I’ll put it this way. I’m not suggesting I’m the one who is determining what is right or wrong. Rather, it is what people are and what is required to live and flourish (somewhat like virtue ethics, as far as I know) that determines what is right or wrong. It should not be determined by decree from people or by some deity. That implies living in regard to your self-interest and being a rational person. That is why being irrational and acting in someone else’s interests rather than your own is immoral.
I wish you would just answer the question.
Ultimately you are. Because you don’t use the word “rational” the way an Austrian would. You use it the way an Objectivist would, that is what is rational, is what is good, not what is rational, is a connection between action and objective. Ultimately, the only way to determine what is rational by your reasoning, is what you perceive as being in someone’s interests. Because if you perceive their end as differently from how they determine it, one of you is being irrational.
Who determines what is required to live and flourish? This is where objective ethics start to tread close to collectivism.
please,lets not conflate all strands of objective ethics.
I didn’t conflate anything.
well; that’s aright then.
No. To begin with, a family is different from a business and a business is different from a statist political party.
Now, families do come close to collectivism. You don’t choose your family members. You may choose your wife, but depending on where you are born, your parents will even choose your wife for you. Doesn’t sound very libertarian does it ?
In the west, being born in family X may mean for instance that you will be brainwashed with whatever revealed religion your parents feel like brainwashing you. Doesn’t sound very libertarian either.
That’s only one definition of fraud, and a peculiar one. Not a bad definition when dealing with property but that definition doesn’t cover all forms of fraud.
I don’t need to.
Well, I think there’s a difference between the people who are victims of fraud and the people who do the preaching…
Yes, they are manipulating individuals and tampering with their consciences. "Son, you either do what daddy says or god will make you burn in hell forever "
Yes, and I’ve no problem saying that when they talk about religion they are fraudsters. Furthermore, their mixing politics and religion is nuts. And I believe that one of the reasons they oppose the current state is because they favor theocracy, not because they love liberty. Do I need to be more clear ?
Didn’t the articles about North illustrate my point in a satisfactory manner ?
You are saying something, no ? You are defending something ? You are arguing some point ? I though so…
Right. You are attacking my moral position. But morality is just an opinion, so…you royally fail. Not that I expect you to be honest enough to admit it that your subjectivism completely undermines your whining about my ‘actions’. After all, honesty is just another subjective and ultimately empty word…
Oh how touching. Again, what do I need to take ‘responsibility’ for ?
irrelevant, we know there are differences between the things I mentioned. the point was your definition of collectivism is so loose and expansive it encompasses things that are plainly compatible with libertarianism and individualism properly understood.
if they ‘come close’ but don’t reach it, there’s no issue right? right.
you always choose whether to treat them like family.
some ‘families’ are indeed based on force and are on their face unlibertarian, and others aren’t. just like some individuals act through force and are on their face unlibertarian. but you must readily admit, that there are inidividuals and families that are not based on force, and are libertarian, they are collectivist in the loose sense, and not collectivist in the technical/important/what-we-talk-about-all-day-on-this-forum-sense.
it doesnt sound like clear thinking on your part, where the negative actions of a subset of individuals forms your basis of judgement of a wider class of individuals. sounds collectivist doesn’t it? this is a silly game.
Heh. So you are going to try to ‘win’ the argument by redefining words to suit the propertarian dogma ? Don’t bother.
wrong.
LOL. A few weeks ago I stumbled upon this :
I wonder what does Hoppe mean by individualism ? He doesn’t seem to be using ‘your’ definition…
Ah but what if you are waylayed by an individual who is not of your community? Is he/she or isn’t he/she obligated to respect your person and property?
My understanding of collectivism is Misesian ’
Not who but what. The facts of reality can help one figure out what is right or wrong. And since we’re both humans, there are some things that are proper and therefore happen to be moral for both of us. Such as individuality and reason. Is pornography moral or immoral? There is no absolute answer. Most things are moral or not depending on the reasons for doing so (or reasons for valuing) and how those relate to an individual’s values. I’m not a mind reader so I can’t know what someone’s reasons are without asking them.
Trees require water to live. If a tree is to live, it ought to use water. But trees cannot think or choose, so it is pointless to discuss what a tree “ought” to do. In fact, a question of ought can only apply to anything with volition (aka humans). This sort of knowledge is discovered through observation and other means of reasoning.
I can’t answer anything about a “who” determining what is right or wrong. It is the facts of reality that would determine what is right or wrong. What is right or wrong isn’t “hard coded” (i.e. Thou Shalt Nots). It is based on principles.
Clearly, all this rests on other philosophical questions such as “What is knowledge? Is reality really real? How do I know what I observe is valid?” so I don’t know if anything I just suggested is proof of anything to you.
So you still have no answer? You promote objective reality while admitting you can’t define it. You claim theists are collectivist, but can’t explain why. You claim religion is immoral, but you can’t define morality.
This is very disappointing. I don’t see any point in continuing. There is only so much meandering and equivocation I can pay attention to.
Tom Woods has written books about Catholicism. Is he preaching fraud?
I want to be sure I understand this as you mean it. People like Ron Paul, Bob Murphy and Lew Rockwell are fraudsters. Is this correct?
No, I am clarifying your attacks on members of LvMI in conflict with the forum rules.
No, you claimed to be libertarian, but you hold collectivist views. I am attempting to clarify if you are libertarian or not.
If you’re going to continue posting here, you will have to take responsiblity for when you post false claims or insults about Misesians.
I did answer, I tried to explain that you shouldn’t be asking that question since it was phrased in such a way that traps me into saying right or wrong is subjective i.e. only determined by an individual and however an individual simply feels, or to admit I’m a hypocrite who is trying to act as god, decreeing by my own will what is good or bad. Both answers are incorrect. And those are the only answers for such a question. So it had to be rephrased to be answered in an intelligible way without simply saying “that’s a stupid question”.
A theist is necessarily collectivist because it is subjugating oneself to the will of their god or even their church and abandoning their own values for some greater power’s values.
Morality is what one ought to do (in general, as in applied to any and all moral philosophy). Or more specifically for my point of view on ethics, what is good for one to do.
I do not see where you think I admitted to being unable to define objective reality. I’ll define now then; it is reality as it is. As in reality isn’t just a result of my consciousness but exists independent whether or not I were alive.
Now I can explain a lot more in depth why I think any and all theism is collectivist, but that is far more than I intended to talk about when I first posted in this topic. Maybe I’ll make a post about it some other time.
But right and wrong are subjective, you are trying to claim they are objective, and rooted outside of our individual preferences.
If that was true, that’s not collectivist.
So morality is positive?
Can you exist without your consciousness?
I don’t think you need to. But you still haven’t made a case for how theism is immoral by any objective standard. You’re not even able to make the case it is collectivistic.
I’m an atheist btw, I just hate bad argumentation against theism. I also don’t think it is necessary in a libertarian society. Whether someone believes in nothing, or Buddha, or Mohammad or practices zen, is completely irrelevant to the issues of a free society. Those are preferences, no different from sexual preferences, food preferences, entertainment preferences etc.
To summarize, YOU can FEEL that theism is immoral, but you can’t prove it. You certainly would be acting immorally to oppose it with force.
I think you’re an objectivist right? We’re going to have big gaps between Rand’s arbitrary objectivism [sic] and libertarian anarchism. Ancap can be consistent, objectivism cannot.
There is an objective right or wrong, depending on the particular context.
I think I see what you mean. It is possible to abandon your own values to some deity’s values and still not put the “collective” first. I’m not sure of any religions that aren’t collectivist though, except maybe like Satanism or similar religion. In either case, religion is always irrational and anti-individual (see the Mises quote from earlier)… That’s why it is bad.
I’m not sure I know what you mean. What is good for an individual is thinking and self-interest. Anything that is against that is bad.
Yeah, I can. I just wouldn’t realize that I exist.
That is true, it isn’t exactly necessary. I could care less what someone else is doing if my rights are not being violated.
Don’t you mean that you FEEL it would be acting immorally to oppose it with force? Who are you to say it is immoral to oppose it with force?
I would not call myself one (since I don’t agree on the reasoning about government among a few other things), but obviously my ethics are heavily influenced.
I don’t plan to respond further; not because I’m evading you, but because it’s important to recognize when I’m not getting anything of further importance in this discussion.
Ah, What a petty game…
You want me to cross some line that exists in your mind so that you can comfortably ban me ‘forever’ ?
Poor LS and his collectivistic loyalty to his intellectual masters…You should get a job at the ministry of truth.
Wasn’t Mises an utilitarian ? What does he mean by ‘moral self-determination’ ? Oh, never mind…
So, forgetting about Mises lack of consistency, and taking that sentence at face value, I think that an institution like revealed religion is a great example of collectivistic thinking at work.
oh, you single out revealed religion since you find that Aboriginals belief in ‘The Dreaming’ to be compatible with individualism?