Well here is his legal system in a nutshell. Say I like punching people in the face that I meet. I think that it is good [ moral ]. I walk up to person B and greet them in my face punching action and they say ‘Hey I don’t like that’. Well what are you going to say in a court case? ‘Your honor, my subjective morality is better then his subjective morality…because…’
Morality is not a legal argument. Morality is still subjective, it is your own personal beliefs of right and wrong. If mine are different than yours, who is right?
oh dear. another nihilist.
Morality [ a code of conduct ] is not a legal argument? Ok..why do we lock up thieves? Because stealing is good?
Because it is illegal.
Who defines morality? You have not answered this question.
Why is it illegal?
Reason.
Morality can only be defined by those with the powers to coerce it, whether it is the church or the state.
Well at least you are admitting that the state coerces.
your quoting Mises’ attack on socialist-anarchists is somewhat ridiculous since the reference to ‘angels or saints’ could not be comprehensible to someone with no concept of morality such as you purport yourself to be.
Not ridiculous. Disingenuous. He is only here to argue. He has no interest in discussion.
Mises attack on anarchists, he made no mention of “socialist-anarchists”. I never said you cannot have your own “morality”, I said morality is subjective.
Discussion is only agreement?
socialist anarchists are who he was critiquing. they are who he mentioned whenever he said the word anarchist. or alternatively. he never critiqued anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism, hell he didnt even mention them. lol
therefore according to your logic its perfectly possible for everyone to be angels and saints since by some subjective morality they are.
Prove it.
That is not the world we live in.
Because thieves reduce the amount of social cooperation in society.
No, discussion is honest discourse. It’s not appeals to authority, populism, or dictionaries. It is not strawmen or red herrings.
When you’re asked to explain a point, you explain it, or admit you cannot.
When you assert a position, accept the burden of proof.
Wilderness already proved it earlier this evening by quoting Lew Rockwell on the origins of the term ancap.
Please remember what I told you about honest discourse.
Ok say I don’t want to trade with anyone and I try to influence others to do the same. I am decreasing the sphere of social cooperation, am I not? Will I be arrested?
it is a historical fact that anarchism was a synonym for those opposed to the state and private property. yes there were marginal traditions of individualist (i.e. pro private property) anarchists . Mises arguments clearly have force against the socialist anarchists and fail to even address the substantially different framework of anarcho-capitalist positions. as such to read them as an attempt to refute anarcho-capitalism is to do the great man (Mises) a disservice.
so we dont live in a world with all manner of subjective moralities? and therefore its impossible for everyone to be angels and saints since there is no such subjective morality under which that could be true?
are you refuting yourself?
Are you allowed to disagree?
So why do you not hold this standard to anyone else?
I always do.