I’ve already stated such things above, I’m not going to restate myself. Without a deity, there are nothing, but metaphysical judgments of value. Feel free to show me how you’ve derived objective ethics if you so desire.
Okay. So I can translate : either your catholic dogma is the true & ‘objective’ morality or there is no morality ? Did I get it right ?
Either there is an arbiter of morality, or there are no moral facts, but only moral judgments of value. Without any moral facts there is nothing upon which to base objective ethics; hence, non-theistic morality must be subjective in character.
So, for the fourth time, according to you, moral realism is only possible if your religious fantasies are ‘true’ ?
What happens to people who don’t share your delusions ? Are they moral beings ? Will they burn in hell forever ? Or what ?
Seeing that you cannot bring up a single point as to why ethical facts exist in a non-theistic framework I’m going to consider this you conceding the debate. Even if I am wrong in my beliefs, you still have to dea with the fact that non-theistic ethics are by character subjective.
Do you agree?
I’m not even debating you. I just want you to spell out your position. So, for the 5th time, are you saying that catholicism is the only true moral system ?
Would you be so kind as to explain how theistic ethics avoid that problem ?
Cause, you know, your religious delusions are way more ‘subjective’ and unfounded than common sense morality.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s grant that moral facts exist because god said so. Now, how do you manage to find those moral facts ? Did the catholic god send you an email explaining to you what morality is ? Or the pope did ? Or ?
If one only desires that his vision of society will be realized, how is he trying to play God? The social planning only starts when an advocate speaks of decreeing or banning things. An anarchist is by definition not a social planner, at least if they are consistent.
Anarchists may have a vision, but the critical difference with all other political types is they are not assuming a monopoly on force will be there to implement that vision. Therefore, instead of calling the vision a plan, it seems more accurate to call it a likely scenario or probable model for how society would work. It’s an educated guess, and I think sometimes in an effort to show how immensely plausible that guess is, AnCaps can end up confusing their readers into thinking that theirs is a social plan of the same form as those ones we are accustomed to, i.e., “visions” that will be implemented down the barrel of a gun.
This has the makings of a very interesting point.
Underlying the notion of “freedom” is that there are desirable types of freedom and undesirable types of freedom. I think Rothbard would say that freedom to associate freely with others is a desirable type of freedom, but freedom to violate Lockean property rights is an undesirable type of freedom. Most AnCaps in the Rothbardian tradition would likely use the word freedom to mean “freedom to do anything besides violating property rights” without further clarification.
By the same token, the NAP (non-aggression principle) in AnCap theory based on Lockean property rights defines aggression as “violation of property rights,” because everything - including the right to life - is based on Lockean property rights.
However, imagine an alternative theory of property rights - say in a crowded place like Tokyo - that allows trespassing. This theory may be terribly impractical, but many AnCaps say practicality is not what’s important; it’s principle that’s important. Anyway, such a conception of property rights may have arisen from a practical consideration: every plot of land homesteaded is taking extremely limited land space away from others, hence is a form of aggression. Perhaps the rule is something like, you can walk through any dwelling, farm or business as long as you’re careful not to damage anything. Locking doors would be considered a violation of other’s right of free movement, stemming from the property right of self-ownership. An adherent of this theory would also define freedom as “freedom to do anything besides violating property rights,” but the meaning would be at odds with the Rothbardian definition.
The above alternative theory of property rights is bizarre (and not one I would subscribe to), yet I think AnCaps have to admit that in an extremely crowded city (especially a newly colonized area) such a theory of property rights might possibly be preferred on the free market in law. Unlikely, yet possible. More likely would be that religious considerations might result in difference conceptions of property rights in different cultures.
The point is, consistent anarchists cannot be planarchists. I see the term anarcho-capitalism as having the form [ideology]-[speculation about how society would be structured under that ideology]. This word usage may be unique to anarchists, because for all other (statist) political theorists, their ideology is how society would be structured under that ideology (because a monopoly on force would ensure it!), so no need for a hyphenated term to separate ideology from speculation.
His implication between religion and morality is false, since religious philosophy is rooted in non-theistic ground (example: the golden rule was derived from Sophists, and not some invisible man in the sky). You had Augustine of Hippo trying to Christianize Plato, and Thomas Aquinas trying to Christianize Aristotle.
And what does one make of Game Theory (mathematical) or Causality? It’s a good thing LadyAttis has a couple of excellent videos on morality:
What I fear is irrelevant, and quotations might be useful for an inspirational speech or whatever, but here they’re out of place. The fact of the matter is that institutions allow individuals to coordinate their actions, and government is one of those. If you wish to suddenly remove it you should be aware that there will be unforeseen consequences. Moreover, you seem intent on designing your form of “anarchism”, it all seems very constructivist to me.
You seem to have swallowed the radical Boettekian Brigade pill recently and decry any form of planning constructivist. Of course there will be unforeseen consquences but all systems are planned they don’t arise spontaneously, it is a question of type of planning it will be: competitve or monopolistic.
What can I say, I gave into peer pressure! Now, as regards the rest of your post, I think you’re equivocating. Of course there is planning in both situations, the difference is not between monopolistic and competitive planning as it is between planning on behalf of a group of social planners and every acting individual in a market. However, the fact that every individual in the market “plans” doesn’t mean that institutions and outcomes won’t arise that are essentially unplanned or spontaneous, if you will. As Ferguson (I think) said, the outcomes will be the result of human action, but not of human design.
But the distinction between the social planner and the individual in the market is not the fundemental one: Machaj (I think that’s how you spell it) in his calculation paper and Hulsmann in the General Error Cycle paper show that it is monopoly is the esential cause of the errors.
I could make a decision on the behalf of a charity in the same way a social planner does- what’s the difference there then? Neither of us are beholden, assuming tax revenue and donations are kept up, to profit and loss.
On planning I’ll give you a personal anecdote- I was making a pasta bake and forgot to put the basil in the tomato sauce. So after pouring the tomato sauce over the pasta I then sprinkled the basil and then grated the cheese on top. It tasted really good because it made a herby cheese flavour I had not anticipated but demonstrated in my action that I preferred it with basil than without and so consequently the better taste with. That was purposeful and was designed. There’s a further question though which is whether in principle that outcome could have been foreseen and upon reflection it most definitely could. And now there after I may or may not choose to add basil at that point. Unforeseen events don’t eliminate planning but just chnage the plan. It is not I but Ferguson who equivocates.
I assume you’ve read Hoppe’s critique of Hayek on this area.
I think it boils down to whether known unknows actually really exist.
What you fear influences your philosophy to some degree.
How so? I think Bellegarrigue makes a point in a beautiful joining of words. It inspires the mind.
You postulate that the government is the only institution? From what I gather you seem to be saying something akin to:
Well if we don’t bailout American auto and they go bankrupt, suddenly there will be no car sellers in the US.
If the institution of government were to crumble, we would not all stand around dumbfounded saying ‘My gosh…what do we do now?’ Life will adapt and voluntary trade will continue to enact itself. That is one of the great things about the market. It provides for us and yet we are it in a sense.
I’m a historian, I utilize thymology to theorize what I think the future will be like. Could I be wrong? Of course. However, standing around saying ‘No no no, we can’t advance until we know the unknowns’ postulates that the existing climate is sustainable and just. I don’t think what we live under now is either, therefore I advance the theory that radical change is necessary. Moreover, I find it fascinating that an Austrian economist [ if you still consider yourself such ] can be satisfied with the status quo. Perhaps I will concede to you the point that economics is value neutral, is it not the goal of the Austrian school to eliminate the central bank [ the Federal Reserve ] and is that not a radical change? I have yet to you see contest that we shouldn’t eliminate that institution because we don’t know what will happen. So I guess essentially I am calling you out on contradictory sentiments.
I think you’re in fundamental agreement with everyone else in this thread, except that you’re phrasing it differently. I believe they are speaking of the “social planning” of an entrepreneur or educational institute (hence competitive and not monopolistic), or else they are referring to plan in the sense of “educated prediction.”
again, another fruitless discussion with you. lol
I don’t really see how you’ve addressed my points, nonetheless, on the Hoppe paper (which I’m skimming throught now):
He states that Hayek is unknown for his work in economics and that it is largely Mises work. Now, Hayek introduced capital theory to business cycle considerations (Mises only considered the monetary effects, due to the fact that the ABCT began as a byproduct of Mises’ work on the non neutrality of money). Of course, Hayek won the nobel prize and has been cited by Garrison, Huerta de Soto, White etc. as the main inspiration for their works on banking theory and business cycle theory.
He then says that Hayek hands the government a blank cheque because there are an infinite number of services not provided by the government (which isn’t true). But how this follows from Hayek’s statement that the government must provide those services that couldn’t be provided by the market, is beyond me (also, why is this bad? Hoppe is essentially presuming that Hayek is wrong and then using this to “refute” him, it’s just question begging).
Indeed, whilst I agree with Hoppe that Hayek’s scheme in The Denationalization of Money is somewhat unfeasible, it’s perhaps preferable to Hoppe’s 100% reserve banking preferences. Moreover, Hayek’s desire for monetary stability is defensible on economic grounds,and defenses have been provided by Hayek, Selgin, White and Horwitz. The only “bizarre” aspect, is Hoppe’s use of the word “bizarre”. (By which he presumably means “Hayek disagrees with me and my Rothbardian buddies”)..
I’ll get to the rest of it later, although, it seems like a typical Hoppean screed. Full out of context quotations and missing the important parts of Hayek’s theory.
But that is ALL YOU DO! You just STATE. You never DEMONSTRATE.
There’s a difference, and you really need to learn it. Doing so will make you much more proficient in argumentation.
There are always unforseen consequences.However, I should hope that you’d agree that eliminating an institution which allows the coordination of the mass theft of others would be a Good Thing ™.