There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2014, 02:21 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 02:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 08:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Well, you claiming something as yours isn't the default state of things, either. You had to take an action to claim X. If someone else claims X, they put exactly the same amount of effort into it as you. Just because you claimed X first doesn't give you some intrinsic right to X. You only have that "right" because enough other people say you do and are willing to enforce that right..
Claiming X from nature is not the same as claiming X from another person.
Firstly, it's much harder, it's called primary sector of economy.
Secondly, nature isn't a person or one thing, it has no integrity except as a whole, so principle of integrity (a.k.a. human dignity) is not violated by primary economy. Theft is violation of the principle of integrity. No, I only have that "right" because I say I do and other people are passively unwilling to dispute that with reason and evidence.

But the main point is, vast majority of items comes from people through some kind of business. To keep the principle of integrity and its necessary derivations, self-ownership and ownership, we must do voluntary trade. We must not, by any means demand taxes for voluntary trade.
First there used to be a pillaging, then occasional raiding, then regular taking tributes for the king and then collecting taxes by a resident tax collector. That is what taxes are historically and factually, pillaging. They are not voluntary and they violate the principle of human integrity (dignity).

(18-06-2014 08:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's more that I'm disagreeing with your stance.
Well, say what is actually wrong with it, starting with internal consistency. Looks like I must teach you about philosophy so you even know what you disagree about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 02:28 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 06:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Murder is a term based on human made law. Murder being an unlawful killing of another human.

To make this universal you would have to take out the dependance on human law.
Thus, let's just say "killing of another human". But this is hardly universal because it makes humans special, what about cows, what about ant, trees and vegetables? It is also problematic because a fetus is also human and most people think its OK for a mother to kill her fetus.

In terms of universal, why do you think the universe cares about humans?
Nah, you could find faults in every formulation. I wrote "murder", because I understand it like killing another human against his will, which is violation of the principle of integrity, just like theft - but I couldn't say I haven't stolen anything all my life Tongue And then there's killing in self-defense and assisted suicide, which is well with the principle of integrity, or as some would say, self-ownership.

So you're a few thousand years behind the Ethic of Reciprocity, but continue.


(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Laws, both divine and secular are just words on paper. Writing them on paper doesn't magically define the actions as good or bad. The social actions have existed since the dawn of society and they have had consequences since then. Law is just an opinion with a gun, written by people I didn't vote for and voting is nonsense anyway.

Your first principle are not more 'real' or 'objective' than those laws, they only exist and have power so long as enough people believe in and accept that they do. Also it's good to know that you don't believe in democracy.


(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I feel that the positivism, what isn't on paper, isn't a crime, is just like saying what isn't in Bible, isn't sin. (and you're an atheist because you want to sin) This is what Nazis counted on. Holocaust was approved by a proper legislative procedure, it was legal. If the world was about laws on paper, the Allies would have to release the Nazis at the Nuremberg trial, because everything went according to the law (which they made themselves).

Are you trying for some special forum award by pulling both a Godwin and a Non Sequitur in the same paragraph? The Nazis were tried in international court for crimes against humanity, where they were found guilty of violating the law as agreed to by the international coalition. The Nazi's lost the war they started, and thus found themselves being subjected to the laws of their enemies; tough shit for the Nazis.


(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So since then the government admitted to philosophy, that there is such a thing as "natural law", that it's not all just paper. Well, that is a huge understatement. Law is just a bad replacement for philosophy. Philosophy and first principles are real properties matter and energy behavior in space and time. First principles are more real than man-made laws.

What government, when, and where?

Philosophy and your vaunted 'first principles' are no more real than laws or morality, they are all simply mental constructs; please stop masturbating long enough to realize this.


(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As for animals, yes, that is a good question. We (Moly and me) would say that animals operate in the state of nature, in which getting killed and eaten is a part of the deal. We evolved and cut ourselves a different deal with nature, animals didn't - and we're still a part of nature. We can reason another human, so eating people is wrong. But we can't reason with many animals.

Which makes everything subject to the human perspective or experience (quite literally, excluding anything that is not human), making it all subjective. There is nothing objective about your arguments, your philosophy, and your vaunted 'first principals' if they only apply to humans.


(19-06-2014 01:59 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I would say in my theory, that humans can greatly increase the variability of animal life through domestication even though we're eating some of them. Obviously, there is a huge room for improvement in human relations with animals. But it's not in our power to improve that, until we learn the basic human lessons: don't hit, keep your word, don't take what isn't yours. Until we learn that as a humanity, there's no way we can consistently help animals. Of course I respect vegetarians, activist groups and people who care for animals. And we are not yet perfectly consistent with our philosophy.

Honestly, this paragraph is kind of a rambling mess; I'm not even sure what the point you are trying (and failing) to get across is.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-06-2014, 02:43 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 08:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Well, you claiming something as yours isn't the default state of things, either. You had to take an action to claim X. If someone else claims X, they put exactly the same amount of effort into it as you. Just because you claimed X first doesn't give you some intrinsic right to X. You only have that "right" because enough other people say you do and are willing to enforce that right..

Claiming X from nature is not the same as claiming X from another person.
Firstly, it's much harder, it's called primary sector of economy.
Secondly, nature isn't a person or one thing, it has no integrity except as a whole, so principle of integrity (a.k.a. human dignity) is not violated by primary economy. Theft is violation of the principle of integrity.

But the main point is, vast majority of items comes from people through some kind of business. To keep the principle of integrity and its necessary derivations, self-ownership and ownership, we must do voluntary trade. We must not, by any means demand taxes for voluntary trade.
First there used to be a pillaging, then occasional raiding, then regular taking tributes for the king and then collecting taxes by a resident tax collector. That is what taxes are historically and factually, pillaging. They are not voluntary and they violate the principle of human integrity (dignity).


(18-06-2014 08:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's more that I'm disagreeing with your stance.
Well, say what is actually wrong with it, starting with internal consistency. Looks like I must teach you about philosophy so you even know what you disagree about.



2. State ownership of property

This section shows how the libertarian tale of transfers of rights from original appropriation can lead to a state which owns some or all of the property rights in a nation, and from these rights it can derive the power to tax. Thus, taxation and most other potential government powers do not violate the four stated principles of libertarian property rights. This story is meant to be taken as literally and as seriously as the libertarian story connecting current property holders to original appropriation.

A. The Queen as a property-owning monarch

Imagine an island called Britain. In the state of nature, all of the land is appropriated by a relatively small portion of the population following whatever rule of appropriation a libertarian reader might prefer. There is no government, but something like the state of nature or anarcho-capitalism prevails. According to Narveson, these “property rights … are liberty rights. You may … do what you wish with what is yours.” Thus, each proprietor essentially governs her own land.

From this starting point Nozick traces the development of government from voluntary protective associations. But suppose that the proprietors prefer to protect their property themselves rather than employ protective associations. Propertyless people come to proprietors seeking land, materials, and protection in exchange for labor or services. Each proprietor insists that anyone who wishes to live on her estate accepts her as the arbiter of all disputes.

The proprietor creates different sorts of deals with different people. To some she sells permanent tenancy rights, a sort of quasi-ownership called a “title” that tenants can buy and sell from each other so long as they recognize that the proprietor retains lordship over all property. She thereby retains the right to charge a royalty on all titles, to change the royalty rate or the conditions under which a person holds a title, and to reclaim any rights granted under title at any time. Not all tenants have quasi-ownership; some of her tenants rent indirectly through quasi-owners with the understanding that she has the right to collect a further royalty directly from them in whatever form she wants—as a portion of tenants’ income, a portion of their sales, a portion of their day in work direct for her, etc. In the libertarian sense, tenants voluntarily choose to pay royalties in exchange for the right to live on her estate.

Proprietors find it advantageous to enlarge the size of their estates through voluntary transfer. They trade with each other, form strategic marriage alliances, and use the custom of primogeniture in inheritance. Proprietors may engage in just defensive force against aggressors, increasing their holdings by whatever form of just rectification the libertarian reader supports. Over the generations, estates become larger and larger, until finally one proprietor owns the entire island of Britain. At this time she decides to call herself “Queen” rather than “proprietor.” She prefers to refer to her “estate” as her “realm,” her “tenants” as “subjects,” and her “royalties” as “taxes.” But the nature of the Queen’s revenue has not changed. It is a voluntary transfer that fulfills all of the libertarian principles for justly acquired property.

The taxes the Queen collects, therefore, do not constitute interference with existing private property rights. The Queen’s revenue is a form of profit that she has earned by allowing her subjects to hold private titles. Her tax revenue is her property to do with as she will. She can use it for her own amusement, for public works, for the common defense, or for alms to the poor. Being a “taxpayer” gives one the right hold the property on which one pays taxes, but it does not give one the right to help decide how the Queen spends her revenue; just as being a rent payer gives one the right to occupy a rental property but does not give one the right to have help decide how the landlord spends her income.

After several generations, the quasi-landowners begin to forget that the Queen is the heir of the original appropriators of land. Some philosophers invent libertarianism and assert that title holders were somehow the heirs of the original appropriators, and should have full property ownership rather than quasi-ownership. But they have forgotten that they only hold such titles as the Queen has established; they hold those titles only at the pleasure of the Queen, and she has always retained the right to tax and regulate her property. What complaint can a libertarian make?

Before considering that question, it is necessary to clarify whether the Queen is a government or just an extremely wealthy private individual, and in what sense taxation is a property right.

B. Is the Property-owning monarch a government?

The Queen is a “property-owning monarch” who derives enormous power not from divine right, social contract, or consent of the governed, but from her inviolable libertarian property rights. However, is a property-owning monarch, strictly speaking, a government, or just an extremely wealthy individual? In Nozick’s terms, she can be. In his story, government develops out of profit-seeking protective associations with no necessary responsibility to be democratic. The Queen’s government does everything a Nozickian state is supposed to do: she protects everyone’s formal self-ownership and the property rights of everyone who happens to own property (i.e. herself).

People have the right to choose which agency they want to protect their self-ownership, but without resources, other agencies have difficulty competing with the Queen. The people could create a propertyless parliament to protect their self-ownership against the Queen. If she wanted to play hardball, she could revoke the titles of anyone who participated in such a project. If so, she would simply be exercising her property rights as a landlord who evicts members of a tenants union or a company that fires employees who try to organize a labor union. But let’s say the Queen is a nice person who allows Parliament to exist. Is Parliament the government or is the Queen? Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights—such as they are—against the Queen, but Parliament cannot protect individual “property rights,” because the only individual who owns property is able to protect her property herself. Parliament can pass laws on issues that involve self-ownership and not property, but it needs the Queen’s permission to use any property to enforce laws. The Queen retains most effective governmental power, but Parliament retains some formal government power. Perhaps the two together make up the government.

However, there are at least two ways to unite the powers of the Queen and of the Parliament. In one generation a monarch could decide to bequeath her property to Parliament instead of to her children. Or, from the start, the proprietor was never a single individual, but a democratic group of individuals. Simply retell the above story of the Queen and replace her by a democratic corporation. Thus, this story unites government power and the power of property ownership into one entity by virtue of appropriation, voluntary transfer, rectification, and statue of limitations—principles that exhaust the conditions for establishing just libertarian property rights.


C. In what sense is taxation a property right?

According to Anthony Honoré, “the liberal concept of full individual ownership” is a set of eleven rights and duties, or “incidents,” that a person can have over an asset. I have split two of the incidents into parts labeled “a” and “b” for reasons that will become clear below. These incidents are:

1. The right to possess,
2. The right to use,
3. 3a: The right to manage (i.e. the right to decide how it is used and by whom), and 3b: the right to regulate management
4. The right to the income the property generates,
5. The right to capital (i.e. the right to transfer property to others or to consume, destroy, or waste it),
6. The right to security (i.e. the right to refuse involuntary transfers),
7. Transmissibility (the right to transfer it to heirs),
8. The absence of term (that ownership does not come to an end at specified future date unless voluntarily transferred by the owner or her successors),
9. The duty to prevent harm (i.e. the duty not to manage one’s property in a way that potentially harms another person or another person’s property),
10. Liability to execution (i.e. 10a: that property may be seized by creditors, and possibly 10b: that it may be taxed or appropriated by the state),
11. Residuary character (i.e. eventually all interests in the property revert to the owner).


According to Honoré, full individual ownership is “the greatest possible interest in a thing which a mature system of law recognizes.” Of the 11 incidents, nine are rights but two (incidents 9 and 10) are duties, so that full ownership is not absolute ownership.

The incidents of property ownership are divisible. Property rights can consist in any combination of these incidents. Many weaker forms of ownership exist, including easements, rental agreements, share cropping arrangements, long- and short-term leases, partnerships, use rights, property with leans on it, and so on. Assets can be effectively unowned or held by an individual, by a group, or by a nation. Honoré is unwilling to say whether taxation of property (incident 10b) is a standard incident of ownership even though taxation is as common as property.

The powers assumed by most governments are moderate in comparison to the Queen in the story above who controls all 11 incidents of all property in her realm. Instead, most governments claim the powers of taxation and regulation, which can, to some extent, affect all 11 incidents of ownership, but the powers of government can be summarized as incidents 3b and 10b. For example, regulation indirectly affects not only management (3), but also use (2), and capital (5). Taxation indirectly affects income (4), capital (5), and transmissibility (7). But focusing on the powers of government to regulate (3b) and tax (10b) simplifies the discussion without sacrificing clarity.

The libertarian position seems to be that private property ownership is not only inviolable but also that it should and does constitute full liberal ownership. Currently private title holders have incidents 1, 2, 3a, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a, and 11, subject to the government’s powers of 3b and 10b. Libertarians believe private title holders ought to control all incidents 1, 2, 3 (a and b), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a, 11, subject either to no taxation or to the minimum possible taxation (incident 10b). But are they entitled to those incidents? Libertarians are aware that these incidents can be divided, but have they been divided? Are incidents of ownership held only at the government’s pleasure; divided between government and title holders; or held entirely by title holders?

There are two ways to answer this question; one is by an empirical examination of each party’s connection to the original appropriator or by invoking the fourth libertarian principle of the statute of limitations. Each party owns what has been in their possession for a sufficient number of years. Thus, the four libertarian principles lead to the conclusion that governments own the power to tax and regulate property. Libertarian principles do not support the so-called minimal state but a strange form of non-ideological nationalism that supports whatever state property rights have existed for a sufficient amount of time as long as those rights don’t conflict with formal self-ownership.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...5247,d.cWc

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-06-2014, 02:53 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So you're a few thousand years behind the Ethic of Reciprocity, but continue.
No need to re-invent the wheel when the government still violates the Ethic of Reciprocity.

(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your first principle are not more 'real' or 'objective' than those laws, they only exist and have power so long as enough people believe in and accept that they do. Also it's good to know that you don't believe in democracy.
Nope. They exist objectively as properties of matter and energy in space time. People get hurt proportionally to how they violate the first principles. People follow the first principles proportionally to their abilities of reasoning and empathy.

(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Are you trying for some special forum award by pulling both a Godwin and a Non Sequitur in the same paragraph? The Nazis were tried in international court for crimes against humanity, where they were found guilty of violating the law as agreed to by the international coalition. The Nazi's lost the war they started, and thus found themselves being subjected to the laws of their enemies; tough shit for the Nazis.
I'm just repeating my legal lessons, I have a Bachelor's from Law & Economy from a private college, remember? (better than that, kind of a Libertarian think tank with students) Nazis are a part of the Curriculum, just like Communists (they had some interesting ownership laws). Both Nazis and Communists are a part of my national history and should be hated equally, because they are basically the same government project, only Nazis had some bullshit racial mythology.

So you believe in might makes right? Which means, if I'm stronger than you, I can do whatever I want to you and you'll be OK with that by your own admission?

No, I think you actually don't. Your formulation (see bold) suggests that you accept the same ethics of reciprocity like me. Only on some made-up level of countries and laws, which don't exist empirically.

(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What government, when, and where?

Philosophy and your vaunted 'first principles' are no more real than laws or morality, they are all simply mental constructs; please stop masturbating long enough to realize this.
I think it was American government at the Nuremberg trial, you can look that up on Wikipedia.

I'm not masturbating, I fuck you in the ass with logic. First principles are the basis of logic and language, which you are using right now, albeit ineptly. The logic starts with the principle of identity, that is the basic distinction of true and false, that a word means word. You could not write a sentence without words having their identity and also integrity. And yet you use words to attack the first principles. That is not just self-detonating argument, that is ancient Greek art of douchebaggery.

(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which makes everything subject to the human perspective or experience (quite literally, excluding anything that is not human), making it all subjective. There is nothing objective about your arguments, your philosophy, and your vaunted 'first principals' if they only apply to humans.
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Honestly, this paragraph is kind of a rambling mess; I'm not even sure what the point you are trying (and failing) to get across is.
The word "variability" does not only apply to humans.

[Image: 51337160.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 04:06 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Queen is a “property-owning monarch” who derives enormous power not from divine right, social contract, or consent of the governed, but from her inviolable libertarian property rights. However, is a property-owning monarch, strictly speaking, a government, or just an extremely wealthy individual? In Nozick’s terms, she can be. In his story, government develops out of profit-seeking protective associations with no necessary responsibility to be democratic. The Queen’s government does everything a Nozickian state is supposed to do: she protects everyone’s formal self-ownership and the property rights of everyone who happens to own property (i.e. herself).
Sorry man, it's rubbish. Firstly, this is not how governments actually were created (conquest and pillaging and forced contracts, especially England).
Secondly, by definition, property is is lent or bought from humans (the Queen) by a voluntary contract. Contracts to third party (not parents) can't be inherited by infants generation after generation when someone dies, that's not voluntary. Nobility property is hereditary since 877 (Charles II. the Bald) and the crown is hereditary, I think, since the Holy Roman empire around the year 1000 or so. Thomas Paine attacked the idea of hereditary monarchy, it's nothing but convention.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/commonsens...ion2.rhtml
Being born with contracts on my head (or national debt) is like being born with the original sin. Contracts with newborns are like baptizing them into Christianity.

The Queen seems not to make or break voluntarily any new contracts with new people and people seem not to make or break voluntarily any contracts with a new Queen.

(19-06-2014 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People have the right to choose which agency they want to protect their self-ownership, but without resources, other agencies have difficulty competing with the Queen.
That's Marxist nonsense, i.e. that workers or tenants are too poor and weak to compete with owners.
The capital, such as land is useless without people working on it. Workers de facto hold the owner hostage, if the owner is not in cahoots with government superior policing forces, which it historically always was the case.

Workers can and do take over the companies in which they work. They save up a capital from salary, they take a loan from the bank and they bail out the whole place from the owner. Proprietors are not kings or land fanatics, everything has a price. If the proprietor sets the land price to infinity, then other proprietors will see it as an opportunity to set a lower price and lure the people away. As people leave the un-sellable land, the land gets worthless. If the Queen was magically such a good proprietor (had magical forces of healing or something) then her landlord business scheme might be successful, but that's just hypothetical. In practice monopoly doesn't happen, unless it is a very good and useful monopoly for everyone.

Yes, the Queen could hypothetically refuse to sell any part of the kingdom. But since only people exist empirically, not queens or contracts, the land has to voluntarily be sold and bought for each and every new person capable of making contracts. And good, fair, voluntary deals can and do contain exit clauses. Bad, unfair and involuntary deals can be disputed very easily, since Libertarians don't believe in central power authority. The worst that can happen is the loss of trustworthiness. We do not actively initiate aggression against criminals, but personal refusal to make contracts with a deal-breaker is a pretty strong punishment.
Anything goes, as long as it's voluntary. What matters is the empirical violation of one's will and integrity, which destroys economic incentive and has a lot of other bad consequences. The "sufficient amount of time" and other seemingly important details do not matter, what matters is what people voluntarily agree upon. Voluntarism matters, not specific contents of voluntarism. You can't make an argument with contracts that people haven't personally subscribed to. Arguing that someone genetically related to you subscribed something and that it is binding for you, that's anti-empirical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 06:20 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Claiming X from nature is not the same as claiming X from another person.

I can see why physically taking X from a person is different than picking X up off of the ground, but if X is owned or not and is sitting on the ground, it's the exact same thing.

If you're attributing some special "ownership rights" to the object lying on the ground simply because someone else claimed it earlier, you're attaching invisible nonfalsifiable attributes to that object. This sounds exactly like souls; super important to people who believe in them, useless to those who don't, nonfalsifiable, and powerless to actually do anything in the really real world.


(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Firstly, it's much harder, it's called primary sector of economy.

I'll need you to go into that one more.


(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, nature isn't a person or one thing, it has no integrity except as a whole, so principle of integrity (a.k.a. human dignity) is not violated by primary economy. Theft is violation of the principle of integrity. No, I only have that "right" because I say I do and other people are passively unwilling to dispute that with reason and evidence.

Principles of human dignity are subjective. They're the same as property rights or souls. These are things people arbitrarily decide, and if enough people agree, then the idea gains traction. Remember: actual rights in and of themselves do nothing; only people's beliefs in rights are actionable.

It's subjective.


(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But the main point is, vast majority of items comes from people through some kind of business. To keep the principle of integrity and its necessary derivations, self-ownership and ownership, we must do voluntary trade. We must not, by any means demand taxes for voluntary trade.
First there used to be a pillaging, then occasional raiding, then regular taking tributes for the king and then collecting taxes by a resident tax collector. That is what taxes are historically and factually, pillaging. They are not voluntary and they violate the principle of human integrity (dignity).

I agree that things are a lot better if we all agree to play nice and work together. We get more done together than the sum of all of our individual efforts if we don't cooperate. I'm not disputing that. That being said, there is no universal property like God, souls, magnetic fields, or wargarble making this objectively "good". Sure, it enables me to eat Taco Bell and fuck around on the Internet. I love that shit. But it's still a bunch of humans agreeing to set aside their differences for a common goal. There's no universal truth behind it.

Or rather, if there is, I'd like you so demonstrate it.


(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, say what is actually wrong with it, starting with internal consistency. Looks like I must teach you about philosophy so you even know what you disagree about.

Read the above. You're attributing special nonfalsifiable properties to things and saying that your system isn't subjective. It's borderline religious.

I'm not saying your stance is bad or wrong; I'm saying it's subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
19-06-2014, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 07:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your first principle are not more 'real' or 'objective' than those laws, they only exist and have power so long as enough people believe in and accept that they do. Also it's good to know that you don't believe in democracy.
Nope. They exist objectively as properties of matter and energy in space time. People get hurt proportionally to how they violate the first principles. People follow the first principles proportionally to their abilities of reasoning and empathy.

Right, no that's one 'nuh-huh' followed by two pointless non sequiturs. Color me impressed for not at all addressing what I said.


(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Are you trying for some special forum award by pulling both a Godwin and a Non Sequitur in the same paragraph? The Nazis were tried in international court for crimes against humanity, where they were found guilty of violating the law as agreed to by the international coalition. The Nazi's lost the war they started, and thus found themselves being subjected to the laws of their enemies; tough shit for the Nazis.
I'm just repeating my legal lessons, I have a Bachelor's from Law & Economy from a private college, remember? (better than that, kind of a Libertarian think tank with students) Nazis are a part of the Curriculum, just like Communists (they had some interesting ownership laws). Both Nazis and Communists are a part of my national history and should be hated equally, because they are basically the same government project, only Nazis had some bullshit racial mythology.

So you believe in might makes right? Which means, if I'm stronger than you, I can do whatever I want to you and you'll be OK with that by your own admission?

No, I think you actually don't. Your formulation (see bold) suggests that you accept the same ethics of reciprocity like me. Only on some made-up level of countries and laws, which don't exist empirically.

Might doesn't make 'right' in any objective sense, but then again what is 'right' is subjective. But getting back on point, your first principles mean fuck all unless enough other people acknowledges them and abide by them; so unless enough people value them highly enough, they are utterly meaningless. It is, as I've been trying to point out, a subjective value judgement. You're first principles, without anyone to enforce then, are just as facile as Papal Edicts are to non-Catholics; they are only meaningful to those who buy into them.

I have just as much authority as the Pope does, the Pope just has a hell of a lot more people who believe it.


(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What government, when, and where?

Philosophy and your vaunted 'first principles' are no more real than laws or morality, they are all simply mental constructs; please stop masturbating long enough to realize this.
I think it was American government at the Nuremberg trial, you can look that up on Wikipedia.

Thanks, but I'm not running your errands for you fuktard.


(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not masturbating, I fuck you in the ass with logic.

Please. Drinking Beverage

[Image: wanted%20ass.jpg]


(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  First principles are the basis of logic and language, which you are using right now, albeit ineptly. The logic starts with the principle of identity, that is the basic distinction of true and false, that a word means word. You could not write a sentence without words having their identity and also integrity. And yet you use words to attack the first principles. That is not just self-detonating argument, that is ancient Greek art of douchebaggery.

Logic is a mental construct, just like mathematics and morality. The 'principle of identity' is meaningless in a universe without sentient creatures, so it's not objective in the same sense that gravity is (it is dependent upon intelligent life, or in other words, subject to it); it is a necessary concept of object oriented thought processes and language.


(19-06-2014 02:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which makes everything subject to the human perspective or experience (quite literally, excluding anything that is not human), making it all subjective. There is nothing objective about your arguments, your philosophy, and your vaunted 'first principals' if they only apply to humans.
(19-06-2014 02:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Honestly, this paragraph is kind of a rambling mess; I'm not even sure what the point you are trying (and failing) to get across is.
The word "variability" does not only apply to humans.

[Image: 51337160.jpg]

Right, so which animals and where? Do the penguins get all of Antarctica (I'm pretty sure they beat any human's claim to that continent)?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-06-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
Wait.

Hold the boat.

(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 08:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's more that I'm disagreeing with your stance.
Well, say what is actually wrong with it, starting with internal consistency. Looks like I must teach you about philosophy so you even know what you disagree about.

Something can be internally consistent and wrong.

Did you know that?

It's kind of an important distinction.

Read a book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 07:54 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Queen is a “property-owning monarch” who derives enormous power not from divine right, social contract, or consent of the governed, but from her inviolable libertarian property rights. However, is a property-owning monarch, strictly speaking, a government, or just an extremely wealthy individual? In Nozick’s terms, she can be. In his story, government develops out of profit-seeking protective associations with no necessary responsibility to be democratic. The Queen’s government does everything a Nozickian state is supposed to do: she protects everyone’s formal self-ownership and the property rights of everyone who happens to own property (i.e. herself).
Sorry man, it's rubbish. Firstly, this is not how governments actually were created (conquest and pillaging and forced contracts, especially England).

Doesn't matter, the point is to show that following Libertarian principles does not guarantee an small anarcho-capitalist society; and following those principles (those vaunted principles you love so much) can lead to a monarchy, a large democracy, or even other forms of government. If a government can legitimize their property rights according to Libertarian principles (as the example does), then it's powers are just an exercise of their property rights. But what do you care? I was under the impression that Libertarians don't care for how even the distribution of capital is, so long as the principles are followed, then the end results are just by definition correct? Even if it ends with one person having all the capital?


Monarchy and any other forms of dictatorship is anathema to nearly all modern conceptions of justice. Liberals, communitarians, egalitarians, left-libertarians, democratic socialists, and the average person, can make a large number of complaints against the property-owning monarch consistently with their beliefs about justice. She is hogging all the resources and everything we make out of them. She has assumed privileges for herself in violation of principles of democracy and equal rights. She effectively makes everyone else her servant.

These avenues of criticism are not open to libertarians, because they assert that people do not have an equal right to control resources. Libertarian equal protection under the law requires ignoring all differences in how much property an individual owns. Libertarianism has only four principles to establish justice in property rights—appropriation, voluntary transfer, rectification, and statute of limitations—and none of them have been violated. A review of libertarian literature—including works by David Boaz, Israel Kirzner, Tibor Machan, Jan Narveson, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and others—found no reasoning consistent with the argument from liberty that can be used effectively against a property-owning monarch. Any argument that can be put forward in favor of a title-holding class against the concentration of property ownership in one monarch can also be used in favor of a propertyless class against the concentration of property ownership in a title-holding class. This section considers and rejects nine arguments libertarians might make against the Queen.



B. The story of the Queen is not literally true

The story of the Queen, as I have told it, is not literally true. No government can trace its property rights in an unbroken chain of voluntary transfers (or just acts of rectification) to the original appropriators of property. As true and as obvious as this statement is, it is possibly the worst argument that a libertarian might attempt to employ against government property rights, because just as the Queen cannot trace her property rights to the original appropriators, neither can private property holders. The libertarian original appropriation story is not literally true; the propertied class cannot trace its property rights in an unbroken chain of voluntary transfers (or just acts of rectification) to the original appropriators of property. For an individual to defend his property “right” he has to trace the origin of his title, but a “title” is entirely a legal concept, and it’s origin always traces back to a government granting the individual the right to hold it with the understanding that government retained the right to tax and regulate property held under that title.

In place of a genuine connection to the original appropriators, libertarians employ the statute of limitations argument.i Unfortunately for libertarians, this argument favors the Queen. She is non-criminal because she merely exercises full ownership rights to her extensive estate. She has a better claim to property rights than anyone else because no matter how far individual title holders can trace back their line of ownership, she can trace hers farther.

In Britain, every piece of property traces back to a title granted at the pleasure of the Queen England, and officially she still is the ultimate owner of all property. Over the years, her family has transferred much of those property rights to the British Parliament. If that transfer was legitimate (or so long ago that we can ignore it), Parliament now holds those rights legitimately. If it was illegitimate, the Queen of England’s individual power to tax, regulate, or act as the full owner of all of Britain’s property should be restored. It is possible, and even likely, that ancestors of the Queen of England disposed some people with a prior claim to some or all of Britain’s property. However, Edward Feser argues:

Rectification could only be achieved, consistent with Nozician principles, by dealing with specific claims of specific past injustices filed by specific individuals against other specific individuals, and treated by the state on a case-by-case basis rather than as a matter of general social policy.ii

Feser uses this argument to defend current title holders against reparations toward the descendants of slaves or dispossessed native peoples, but if it is a principled argument it also defends the governmental property rights against libertarians. Introducing libertarianism as a general social policy does nothing to compensate the heirs of whoever might have been dispossessed by the Queen of England. Given that the Queen grants titles at her pleasure, the current title holders are those most favored by the Queen’s regime, and they are distinctly unlikely to be the heirs of whoever her ancestors may have dispossessed.

This empirical argument is not limited to Britain. It is hard to find any property rights in the word that cannot be traced back to “the arbitrary distribution of the sovereign.”iii The titles to 40% of the Earth’s surface (the portion that was once colonized by Britain) are granted by governments whose claim to rule that territory stems from treaties signed by representatives of the British monarchy, and most of the rest of the world traces its property to treaties signed with other European powers.

Kirzner uses Columbus as an example of the kind of discoverer he wishes to promote,iv but Columbus was under contract to the Spanish Queen. If his discovery secured property rights to Latin America, the current owner of all that property is King Juan Carlos of Spain. We know where he lives and we can rectify the dispossession of his family, but establishing a libertarian state Latin America will do nothing to compensate him. A good case based on the four libertarian principles can be made for restoring full ownership of the whole of Russia to the heirs of Romanov dynasty, but certainly no case can be made on those principles for increasing the rights of current Russian title holders who attained their titles from the successor of the Soviet government. In some of those places, we might be able to find the individuals or groups who were dispossessed by governments, but in most cases those were other governments such as the Inca Empire and Native American tribes.



(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, by definition, property is is lent or bought from humans (the Queen) by a voluntary contract. Contracts to third party (not parents) can't be inherited by infants generation after generation when someone dies, that's not voluntary.



H. It is not that any pattern per se is acceptable but any pattern that could have arisen through market trade is acceptable

Libertarians might argue that the Queen’s property rights could not have arisen through just initial acquisition, voluntary, and rectification. The Queen’s extensive property rights could not be the result of libertarian exchanges of property secured by many initial acts of appropriation, and therefore they must have involved some injustice along the way. It is not that any pattern per se is acceptable but any pattern that could have arisen through market trade is acceptable.

As a premise in an argument for libertarian property rights, this statement involves circular reasoning. The argument is supposed to justify libertarian market trade, but the conclusion of the argument (that libertarian markets should exist) is assumed as one of the premises of the argument.

As a factual hypothesis, this statement is questionable. The libertarian appropriation story of individual appropriators who tame the wilderness without government aid has always been empirically weak. As far as we know, agriculture began in Egypt and Mesopotamia as large-scale irrigation projects coordinated by governments, and it did not spread to Europe by the acts of family farmers who ventured onto unused land. Hunter-gatherers who had some kind of collectivist conception of land-use rights preceded farmers to all of the continents except Antarctica and to most of the habitable islands of the Earth. For the most part, those hunter-gatherers governments were displaced by colonial governments before individuals could establish any private titles to specific plots of land. There is injustice in this situation, but it is hardly that such a government taxes the titles it made possible. Even if we pretend that the individual appropriation story is true, it seems at least as likely that individual proprietors would prefer to defend and enlarge their own estates leading to monarchy as to subscribe to a Nozickian protective association leading to a libertarian state.

According to Narveson, the rights that the first appropriator receives depend on what rights she thought of herself as establishing, but if so, libertarian rights to property only exist to the rare plot of land that was originally appropriated by a person who actually thought she was establishing a libertarian right to property. As hard as it is to find the original appropriator or to determine what she was thinking at the time, but it is safe to say that few original appropriators—Aztecs, Sumerians, Carthaginians—thought they were establishing libertarian property rights.



(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nobility property is hereditary since 877 (Charles II. the Bald) and the crown is hereditary, I think, since the Holy Roman empire around the year 1000 or so. Thomas Paine attacked the idea of hereditary monarchy, it's nothing but convention.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/commonsens...ion2.rhtml
Being born with contracts on my head (or national debt) is like being born with the original sin. Contracts with newborns are like baptizing them into Christianity.

So you are saying that the Queen is not within her own property rights to bequeath her property to whoever she chooses, even if who she chooses is a child who has yet to obtain the age of reason?

What Libertarian principle of personal property -original acquisition, transfer, and rectification, and statue of limitation- is the Queen violating? How would you justify (within Libertarianism) preventing her from giving her property to her children?


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The Queen seems not to make or break voluntarily any new contracts with new people and people seem not to make or break voluntarily any contracts with a new Queen.

There is no contract, the Queen is the sole-property holder. Those who hold titles or contracts with the Queen do so at her convenience and discretion as per the the expression of her property rights.


E. The Queen leaves individuals without effective self-ownership

The Queen’s subjects do not lack formal self-ownership; they lack effective self-ownership. They cannot refuse to work for the Queen, because they don’t have any property of their own, and they need access to property to secure the necessities of survival. If they “choose” not to work for her, they will either have to starve or emigrate. This argument is true, but most libertarians cannot use it against the Queen, because they deny that individuals have a right to effective self-ownership.

Many libertarians explicitly argue that individuals do not have a right to food, shelter, or life. As Boaz puts it, “if the right to life means this, then it means that one person has a right to force other people to give him things, violating their equal rights.”i Equality before the law in Boaz’s terms involves complete blindness to how much or how little property one has. Therefore, we cannot force the Queen to give individuals food and water without denying her equal rights. Kirzner argues that the person who first appropriates the only watering-hole in the desert is entitled to charge what he will for it because he in the morally relevant sense, it did not exist before he discovered it.ii A life-or-death power over the propertyless is not too much for a property owner to assume. According to Narveson, “That the starveling is so badly off that he will not last long if he does not accept a proffered job… is not the fault of those who offer it, nor, quite possibly, of anyone.”iii Narveson explicitly opposes a right to life,

We come into the world equipped with the right not to be harmed, not to have our liberty violated. But we don’t come equipped with a positive right to any resource. And in desperate circumstances, this could be taken to mean that we do not come equipped even with a ‘right to life’. … if constraining the liberty of some in order that others may prosper is contrary to justice, so is doing so in order that others may live at all.iv

According to Machan, libertarianism does not guarantee the success of everyone and those who are unable to attain property have “failed of their own accord,” and should rely on the compassion and generosity of whoever owns property.v He believes property is valuable because it gives the owner a sphere of control, but “this position does not mean that the natural right to private property involves any kind of entitlement to have goods and services provided for one by others.”vi Therefore, as desirable as it would be for title holders to have full ownership rights, there is no responsibility on the property-owning monarch to give them those rights. Even a lifetime of effective servitude does not make people unfree in libertarian terms.

If it is permissible to deny effective self-ownership to the all workers who must serve the ownership class to get access to property, then it is permissible to deny effective self-ownership to all entrepreneurs who must serve a property-owning monarch to get access to property they wish to invest. The effective unfreedom felt by everyone but the Queen in a property-owning monarchy is the same effective unfreedom felt by the propertyless under libertarian capitalism: they must work for whoever controls property to survive. As long as an individual’s lack effective self-ownership happens because they have no claim to property ownership, they have as much self-ownership as libertarianism allows anyone to claim. Most libertarians seem to want effective self-ownership for the title-holding class and to deny the very same right to the propertyless, but they cannot have it this both ways if they wish to retain any claim to support equality under the law.

Respect for effective self-ownership does not amount to a libertarian claim to dispossess the Queen, but it could put some limit on her power.



(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People have the right to choose which agency they want to protect their self-ownership, but without resources, other agencies have difficulty competing with the Queen.
That's Marxist nonsense, i.e. that workers or tenants are too poor and weak to compete with owners.
The capital, such as land is useless without people working on it. Workers de facto hold the owner hostage, if the owner is not in cahoots with government superior policing forces, which it historically always was the case.

But it's the capital owner's right to do with his property what he chooses, and for the workers to employ force or coercion on him would violate those rights on your own Libertarian principles. Facepalm


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Workers can and do take over the companies in which they work. They save up a capital from salary...


Provided they can make a decent wage with enough left over to save, something that is not at all guaranteed under your scenario.


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...they take a loan from the bank...

Provided it's not already owned or in cahoots with other powerful capital owners, once again also not guaranteed.


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...and they bail out the whole place from the owner. Proprietors are not kings or land fanatics, everything has a price. If the proprietor sets the land price to infinity, then other proprietors will see it as an opportunity to set a lower price and lure the people away. As people leave the un-sellable land, the land gets worthless. If the Queen was magically such a good proprietor (had magical forces of healing or something) then her landlord business scheme might be successful, but that's just hypothetical.

The Queen, as sole-proprietor of the realm, is entirely within her own property rights to run her business/economy/government into the ground; and fuck everyone else around her. Now I'm not a Libertarian, and I have a number of arguments and reasons I could use to argue against allowing her to do that. But that is entirely within her Libertarian property rights, so what the fuck do you care? The distribution of capital doesn't matter so long as it was acquired justly, correct? just have everyone move off of the island, let the Queen and her family live there by themselves on their property. All of that unused potential, all that empty space; and there is not a damn thing you can do to change that if they (the Queen and her descendants) are determined to keep it that way, without violating your Libertarian principles concerning property rights.


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In practice monopoly doesn't happen, unless it is a very good and useful monopoly for everyone.

Unless it's a government monopoly, then fuck that shit! Amiright!?


(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, the Queen could hypothetically refuse to sell any part of the kingdom. But since only people exist empirically, not queens or contracts, the land has to voluntarily be sold and bought for each and every new person capable of making contracts. And good, fair, voluntary deals can and do contain exit clauses. Bad, unfair and involuntary deals can be disputed very easily, since Libertarians don't believe in central power authority. The worst that can happen is the loss of trustworthiness. We do not actively initiate aggression against criminals, but personal refusal to make contracts with a deal-breaker is a pretty strong punishment.


G. To be free is to have the opportunity to buy property

One could argue that to be free is to have the opportunity to buy full liberal ownership rights and that the Queen’s permanent monopoly on the ownership of property denies people the opportunity. This seems to be what Machan has in mind when he writes, “What the right to private property means is that one has the authority to take actions which could eventually result in securing for oneself whatever is appropriate for one’s individual life.” Libertarians have considered and rejected monopoly as grounds for the regulation of property rights, and there are at least three problems with applying a monopoly argument to government property rights.

First, we cannot say that the opportunity to buy property is present for everyone in a libertarian state. There are homeless people who cannot afford any property. Many others work their entire lives without accumulating full ownership rights to businesses or to their homes. If we are to say these people have the “opportunity” to buy property, but are simply unable to do so, we have to define opportunity extremely broadly. That is, as long as individuals have the legal right to buy something, they have the opportunity to buy it even though they cannot afford it. But such a definition leaves out a large part of the population, and as Waldron argues, any defense of property based on the value of owning property supports a policy in which everyone actually owns property not one in which some have it and some do not.

Second, under the broad understanding of opportunity, we cannot say that the opportunity to buy property is absent under the Queen. Individuals in the Queen’s realm are free to offer to trade services for property rights. Any individual could offer to do X for the Queen in exchange for her promise to carve out a bit of her territory and cede it to them, and the Queen may accept or reject that offer. Any individual could offer to marry the Queen or to marry her daughter to become the Queen’s heir. Catherine the Great attained ownership to the whole of Russia by this method. The vast majority of people will never succeed in doing this, but they have “the authority to take actions which could eventually result” in securing those rights, and therefore Machan’s conditions for opportunity are satisfied. In other words, a homeless person has the opportunity to buy a house, but he simply cannot afford it; and in the very same sense the Queen’s subjects have the opportunity to buy full ownership rights, but they simply cannot afford them.

Third, it is not true—strictly speaking—that the Queen has a monopoly or permanent property rights. Governments come and go. There are at least 192 countries in the world today,iii and individuals are at liberty to buy property rights from any them. There are people in America who are so wealthy that they could make a credible offer to buy a piece of territory from a poor nation. To say that governments have a responsibility to ensure that title holders can afford to buy full property rights but no responsibility to ensure that everyone can buy property rights is not only an argument about the distributional pattern, it is also an argument for a very strange pattern.

The arguments here do not imply a libertarian state can never be justified, if one happened to develop historically. It shows instead that the argument from liberty implies no objection to states that have developed historically, and that the only just way to create a libertarian state would be for libertarians to buy the government through due process. However, if doing so does not increase freedom, why bother?



(19-06-2014 03:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anything goes, as long as it's voluntary. What matters is the empirical violation of one's will and integrity, which destroys economic incentive and has a lot of other bad consequences. The "sufficient amount of time" and other seemingly important details do not matter, what matters is what people voluntarily agree upon. Voluntarism matters, not specific contents of voluntarism. You can't make an argument with contracts that people haven't personally subscribed to. Arguing that someone genetically related to you subscribed something and that it is binding for you, that's anti-empirical.

Nope, it's just an inconvenient fact of the logical conclusions of Libertarians principles in practice. You being born doesn't give you a say in what other people do with their property, even if it is all already owned by one person calling herself the Queen. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 08:07 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I can see why physically taking X from a person is different than picking X up off of the ground, but if X is owned or not and is sitting on the ground, it's the exact same thing.

If you're attributing some special "ownership rights" to the object lying on the ground simply because someone else claimed it earlier, you're attaching invisible nonfalsifiable attributes to that object. This sounds exactly like souls; super important to people who believe in them, useless to those who don't, nonfalsifiable, and powerless to actually do anything in the really real world.
Nope. It's going to sound like mental gymnastics, but that's the reason why philosophy is an elite discipline.
I am not attributing ownership rights to an object. You are attributing them to yourself when you pick some object. By that act YOU say, "ownership rights exist". And when you say that, you will understand what if someone else already has claimed this object. If you are healthy and rational, you will be consistent. If you can claim ownership, other people can claim ownership too. If you want to keep the object indefinitely, someone else who came first might want to keep the object indefinitely. Freedom for you is freedom for me. Consistency, consistency, consistency.

Humans can and do have ownership rights by default. We own everything we make. If we didn't, you wouldn't know who said these words, but you do, because I own my words.
Even thieves respect the existence of property rights, because they want to get themselves some property. Thieves are just very hypocrital on top of that.

The ownership rights exist in our minds, in our brains, which are real and part of the world. They are no less real than software that directs city traffic or global stock markets. They are by no means powerless! Civilizations rise and fall directed by minds. The surface of Earth is changed by machines directed by human minds.

(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I'll need you to go into that one more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sec...he_economy

(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Principles of human dignity are subjective. They're the same as property rights or souls. These are things people arbitrarily decide, and if enough people agree, then the idea gains traction. Remember: actual rights in and of themselves do nothing; only people's beliefs in rights are actionable.

It's subjective.
Nope! It's human. Humans objectively exist and so their properties are objective too. You can not have your own opinion without the principle of human dignity (integrity). If you assert your opinion, you assert your integrity, even if you say that there is no principle of human dignity, you're just using it. It's a self-detonating statement. The principles are already here by default, only our language is too dumb to reflect them accurately. That's why we need philosophers.

(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I agree that things are a lot better if we all agree to play nice and work together. We get more done together than the sum of all of our individual efforts if we don't cooperate. I'm not disputing that. That being said, there is no universal property like God, souls, magnetic fields, or wargarble making this objectively "good". Sure, it enables me to eat Taco Bell and fuck around on the Internet. I love that shit. But it's still a bunch of humans agreeing to set aside their differences for a common goal. There's no universal truth behind it.

Or rather, if there is, I'd like you so demonstrate it.
There is, if you understand general systems theory, or at least something of automation and cybernetics, or if you study sociology or are really good at philosophy. When you get this education, these things will be self-evident to you. But lots of things aren't self-evident if you don't have the education. We can't even see the magnetic fields and electrons with bare eye. And you can't go back to the first principles if you aren't a philosopher. We are not all equally competent at some things. I can't teach you everything I know so that you agree with me. So we have to ask the practical questions.

Do you really agree that we should play nice? Well, prove it. Do not attack your children. Do not beat them, do not threaten them, do not yell at them or blackmail them. Do not ignore them.
Instead, talk with them, be interested in them, be open and vulnerable, negotiate, make deals and keep your promises and demand they keep promises, let them do what they want if it hurts nobody, and if it does, show them how it's bad, without blaming and shaming, without ridicule. Respect them.
And most important thing of all, if your parents used violence and coercion, go to a therapist and re-visit your early childhood history to see if you're all right. Because if you're not, you will not be actually able to do any of that. You will only be able to lie about that to yourself and to your children and do harm in hypocrisy.


(19-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, say what is actually wrong with it, starting with internal consistency. Looks like I must teach you about philosophy so you even know what you disagree about.

Read the above. You're attributing special nonfalsifiable properties to things and saying that your system isn't subjective. It's borderline religious.

I'm not saying your stance is bad or wrong; I'm saying it's subjective.
[/quote]
It's not nonfalsifiable. It's just that you can't think of empirical counter-evidence. And that is all right, because in rational method, we can make valid proposals about how the reality works and they are valid as long as they are internally consistent. In rational method, proof is much easier and stronger than empirically. There is a point in which the rational method and empirical method meet and that point is information technology, computers. And that includes human brain.
It's not subjective, it's human! It's as objective as language. And language is objective, or we wouldn't be having a conversation. It's as objective as money or the HTTP protocol. More than that, it's rooted in the first principles, which exist by default from how the universe is set up. Things are themselves and not opposite of themselves, effects have causes that go back to the singularity of Big Bang.

We can choose not to obey the objective moral principles, but then there is no civilization. We can choose to obey them partially and hypocritally, but then there is the boom and bust of economies and empires with much suffering. Every time there is a rise in wealth, a nation goes to war, because that's the only way how politicians can make themselves necessary again.

Get rid of that idea that whatever is behind the layer of bone that is human skull, doesn't exist or isn't effective. You might as well say that a computer processor is not real, effective or objective, because it is hidden deep behind a computer casing. Nope, processors are enormously powerful things and humans have the most powerful one of all. So powerful, that they have a terrible choice of not using it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: