even Vichy and Bloom think to themselves “this action is something i dont like people to do etc. et”. the difference is that you call that disliking ‘wrong’ but by failing to state that its objectively wrong. you haven’t really come any closer than either of those to an understanding of morality. (from my perspective, which I know you disagree with) . (it seems to me) you only understand yourself. you understand your inner voice about what you are prepared to do and not do. and about what you tolerate and what you would take action against.
now this is a plenty good start. and i do feel so lucky that someone like you with all your fine qualities happens to ‘subjectively’ feel the attraction of libertarian principles. now, i too am emotionally commited to libertarianism. i also have such passionate feelings etc. but i’m seeking to align my feelings with what is actually right and wrong for people; im trying to discover it by reason, and not just say ‘its in my gut, thank your stars that what is in my gut is not a penchant for murdering innocents.’ etc.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that MANY more people get converted to libertarianism by learning Austrian economics than by reading about performative contradictions and Thomist natural rights arguments. I think it’s because almost EVERYBODY is subjectively attracted to libertarian principles, because almost everybody feels in their hearts that assault, stealing, and slavery are wrong, and subjectively grant (whether they admit it or not) the property “rights” implied by that feeling to themselves and others. They just don’t apply those moral tenets to everybody equally, because they believe the Lifeboat Lie… (I know you might have read this, but bear with me, since Mr. Kinsella probably hasn’t)
As I’ve contended thus far, there is a moral code written in our hearts. This inherent moral code is only shoved aside when we enter conditions of extremity (known as “lifeboat situations”), in which circumstances have forced the human community to devolve into a war of all against all. In those cases, the involuntary urge for survival overwhelms the involuntary urge for moral behavior, and we therefore cast aside our communal moral feelings for the sake of extreme short-term selfishness. In other words, we allow ourselves “necessary evils”.
The state has deceived the bulk of humanity into believing that society is inherently in constant extremity: a perpetual “lifeboat situation” in which a great many “necessary evils” must be committed by the state, else the “lifeboat” of society will keel over and everybody will drown. This is a lie. Society does not require for its survival, or even for its flowering, that certain men be above natural morality. The acts of murder, plunder, and enslavement committed by the state are not necessary evils. They’re just plain evils; just as much as if you or I committed them as private individuals.
(from my post A Mini-Manifesto of Liberty)
When people truly come to understand Austrian economics, and thereby realize the state isn’t necessary for survival, their inherent decency kicks in, with or without ingenious ethical arguments, and they become libertarian.
I do take comfort that I can have libertarian fellow travellers who are subjectivists and who are committed to libertarianism. i just find it odd. no hard feelings about our disagreement I hope. (as real as it is)
Do you (Lilburne) plan to respond to the post which I copied below? If you think that a complete response to it would work to derail the current conversation, you can open a new thread.
As far as I can tell, you’ve just shifted the goal posts. First you were saying (as I understood you, of course) that simply by objecting he recognizes that rights exist (which rights is another matter, although you seem to imply libertarian rights). However, you then seemed to be saying that as a strategical issue he may want to appeal to what he can only see as delusions held by the rights advocates. Sure, he might want to appeal to their own moral sense, but neither proves that he actually believes in rights (and that one needs to believe in them to defend themselves), nor (and more importantly) that they actually exist.
Just like the rights advocate saying “since you believe might makes right, I’ve got plenty of might, so you might well want to give up” doesn’t prove that might makes right.
See, I take issue with this. I don’t really see how one can prove that the state can never improve human life a priori, much less how it follows from Austrian economics and why other schools of economics are precluded from realizing “the state isn’t necessary for survival”.
I’m sorry Ryan, but I can’t wrap my head around it. It seems you’re saying my “ideological adversaries” have a “cultural norms” view of rights, which doesn’t seem right.
Right, and he could appeal to God, but I don’t think you’d find that proof of Our Lord. It just doesn’t follow that since a criminal appeals to rights (in which he might not necessarily believe) that they exist, I don’t see how you can think it does.
He’s not admitting he has them. I’m sure if you were cornered by a bunch of angry Christians who threatened to kill you if you didn’t admit God existed, you’d do it. That doesn’t mean he does exist (although, I certainly believe he does).
As I Ryan pointed out, he may well be lying or be utterly deluded himself.
Yes, he is. He’s saying that he’s so special that he should not have done to him what he did to them. That while for him it was fine to do to them, it’s not fine for them to respond in kind. That’s special pleading, and as Kinsella noted: that estopps him.
I call bullshit. In any case, replace you with a slightly less manly atheist and my point stands.
But now you’ve shifted the goalposts. What you’re presenting here is Kinsella’ estoppel approach, we were originally discussing the “rights skeptic” approach. Of course, they’re related, but I also think Kinsella chose to put them in different sections of his paper for a reason.