "should be that way". I engage in this myself quite a lot. So how do we know whether something (or someone) is as it should be? Easily - by analysing the thing (person) itself. Everyone does this many times when making decisions (often without realizing it). For example, to find out the effect minimum wage laws or rent control laws have on the economy and people's behavioural patterns we do not look at an economy which has minimum wage (ex. USA today) and compare it to ancient China (no minimum wage). What we need is something else - a logical way to determine effects of things without actually doing them. This process is called deduction. We take what we already know about human behaviour and we apply the said thing to them. Minimum wage means that employers will have to pay their employees the same wage as now or, if they were paying them less than the new minimum wage, they will have to increase the salaries. From this we know that,
ceteris paribus, unemployment levels will either stay the same or increase. This is a rational law. It would be irrational to think that employers will start hiring more people if they now have to pay them more. Such employers would go out of business very quickly and thus the law would reassert itself (and reason). But this still does not answer the question of "should there be a minimum wage?". The answer is - if you want to increase unemployment, you should pass such laws. If you want to decrease unemployment, you should abolish such laws. "Should" is a word that we usually apply to means. In order to achieve a goal A we
should proceed with course B. But before we can assert this we must know why we
should aim for goal A. Should implies not only the pragmatic (first sense), but also the ethical (second sense). In the first we can always clearly determine the answer, in the second it takes a lot more effort. And this second question is the one we have to ask first! Or, if I may use this word, this is the question we
should be asking. Why should we be asking it? That's another matter...
Everyone knows what I stand for, what I think the world should be like, but let me clearly define it here:
I stand for freedom.
I stand for reason.
I stand for life.
Those things,
in that order!
People often ask me why they
should listen to me. Why they should care about philosophy at all. What does it achieve? How do strange musings about human nature help us?
Ayn Rand once answered this beautifully. And here is that initial premise of all knowledge and things - why we should study philosophy:
"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is – i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." Couldn't have said it better myself.
Also, I just remembered something from my AP history class, that any constitution, democratic or totalitarian, has very little to do with the preservation of natural rights and far more to do as being a charter of negative liberties and that both Madison and John Jay had originally intended to use those words instead. Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist who wrote one a fascinating book called The Clash of Civilizations, wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of Independence was necessary because "The British were white, Anglo, and Protestant, just as we were. They had to have some other basis on which to justify independence".
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the American constitution, it is "required for moral choice and, thus, for human flourishing," claiming that it "is secured when the rights of individual members of a human community to life, to voluntary action (or to liberty of conduct), and to property are universally respected, observed, and defended."-Tibor R. Machan, Von Mises institute
Almost everything I believe in terms of morality is summed up in this very benign lecture and non-descriptive lecture:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Also, on this issue of private property, I am beginning to see less and less of the reason of equating it to human rights. If an entire community decided to voluntarily join a communist society and sign a voluntary contract that says they would be allowed to be coerced regardless for the rest of their lives, and they could not leave without being executed, then I fail to see the morality that breaking the punishment should be appropriate in any universal sphere (Jonestown). Also, if a 3-4 year old child was being physically abused by the parent, I would fail to see it being morally right not to directly intervene and violate the parent's private property even though I was in now way unaffected by the abuse. Likewise, on a practical scale, I am not a neo-conservative, but state sponsored mass genocide, on a massively organized statist scale (concentration camps where humans are being systematically executed regardless of what law they broke), would be troubling to just benignly dismiss if it occurred off your property; private, government or otherwise,
Interesting article I just read. I don't agree with all the criticisms against Hoppe:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oliver-marc-hartwich.com/publications/the-errors-of-hans-hermann-hoppe
"Breaking contracts is immoral in every regard."-you
ReplyDeleteTitle-transfer theory of contract:
"The theory begins with the assumption about the inalienability of free will of an individual, consistent with the self-ownership principle. Rothbard claimed that because no action should contradict one's free will, one should not follow contractual obligations. He explains that one should have the freedom to break a contractual promise, as contracts should not limit one's free will."
-from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title-transfer_theory_of_contract
I really don't have to explain to you why voluntary slavery, just because it is in a voluntary contract, is no more moral than a social contract, do I? Even Rothbard rejected what you said up top. Come on.
I read the article you sent me and it was indeed interesting, though entirely wrong. The author makes lots of arguments which I would say are personal beliefs - I may or may not agree with them, but they cannot be proven. For instance I don't question that Dr.Hoppe is against "sex, drugs, and Rockn'Roll" libertarians, but I don't agree with him on the basis of personal belief. I happen to be a big-time hedonist. When Hoppe says such people are bad he is making a value judgement which I don't have to agree with. But his logic is flawless. Indeed in a natural social order people like me would be at a comparative disadvantage to family-minded people who spend zero dollars on pleasure and only invest in the future. But I think there is more to life than just efficiency and spending money on myself makes me happy. I realize this is inefficient, but I am willing to go against the norm on this issue because it is a value judgement and thus it is based on personal belief.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, writing about how Rothbard rejected something doesn't persuade me! If it's logically consistent and functional then it is true! Modern theorists like Walter Block and Hoppe have moved far beyond Rothbard, just as Rothbard had moved beyond Mises and Mises moved beyond Menger and so on. Breaking contracts is immoral in every regard if they are legitimate contracts. That's just a fact nobody can deny. If I agree to pay someone a salary and then don't pay it - I am commiting a crime. If this is true in this case then it has to be true in all cases, otherwise the Law is not universal and thus is not a Law.
Concerning the Constitution - Lysander Spooner wrote decisively on the subject of it being immoral. Libertarians support the Constitution not because it is moral, but because in most cases it helps them guarantee their rights (it is a pragmatic way to defend oneself against the immoral government).
I suggest you at least listen far later on to the interview that I had placed above. If you hate, you can always tell me after the fact:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Also, "If I agree to pay someone a salary and then don't pay it - I am committing a crime."
Yes, but do you have the right to kill him. Under voluntary slavery, do you have the right to deny him to act on his free will. Yes. And I am not going to keep debating how you can defend the words "voluntary slavery." No matter what society it is in, with a social contract or not, democratic, absolute monarch, communist, anarcho-capitalist, anarchist of any kind- it is morally wrong and if Block or Hoppe does not believe in the inalienability of free will as fundamental to oneself (defining oneself as what "I do" as you have for one to exist, which that choice is restricted or denied in voluntary slavery), then that is profoundly naive. The adjective "voluntary" does not justify the noun "slavery" in any vocabulary.
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work"- definition from wiki.
And if I reject your premise that people are treated as property, private or otherwise, then no such voluntary slavery will ever exist. And I thank God for that.
And I don't care if Hoppe's logic is flawless if his premises are ridiculous. Hoppe gives absolute monarchs like the King of Saudi Arabia a good name.
"Indeed in a natural social order people like me would be at a comparative disadvantage to family-minded people who spend zero dollars on pleasure and only invest in the future."
-Then there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist future because that is never going to happen and that is so subjective (how do you economically measure the consumption of a person's pleasure, is it driving around, buying a smaller coffee instead of a larger one, etc.) it is nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. And no, neither you, nor Hoppe, nor even Block, would know how to raise your children without reverting to what has been the natural law since the beginning of man for parent/child dichotomy, one that is socialistic.
And you have chosen to incorporate elements of the ideas of Spencerian, Mises, Rothbardian, Burke, Locke, Block, and Hoppe thought into one ideal society that is so specific in its predications that it would be impossible to be applied universally or even locally in terms of even relative functionality thousands of years from now supposing that it occurs after the deaths of nation states like the U.S. and Poland. Now when I mean applying it locally, because the premises of the morality and logicality of the society in question are different between all the men up there and you, from child bearing, to educating or "indoctrinating" them, to voluntary slavery, to personal subjective values or inefficiency, to monarchism, to the form or existence of classical liberalism to subjective property law standards, then you would not be able to form a coherent society in which any of them completely agree on any of the overarching, fundamental premises morally and logically of what the society should entail neither in the short term or in the long term.
And if I gave Hoppe the option of right now living in an absolute monarchy or living in a democratic republic, Hoppe would probably go for the former, as opposed to the latter, where in a democratic republic his rights are never protected. So he can live in Saudi Arabia, where he would be swiftly executed by the King for talking about his ideas on the King's private property that are contrary to the King, as the King has done to both democracy and communist activists alike. If Hoppe chooses to live in a democratic republic over an absolute monarchy, however benevolent, then the former is preferable to the latter in a way that Hoppe would probably never admit...
You cannot reject slavery because that would be rejecting reality. You are currently a slave if you acknowledge the "social contract". You have literally given your rights away to "society" which is ruled over by the government. You have no rights now - you are a public slave. This is my primary objection to government. Voluntary slavery does not alter you as a human being, but it follows from the principle of self-ownership. If you own something, it means you can sell it. If you can't sell it, then either it does not exist or you don't own it.
ReplyDeleteAnd if someone doesn't follow through on a contract which they voluntarily agreed to then I have the right to enforce it. This means I can use any means necessary, up to and including killing the person. Would you make the claim that contracts are non-enforcable?! That would eliminate the very meaning of the word "contract" which is an enforcable agreement (unlike, for example, a promise which is a non-enforcable agreement).
I never deny the subjectivity of value, in fact neoclassical economists are the ones who are obsessed with measuring "utility" and such other things. Making predictions about the future is for us theorists unnecessary. Nobody claims to be a seer (except for Ben Bernanke). All we know is that the Natural Law exists and whatever happens in the world happens within the framework of Natural Law. You saying that anarcho-capitalist can't make predictions is like telling a physicist that since he cannot build a spaceship which travels at the speed of light his whole science is pointless and inapplicable to the real world. On the contrary, he may not be able to build such a thing, but he knows how space and such things work. He knows the "Natural Law" of physics. I just happen to acknowledge the "Natural Law" of human action. I leave predictions to entrepreneurs like Bill Gates. I am in no way trying to "construct a society" or "create a utopia". I am not Marx or Lenin. All I do is speak about how things REALLY ARE. All Natural Law is truly consistent and universal - if you don't agree then prove it please, don't just deny it.
In terms of functionality you are correct when you write "you would not be able to form a coherent society in which any of them completely agree on any of the overarching [rules]". This is because I am not trying to form any society! All I want is for people (whatever their beliefs are) to leave me alone and stop usurping my rights. Libertarians do not want to enforce their system on others, they just want to be left alone. If someone wants to live in a state like the USA I am not preventing them, I am only seeking for a future in which this USA does not force me to conform to their standards (like they are doing today).
Also I'm not sure you realize, but democracy is synonymous with communism. It is a system with egalitarian principles, thus it is in that sense communistic. I oppose all egalitarianism. I consider myself above most people - I do not want to belong to the rabble of knaves and simpletons which always arises in democratic states. I want to belong to one of those natural elites, like the princes of past ages.
"If you own something, it means you can sell it. If you can't sell it, then either it does not exist or you don't own it."
ReplyDeleteSlavery of any form is morally wrong. Even if I am a slave right now, even if I was a slave in anarcho-capitalist- it would still be morally wrong. To say that anarcho-capitalism,as people have, would resolve such moral issues is profoundly misguided. And if you have free will, you cannot sell it or buy it, but it still exists within every individual human being.
"I consider myself above most people - I do not want to belong to the rabble of knaves and simpletons which always arises in democratic states. I want to belong to one of those natural elites, like the princes of past ages."
And when the princes abuse their power and are overthrown and killed, then where would you be? With the next prince? Then the next one? Then on and on and on and would you expect to be considered a "natural elite" by anybody, including the next prince? The Iranian "natural elite" and Saudi "natural elite" were not particularly people of grace. And that ego to assume that you "consider (yourself) above people" is precisely the reason of what leads a person to his/her downfall.
Definiton of egalitarianism:
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning "equal"), is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort.
So you oppose Spencer's Law of equal liberty? Of course not. And if we are all equally free with the same guaranteed rights, then that is a form of egalitarianism.
And at some point you must realize that private individuals would in an anarchic society infringe on another person's rights and that would probably go unpunished if you didn't subscribe to defense contractors and insurers who would be insured who would insure the other insurers onto infinity.
Also, almost every anarcho-capitalist realizes there must be some libertarian rule within the free market to exist. If you believe in natural law, it is not just a law, it is a rule for the existence of the free market. And how would you have it protected from coercive forces willing to violate that rule? In order to do a transaction in the free market safely, you must subscribe to some sort of protection. If you don't subscribe for some sort of protection voluntarily or otherwise, you are not guaranteed the right that the free market transaction will not be violated and the violation will not be punished. What protection is that: defense contractors and insurers. What happens if you can't afford them? Well then you do not have the right to be protected or the transaction to be protected from coercive forces larger than yourself because you could not afford to "voluntarily" subscribe to it.
"I just happen to acknowledge the "Natural Law" of human action."
You think that everyone is wrong, ignorant, evil, or illogical if they do not acknowledge your interpretation of natural law, even if they are other anarcho-capitalists. And that is not an understanding of human action with any level of complexity or seriousness. That is a mixture of high intelligent analytical logical thinking with slight arrogance and self delusion to think that you "just happen" to acknowledge natural law of human action.
And as for being left alone, that is a perfectly noble and fine thing to do. But what you do, no matter how much of you want to be part of an island, you are still part of the human race and unfortunately people aren't like you and there are many cruel people in the world who would never leave you or me alone even if they were to go punished, whether now or a 5 million years from now. The question is, how in as much an ethical yet functional society or system that relates to some degree of pragmatism (not 0% pragmatism where it is purely theoretical) are you (and I) willing to tolerate?
Slavery is wrong for one reason - because it is involuntary. There can be no other objection to it. If you make it voluntary then it becomes a normal legitimate contract. You keep talking about free will, but I am telling you free will doesn't do anything. It is just thoughts. What matters is the EXERCISE of that will. And that you can control by contracts. For example currently you are not allowed smoke pot based on social contract theory. You have given up that right - traded it in return for "security". But does that mean you lost your free will? Not at all - you can still think about smoking marijuana, but you cannot do it. If you did you would be braking the contract and the government could use force against you up to and including killing you (as it does daily to hundreds of people).
ReplyDelete"You think that everyone is wrong, ignorant, evil, or illogical if they do not acknowledge your interpretation of natural law" Don't you think that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? If you didn't think that, there would be no right or wrong answers to questions... When someone tells me 2+2=10 I tell them they are wrong. That's just how the world works.
And elitism is good. You keep using examples of Kings in Saudi Arabia, etc. What makes you think I support them or would ever support them? I do not support evil Monarchs. I only support good Monarchs. But I do not question their right to do what they do. If I owned a country I would want my rules to be enforced, not the rules of the primitive mob. Mob rule is not good which is why democracy is not good. I don't care about majorities or minorities, only about MYSELF! I do not have a servile personality and I will not listen to demagogues who arbitrarily determine what I cann't do or what I have to do. That is only for me to determine within the Natural Law framework. What you call arrogance and self-delusion I call confidence and moral conviction. The average person does not exhibit these things. Average people are content living in bondage - I am not.
And where do you get the thought about me not being pragmatic? I am very pragmatic. For example, I did not yet refuse to pay any taxes because that would put me in danger of a physical assault by the government that demands the payments. For pragmatic reasons I simply go along with the mob - doing otherwise would be suicidal at this point.
Also, if you were right about your strange insurance companies theory ("defense contractors and insurers who would be insured who would insure the other insurers onto infinity") how come insurance companies work in today's world? It is silly to argue that insurance is impossible because it exists already.
As for being left alone, it would be nice if you stopped trying to give legitimacy and approval to the mafia which is usurping my rights. This sadly makes you my enemy - you are indirectly usurping my rights). I think you should allow me to secede from your evil empire or just acknowledge you are oppressing me. Oppression is something objective and I have been proving to you that I am being oppressed. So why is it okay for government to usurp my rights and not okay for a King to do so? Or why can't I enslave you - after all there is no objective theory of morality, right? All these silly things you say are only justification of "might makes right".
All right then, we are obviously on such completely different premises and axioms that they will obviously never be reconciled. You can classify me however you wish (irrational, naive, emotional, a mixture of the three), because I really don't care as of now since I know our premises are so irreconcilable. You can believe, act, and do as you please with what you know, and the consequences will be of your making derived from your own actions. You keep assuming you know the absolute universal moral truth of what constitutes the "good" in natural law and that is based on your premises and values and I cannot challenge a belief system such as that nor will I degrade myself to classify it as evil, ignorant, or irrational as you have to my premises. And when I said arrogance, even you have used the words like ego-maniac and arrogant but always right when describing what other people think of you to me. I am not leveling any sort of personal attack on you.
ReplyDelete"When someone tells me 2+2=10 I tell them they are wrong. That's just how the world works."
And please stop equating the science of mathematics with your "scientific" interpretation of the natural law of man. It is not. If the parent/child dichotomy has always been socialistic in nature, then private property being human rights is not the natural law of man. If "Might makes right" is always invalid (as you called it "silly" to justify), then the parent will never have authority over the child and that begins the natural breakdown (secession) of the family as a function within humanity in general. Again, I reject your premises. Good Night =)
You reject my premises, but I never know what your premises are! Is it because you don't have any - you don't believe in acts being right or wrong?
ReplyDeleteThe study Natural Law is a science - that's the whole point of it. It is logical, almost mathematical. Do you reject both morality AND reason?
Is your premise that there are no premises? This all seems very childish to me. You are saying things are not true simply because you don't like them.
And I haven't spoken to you at all about my beliefs - only about things that are objective and can be proven. Beliefs are things it is impossible to prove - like the existence of God.
Using your theory (whatever it may be) can you prove anything at all? Because if you have no objective theory then you would have to conclude either "everything is good" (we can all do anything, birds can live underwater, everyone is God) or "everything is evil" (we are all dead, nothing exists). It strikes me that both of those are incompatible with reality (I clearly exist and yet I cannot grow wings).
So I challenge you to tell me what your theory is! What are those magical premises of yours which are superior to mine?
This is what I said at the very beginning of this entire discussion on this blog. I don't know if you acknowledged it.:
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything I believe in terms of morality is summed up in this very brief lecture.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
But haven't you been arguing with me the whole time how morality has nothing to do with facts or science? You wrote to me "please stop equating the science of mathematics with your "scientific" interpretation of the natural law of man". But this guy in the video is a bit weird. For example he says that it would be wrong to add cholera to the water, but doesn't say why. He just claims it's a fact because people "feel" it to be wrong. But there are some people who "feel" killing is good, aren't there? I agree that these people are "unnatural", but how would be prove it? Or how would he prove that beating children in school is bad? He just says it is a fact. To me he is just some neoliberal using psychobabble to sound fancy (although I agree with him on some points, which is not saying much since I also agree with you on some things and yet we know that we are fundamentally opposed).
ReplyDeleteMore on the interesting youtube lecture! At the end he says once people discover the better system through reason they will conform to it. This is not true because we currently don't have anarcho-capitalism (the best moral system) even though the knowledge of it being the best is available. People like to steal and be aggressive so we have states.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteThe point of the lecture was simple. When he refers to the moral landscape, he is referring to how the objective truths always exist, but they are limited to the confines of our brain (I have no doubt you agree with that part). Now, the distinction is made in the universality of those moral truths. First, there is such a thing, but second, by creating universal rules we apply rules that are complex and that exist with no exceptions. However, that complexity is not simply stated.
For instance:
Is using a knife to slice open the stomach of your child against his/her will/freedom/choice through absolute non-retaliatory and purely aggressive force a bad thing?
-Well no, of course not, says one person. Because "might makes right" is always a morally evil argument and it is made by ignorant people who use force, not reason.
-Well yes, of course, says another person. Because the child will die without the surgery even if he doesn't know it.
Now, how does he not know it? How can we judge, externally, that he does not understand. We can use deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning (its arguable on this, but lets keep going since these are the two types of reasoning). Now, we use deductive reasoning first, and this is the scenario:
"Do you understand what the doctor's will do"
"Yes"
"Do you know why they're about to do it"
"Yes"
"Okay, lets go."
"No. I don't want to. I won't"
"You must"
"You're hurting me. Stop it, please stop hurting me"
So obviously the child rejects it. We use inductive reasoning and say that he cannot comprehend or fathom it at this point in his life as his brain has not developed to completely comprehend the rationality of it.
Part II
ReplyDeleteNow, that still does not excuse us from validating the statement "might makes right." Also, since the means always justify the ends, you are destroying and invalidating the principles of non-agression for an end you deem justifiable and self-evident but the means of which, for the victim, are brutal. Now, do you break the axiom. As it is defined currently in that situation, then yes. But then that was never a truly objective or universal axiom, so the premise was invalidated. But does that mean the premise never reflected any reality? No. In fact, the premise worked for your entire life until this point and seemed as if it was the most moral and logical truth in the universe. But it did not reflect this one moment of reality, and had it been followed in this moment, the results would have been devastating.
You have now forced the child. So you have two options. One, you can either be convinced you acted immorally or two, you can be convinced you acted morally. If you choose the former, you had aimed for a good that you subjectively put ahead of an objective universal truth in the axiomatic statement. If you choose the latter, then you must be convinced that the statement, which has always worked, did not reflect that current reality at that one time.
So, in that case. You revise the axiomatic statement to incorporate this reality and the universality of the statement as a truth will remain both valid and sound.
"Might does not ever make right unless that might contradicts the well fair of your child unknowingly to him/her."
Now, that statement is the universal rule you will apply to bearing the child. And there is no exception to the clause outside of that statement. And the revision serves on both an entirely ethical and logical basis and does not detract maintains its universality.
This approach uses logic, science, and reasoning. Now granted, this statement may be different for another person. How do you reconcile it? By including that real life incident into the axiom as a universal rule, and if it is both moral and logical, it does not lack an ethical dimension. In fact it is strengthened and you have come closer to understanding what the "good" entails in the "truth". The statement above remains perfectly objective, clear, and succinct, and there are no exceptions outside of it. The truth of the axiom with its detail is simple and straightforward, but its composition is complex. In other words, the so called "moral landscape" has an objective truth that is complex in nature.
So when you say:
"Because if you have no objective theory then you would have to conclude either "everything is good" (we can all do anything, birds can live underwater, everyone is God) or "everything is evil" (we are all dead, nothing exists)."
The objective theory is the concluded axiomatic statement I just explained to you. So I do not conclude that "all might means right", or "all might does not mean right." The universal and objective axiomatic truth above is quite clear on that.
It would take at least four or five pages of typing to give adequate justice to describing what I believe because of the rigorous complexity of the philosophical field of the application or morality and ethics and logically going step by step through it as well as the fact I have dozens of other influences that converge on a number of fields such as science, logic, and reason. You have nearly a hundred blogs on philosophy and I would need my own blog as opposed to simply always responding to your comments.
Let me just start by saying I disagree with your argument. If you make a statement "might does not make right, but..." you are immediately implying this "might does not make right" is not a universal rule. Universal rules have no "buts" or excuses to break them. So you have so far not named even one objective universal Law (which you said at the start was actually your aim). Libertarians have one such rule - the non-aggression axiom. This rule is absolutely universal in all cases, no excuses! Then libertarians added private property theory as the practical/functional theory which allows for the enforcement of the non-aggression axiom (after all if you don't have private property theory you can't know if some acts are aggressive or not). Can you claim to have developed or found any such complete and completely universal moral theory? It applies in all cases at all times. And it is functional, having no paradoxes or contradictions within it.
ReplyDeleteLet's analyze your example of the person refusing surgery which can be potentially life-saving. Applying the non-aggression axiom immediately tells us this act (refusing the surgery) is perfectly compatible with it. Thus we don't have the right to force anyone into having surgery. In the same sense, you can't force people to do other things unless you are "correcting wrongs" done by them (i.e. it is legitimate to put a criminal in jail).
If you acknowledge that it is moral to force someone into surgery you are opening the door to many other evil things. Your law can no longer be considered universal and objective. So, someone might say that if forcing someone into surgery is legitimate, why isn't forcing someone to exercise three times a week also okay? Or eating celery everyday?
Aggression is ALWAYS evil because it is the definition of evil.
There are also quite a few logical inconsistencies in your argument which you claim is logical. For example you write about your revised statement:
ReplyDelete1."Now granted, this statement may be different for another person."
2."The statement above remains perfectly objective"
These two statements are contradictory and therefore one of them has to be false. If something is objective it cannot be different from person to person - that would make it subjective.
And when you say it would take you five pages to explain your position why is that? I can explain my position by positing the non-aggression axiom. Everything else follows from it. So you also, in theory, should have some axiom to follow. I suspect you do not - your whole theory is based on numerous exceptions to supposedly universal and objective rules. This means none of these rules are actually universal or objective - like you statement about forcing someone into surgery.
"If you acknowledge that it is moral to force someone into surgery you are opening the door to many other evil things."
ReplyDeleteNo. The rule is stated as it is and there are no exceptions outside of it.
"This rule is absolutely universal in all cases, no excuses!"
Yes, and if libertarianism fails to explain how to rear a child by an aggressive parent, then it is not a universal rule. Period. There is an inconsistency here you are failing to recognize in that if libertarianism does not resolve this relationship between a parent and child, then it is not a universal rule nor a natural one as you understand it to be and you misunderstand the application of the rule. You failure to recognize the natural authoritative relationship between the parent and the child is your own failing, because your "universal rules" fails to resolve it and have no depth on reality.
Under your statement "aggression is always evil", the kid would have died because aggression was not used (He did not want to be injected with needles and sedated). To say, "let him die," because you as a parent believe in non-aggression and private property is sort of idiotic and at the very least unsound parenting to cause the death of your own child. What are you going to say? The child did it to himself? If you think you have no culpability, think again.
"You failure to recognize the natural authoritative relationship between the parent and the child is your own failing, because your "universal rules" fails to resolve it and have no depth on reality."
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of silly statement is that? Just because some act is present in nature doesn't make it moral! People used to be cannibals and used to have slaves! People used to have dog-fighting rings and fox hunts! People still kill each other for money. Do you mean to say that just because these things existed naturally, they are moral?! Sounds a bit crazy to me, but believe what you want I guess.
Also I find your analysis of the parent-child relationship deeply disturbing. You claim a child would not trust its parents? If not - maybe it has good reason not to trust them! I can tell you I went through quite a few painful medical procedures when I was a little boy and I fully trusted my parents' judgement. You cannot deny people their rights simply because of mere whim. You can't tell people what is good for them and expect them to agree unless they trust you. And if they don't trust you, you have no right to arbitrarily break the non-aggression axiom. This concerns not only people, but all intelligent beings. What gives you the right to do immoral things in the name of "practicality" or "might makes right" morality? Once you make one practical fallacy all other practical fallacies are immediately permitted because the law has lost its universal value. In past ages we used to have different rights for people of different races. Do you think that was moral? After all it was just another reasonable exception to the rule that all humans have rights. Back in those days African people were thought to be of lower intelligence and primitive (unreasonable being who are unable to function in civilized society). That was the state of scientific knowledge at the time. But does that mean it was right? Of course not!
"There are also quite a few logical inconsistencies in your argument which you claim is logical. For example you write about your revised statement:
ReplyDelete1."Now granted, this statement may be different for another person."
2."The statement above remains perfectly objective"
These two statements are contradictory and therefore one of them has to be false. If something is objective it cannot be different from person to person - that would make it subjective."
It may be different for another person because as a person who does not have children you would not have recognized the truth and reality of the situation compared to someone who has children.
Matt, this is stupid. A baby is born. The baby does not like needles. He must be vaccinated for polio. He does not want to be vaccinated and goes away from the needle. You don't hold him down for vaccination and commit aggression on him. You are the parent. The child is your baby. He dies before the age of 1. Another child: you don't circumcise this child. He gets an infection and dies from complications. Another child is now 5. He does not like to listen to his parents because they feed him broccoli all the time. He refuses to do anything they say. When they say he needs surgery, he agrees because they are crying, he goes in, sees the needles, and runs away. This is stupid and you have never dealt with raising or dealing with children in your life. If you do not allow force on the part of the doctor to vaccinate the child at birth, then the childhood mortality jumps by more than 50%. This is stupid. Even a mother would say this is stupid.
ReplyDelete"It may be different for another person because as a person who does not have children you would not have recognized the truth and reality of the situation compared to someone who has children."
ReplyDeleteThis is false because it has no logic behind it whatsoever. It is just silly to think that if you have children you are suddenly granted access to some higher logic or science. Now if you have a child who refuses to undergo surgery you might act on emotional impulse and force the child to do it. But feelings and emotions offer no basis for action. If they did I would have the right to kill someone who makes me sad or something such as this - and this just seems crazy to me! Let me remind you that it was you who claimed your law was universal - thus it HAS TO apply to all people equally everywhere and every time.
Secondly, it seems to me that I need to explain why making one exception (children) means that you also will be able to make other exceptions. Your resoning behind creating the exception for children was (I assume when it is deeply analyzed) as follows:
A child is an unreasonable being which does not know what is good for it and thus we have the right to use force on the child.
But this would make the issue very complicated! First you would have to define "unreasonable" and define "good". All the communists used this exact reasoning to enforce their policies in the Soviet Union and other countries. They decided what was good for all the people and then pronounced that "all the people who do not agree with our definition of what is good for them are unreasonable". Therefore they had the right to use force. The government nowadays does the same thing. Compuslory insurance, for example. If you want to drive a car you have to have insurance - this law was passed because all reasonable people have insurance and the unreasonable ones who don't have to be forced to do what is good for them.
In other words, if you accept that children can be aggressed upon, you also have to accept all other forms of aggression which are based on the same type of reasoning. Otherwise you are making a systematic fallacy in you law - you claim it to be universal and objective whereas it is neither.
If you think logic is stupid why are you currently taking a class on logic (which I happen to be in with you!). You are assuming strange things. What if you circumcise a child and it dies from an infection (in Nigeria this is the most common cause of death for baby boys besides malaria!)? Does this mean you must go to jail? I say you can't arbitrarily cut off people's body parts just because you think it's good for them! Now a baby can be vaccinated and taken care of. This is because it does not possess the faculties necessary to argue with you and actually determine what is good for it. It does not know language or logic. It is essentially like an animal. We can take care of animals right? But we can't abuse them! Now this baby - if and when it grows up - can definitely take revenge on you in a legitimate way if it thinks you abused it when it was little. For example if you hit your child when he was 5 and don't let him run away he can subsequently sue you and put you in jail when he grows up. This is the best protection anyone can have against abusive parenting! I am just throwing this idea out there - just thought it up 5 minutea ago - but it seems to make sense :)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, libertarian principles apply, but then there is the pesky question about children. Well obviously the parents would act the same way as communists or nazis or colonizers or eugenicists if they allowed for this sort of aggression on their children. And the issue is not complicated. It shows the pure stupidity behind your premise. And I need to be more specific because I just looked it up, the chances of the child dying if you don't compulsory vaccinate him before the age of 6 with 11 separate vaccines jumps by an average of 420%. And before the age of 13 it jumps to 600%. This is idiotic.
ReplyDeleteYour premise of which your logic is derived is ridiculous and it is so ridiculous I dare you to ask any parent, including your own, about this premise and they would laugh right to your face. You have no idea and you are in denial that your premise is ridiculous because you are trying to prove some silly point.
ReplyDelete"This is because it does not possess the faculties necessary to argue with you and actually determine what is good for it. It does not know language or logic. It is essentially like an animal."
How do you determine when he stops being an animal. When he understands language and logic? So what if he understands language and goes to school? He can act irrationally because of hormonal changes and still ruin his life during the growth period. This is absurdly stupid.
I agree this whole idea is quite problematic - but it is the only universal, objective, and uncontradictory law that exists. So it is impossible to deny it. No argument can be made against it unless you accept aggression in the name of a subjective good being moral. And in that case, as I explained earlier, we would have to accept the idea of communism, nazism, and other such things as being agreeable also. I simply cannot accept a world with no rules and moral laws (you said yourself that we have universal objective law!). We can no more say "the non-aggression axiom applies to everything other than children" than we can say "the law of gravity applies to everything other than airplanes".
ReplyDeleteOn what premise would you base allowing the use of force against innocent children? Can I get my child a giant bat tattoo on his face? Can I kill and eat my child? A child is either property or it is not. You position would seem to deny that there can be any objective law regarding children beyond dictatorship of the the parents (parents in your vision are like Nazis).
"I say you can't arbitrarily cut off people's body parts just because you think it's good for them!"
ReplyDeleteWell according to almost every doctor in the world, your belief contradicts the evidence. Like you cannot remove appendixes, tonsils, or wisdom teeth from a child if it would become a serious and dangerous problem in the future but is not at that instant.
So your position on "aggression is always wrong" and "might never makes right" is ridiculous to apply as universal and as you distinguish to your subjective liking of when you think the child is out of his "animalistic" stage.
And if the parent does not assert minimal authority over the child, like the state does not assert minimal authority over the protection of people's private property, then there is no authority and obviously you have the right to seek revenge against any parent whatever the reason simply because he/she tried to assert it preemptively. And if the parent abused the child and the child was not at an age deemed to be "non-animalistic" and the child was locked up, I would be fully morally correct as a third party not to intervene as an outside because of your premise that private property=human rights and aggression is always wrong and there is nothing anyone could do. This is absurdly stupid, and no matter how many times I say it, it does not make it any less so.
Matt there are three of parenting. Authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Think of it this way, permissive is no government, authoritarian is complete governance, authoritative is minimal governance. And no psychologist or doctor ever would recommend anything other than authoritative as the best scenario otherwise your child will end up with a hell load of problems later on in life.
ReplyDeleteOf course a child has right to take revenge upon its parents when it grows up! But most children trust their parents and are later able to realize their parents were acting in their best interest. If a child visibly communicates the fact that it does not want something done to it - how can you morally justify doing that very thing? If I thought it was good for me to inject my child with heroin would I have the right to do that and, furthermore, would the child never have the right to punish me at some point if I did not have the right to do that?
ReplyDeleteAnd also - why do you think anything psychological can be applied here? We are talking about ethics only. You cannot definitively determine what styles of parenting will have an impact on any particular child. I do not feel abused by my parents because they had rules for me when I was a child. However does that mean they had a right to make such rules? Just because you accept democratic government, does it mean that abstract entity has some kind of rights to rule over you? This would be a lot more "stupid" as you say, than any theory I have come up with. Do we arrive at the conclusion that people have no rights and Nazis were legitimate good people and there is no evil in the world?
ReplyDelete"If a child visibly communicates the fact that it does not want something done to it - how can you morally justify doing that very thing?"
ReplyDeleteMatt, I'd love to see you and your wife (hopefully) have this discussion, lets say this occurs while the child's life hangs in the balance (I pray this never happens to you). If the child has cancer and does not like radiation to get rid of the cancer, then should I say to him: Well you've lived a good life at the age of 4 and its up to you now because I am granting you your property rights because I don't want to make you go get treated and you have to decide for yourself. He chooses that he doesn't like the radiation and dies.
Good night I'm closing my laptop now. =)
Well Rob there are many instances in today's world where children have refused treatment (in their early teens, 12-13) because they had been sick all their lives and just couldn't take it anymore. Those children are not then forced to go through chemotherapy. I was often surprised how supportive their parents were of their child's decision to end their lives in TV interviews. So I think we are already progressing towards full emancipation of children (beating innocent children is outlawed, etc).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I have never heard of a scenario where parents have not been able to persuade a child to do what they want. If a four year old does not want to eat broccoli most parents offer him a prize of some sort at the end of the meal and the kid eats! The same is true for medical treatments and going to school or pretty much anything. It is important to understand that just because you are prejudiced against children does not mean they have no rights. People 200 years ago would have called me stupid if I posited that women have rights!
And you keep dodging my question: If a child visibly communicates the fact that it does not want something done to it - how can you morally justify doing that very thing?
If the child knew what cancer was or what radiation was and if he/she did not want to the latter, I would support him/her and would not enslave that child. But you still missed the point entirely.
ReplyDelete"If a child visibly communicates the fact that it does not want something done to it - how can you morally justify doing that very thing?"
Every child hates needles, but does that mean he/she should not be compulsory vaccinated? Should we expect a 3 year old child to understand that the needle will solidify his health even if it is painful? To determine the time at which he should decide on his own once he understands the consequences of the injection is up to the subjective discretion of the parents. And it is subjective.
And if the "animalistic" child who was deprived of property rights was abused by the parents, an outside party would have to intervene before the child was killed even if they committed initial aggression to restrain the parents or to "steal" the parent's property.
And I am not calling you stupid for postulating that children have rights, because anyone with a brain knows instinctively they do. But to assume that private property is objectively linked to human rights is absurd. Children have the right to life the moment they are born. But their private property status is determined subjectively by the parents, not bound to any libertarian universalism law and clearly "socialistic" in its very nature of the parents authority. To alter that nature or to pretend their is another way going about it is to expect the natural parent/child dichotomy to be something it is not. And to assume that no aggression (such as needles) should ever be applied to a child at the moment of birth, to prevent his death before he realizes he was ever alive, is absurd.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy! You say children have rights, but it's the parents who determine them? That means they have no objective rights! A parent could beat their child all they want. That is what you are proposing. You are also saying a child is a slave of the parents until the deem it is alright to release it from bondage - which might be never. And why do you say a child acquires the right to life with its birth? So you mean a day before its birth it can be justly killed?
ReplyDelete"And if the "animalistic" child who was deprived of property rights was abused by the parents, an outside party would have to intervene before the child was killed even if they committed initial aggression to restrain the parents or to "steal" the parent's property." Aha, you just confessed to agreeing with "the ends justify the means" there. That was also Stalin's big thing! So in the case of children you are a Stalinist - that's not a good idea to be associated with.
Rights can never be subjective. If they are, then they are not rights - just random things people force on each other because the feel it's necessary.
How do you as a parent determine when your child becomes an adult and when your child gains language, logic, and reason to the fullest extent to live on his/her own? Libertarianism does not explain this at all in an objective manner and you are still missing the point all together and will always do so.
ReplyDelete"Children and children's rights under a libertarian system have been the most troubling theoretical problem for me over the last couple years. No libertarian theorist has addressed this issue in an acceptable way. I agree with you that currently the parent/child relationship is socialist. I am actually very interested in any input you might have on this topic which, as you noted, is problematic. As I wrote before a good ethical law needs two aspects to be fulfilled - logical consistency and functionality. It seems to me that viewing children as property is logically inconsistent, but the other extreme, treating them like adults, may not be functional. How do we solve this? Technically are all parents abusing their children's rights when they spank them? Is there some implicit contract involved here... I don't know the answer! I would love to be able to talk to professor Block or professor Hoppe about this fundamental (as you say) issue. Can we assume that the child is living in a voluntary socialist regime? That might be what Walter Block would say (I expect). But can that be asserted with certainty? And what if a child runs away from home at age 4? It definitely doesn't want to be there anymore - so how can we force it back? On the other hand I don't think we can apply Lockean homesteading to children to make them property. Because then, as Spencer eloquently presents, we would have to make a arbitrary cut-off of when they become adults... “
ReplyDeleteSo yes, your failure (and libertarianism failure) to find an answer with these axioms is because the premises are invalid to begin with, not because the premises have not been taken to their ultimate logical conclusions.
Will you always resort to brute force when any issue arises? I think you're saying: "oh well if the stupid kid doesn't conform we just force him to and problem solved". It seems that way to me. Your philosophy is a very violent one - I cannot in good conscience accept that as the case for mine. I reject aggression. Of course this does not mean you can't use aggression on me to "help me" because you're trying to do what is "good" for me. You can do it, but if you do I promise you that I have the right to kill you in self-defense. Parents who have their children abducted by government certainly have the right to defend them, wouldn't you say?
ReplyDeleteEven Locke (who I assume you agree with) stated that government can't have powers which individual people do not possess in the state of nature. Rights are not created by the social contract - only transfered. So if I as an individual would not have the right to kidnap someone's child, then government does not have this right either. Unless you are not a liberal at all, but just some kind of totalitarian? I think when you wrote before you seemed to lean towards classical liberalism of Locke and Mises. What you are writing now is contrary to all liberal principles of individual freedom.
In classical liberalism, governments exist. That is in the definition on wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I would never use "brute" force and these inferences are just plain insulting and demonizing. If a kid wanted to go play outside by himself at midnight, I say as a parent that if he does that he will not be allowed to watch tv if he does that and does not listen to the parent. He says I am breaking his human rights and begins stamping his feet. I say that you are five and I will not leave you alone outside because you have the possibility of being abducted and I would not want that to happen to you at this stage in your life. In either case, I am violating his individual property rights by limiting and restricting them. He begins to cry and says that I hate him and am opressing or agressing against him to cause him emotional harm. I give him other oportunities and the option to do anything he wants while I am around or nearby where I can ensure he is not abducted. He does not want to be near me because he has decided he hates me. This is stupid. I am still commitigng force and agression emotioanlly against him by watching over him or being near him or following him around when he wants to be left alone outside even if I never touch him. This is stupid.
"Will you always resort to brute force when any issue arises? Your philosophy is a very violent one"
I don't know where you get this b.s. from. Perhaps you don't understand that a kid can define a parent's presence or existence near him as unwanted force and agression agains him.
And no, my arguements are not fallacious. I will use an arguement from the logic book. Perhaps it could be better worded, but the truth of it would not change. Instad of saying "Tomatoes are edible unless they are spoild," the truth would be better said "All unspoiled tomatoes are edible tomatoes." Note: neither statement is wrong and neither of them contradict. Likewise, I will say "All liberatarian principles are fully realized in rational adults" and "The saying 'might does not make right' is a libertarian principle." That does not contradict or act contrary or is fallacious in relation to anything I've been saying in 30 some odd blogs.
And yes, at 10 months year of age, I am commiting agression against his body and own-private property when I still have the doctor forcibly put a needle in his vein to cure him of his own polio. And twenty years later, he would have the full legal and moral right to sue me for curing him of paralysis by any firm and insurance company willing to take up his case, which they would because he is morally and logically right in your world to do so. And if he did it to spite his parents, he would win the arguement too under your "Private property rights for all" slogan and I and my wife could be put in jail for life or be executed because I lost all my human (or as you term, property) rights the moment I had the doctor put the polio vaccine in and agressively violated his private property. I will say something that he would say if he actually had the right to do that: This is stupid.