Government Sponsored Scholarship

Miscellaneous General
141

What are those problems?

It depends on the form of consequentialism you mean. If it is utilitarianism, its biggest weakness is that interpersonal utility comparisons are bunk. Many forms of consequentialism are “maximalist” moral systems were some given consequence is supposed to be maximised (e.g. freedom, utility etc.), yet there is absolutely no way to measure it. A related problem is establishing why the consequence matters morally (which is why I say, consequentialism cannot be supported by moral nihilism.) Utilitarianism has a somewhat easier case for it here since it can be supported on the assertoric hypothetical of the form “Since you value your utility, do X.” I’m not saying all consequentialist systems are vulnerable to these problems, but if utilitarianism is meant by it, it’s pretty much a lost case. Roderick Long has more extended critiques of both rule and act utilitarianism, but IMO those are the biggest issues these systems face.

Could you elaborate?

Deontology tends to focus on intentions behind actions, whereas consequentialism on their consequences. Intentions in part should be informed by consequences, so that “well-intentioned” actions" that systematically produce bad outcomes at divergence with said intentions will occasion revision. Point being, they touch too closely upon one another to be so easily divided, and also jointly assume that it is the action and not the agent which matters morally (and therefore often fail to attach why other intentions or consequences should matter to you and inform your moral decisionmaking process; this is the whole internalist/externalist debate.)

Personally, I tend to go with epistemologically founded moral arguments (like Hoppe’s or de Jasay’s) because they avoid a lot of these issues. While I like Aristotelianism, I think it relies on too extended an argumentative process to convince most people, whereas epistemological arguments force people advancing socialist/statist ethics to scrutinise the validity of their own arguments and bear the burden of proof themselves, which is squarely where it should be.

142

This is by no means obvious. It depends on were u work and where your parents work. And yes, the government will spend it somewhere else, perhaps on goods and services that actual taxpayers want.

Generally, the right of a victim to restitution termporally follows the crime. It does not precede.

143

This is by no means obvious. It depends on were u work and where your parents work. And yes, the government will spend it somewhere else, perhaps on goods and services that actual taxpayers want.

The only measure of services that are wanted is payment on the free market. Because there is no way to gauge whether the services delivered to taxpayers are a) of the quantity they desire b) of the price they desire or c) of the quality they desire, to the extent that any of these hold. The fact that the government will spend it elsewhere is precisely why the funds should be released from its hands and once more returned to the market. It may not be obvious and it may not always hold but for the majority of libertarians I am fairly certain it will.

Agreed on the latter point but generally crimes are unpredictable. Government extortion is a given, it will happen, unless it is overthrown.

144

Sounds like you’re rationalizing death and taxes as inevitable Jon.

This we can agree upon.

I do wish more tax payers would chime in here, by far the best comments have been from people who actually have been ripped off, not the people who are trying to rationalize participating in the ripoff.

145

Government extortion will happen, except when it will not.

146

Sounds like you’re rationalizing death and taxes as inevitable Jon.

Aren’t they, though? I mean it’s systematically planned extortion. I don’t consider them “inevitable” in the sense that they’ll never cease. If you agree that you have the right to at least get as much out as you put in, though, there’s no disagreement on my part. I’m pretty much on board with Hoppe as to how privatisation should occur all the same, but I don’t see the harm in reversing the leeching of funds the state carries out.

147

Just to be clear, I am currently living off the system but previously I was high net tax payer. I just got fed up with it and decided to be on the receiving end instead of the giving end because it makes my life easier, though lowers my quality of life in other respects. I have not yet gotten back all that I have paid.

I think it’s unsafe to assume that anyone here is necessarily a net tax payer or a net tax consumer just based on their arguments alone.

148

I ran into this in another thread recently, would you mind providing your definition of “moral” since it seems that the majority on this forum don’t define it the same way I do.

When I classify myself as a moral nihilist I mean that in the sense that I don’t believe in a metaphysical objective right/wrong/good/evil. I make value judgments all day long based on what I predict will bring the most favorable consquences. If you, as others here, define this as a set of “morals” then I am not a moral nihilist by that definition.

It is also my understanding that deontological libertarianism is based on the assumption that initiation of force is objectively wrong. Since I don’t believe in an objective right/wrong I cannot therefore be a deontological libertarian. If you have a different definition of deontological libertarianism then I might be one.

Consequentialist libertarianism, as I understand it, only sees libertarianism as a means to an end. That is, I believe my net utility will be higher in a libertarian society so I champion it and given the opportunity I would participate in it. I don’t do this because it is objectively right but rather because I believe it will result in more favorable consequences than the current system (state). If you have a different definition of consequentialist libertarianism then I might not be one. Note: By “favorable” I mean higher net utility.

The NAP, as I understand it, is similar to deontological libertarianism in that it is based on the assumption that initiation of force is objectively wrong. The same personal argument as above applies here. If your definition of the NAP is not dependent on objective right/wrong then I might be a NAP beiever.

149

I ran into this in another thread recently, would you mind providing your definition of “moral” since it seems that the majority on this forum don’t define it the same way I do.

Moral nihilists don’t believe in the existence of moral facts and hold that ethics is an exercise in futility for that reason, and that includes consequentialism. Consequentialists believe the attainment (and perhaps maximisation) of certain consequences is moral. That’s why they don’t do very well in each other’s company.

When I classify myself as a moral nihilist I mean that in the sense that I don’t believe in a metaphysical objective right/wrong/good/evil. I make value judgments all day long based on what I predict will bring the most favorable consquences. If you, as others here, define this as a set of “morals” then I am not a moral nihilist by that definition.

It just means you don’t believe in moral properties “out there” in the world.

It is also my understanding that deontological libertarianism is based on the assumption that initiation of force is objectively wrong. Since I don’t believe in an objective right/wrong I cannot therefore be a deontological libertarian. If you have a different definition of deontological libertarianism then I might be one.

There’s many ways you can arrive at something being objectively wrong. Deontology tends to argue for particular modes of action based on whether they can be coherently proposed or not (i.e. formulated without lapsing into contradiction.) An example of this would be the Kantian system. The actions it proscribes against end up being objectively wrong because to argue for them forces one into contradiction, or so the Kantians argue. Argumentation ethics and some other epistemologically based ethical arguments take similar approaches. The difference between Kantianism and the latter type of approach is that Kantianism tends to focus on perfect duties (e.g. not to murder) and imperfect duties (e.g. to be charitable), the former of which are categorical imperatives (of the form “Do X”… because it is your duty as a rational being.) In general, deontology focuses on one’s “duty”, which can stem from a variety of sources (in Kant’s system, it is one’s rational mind.) The reason the NAP and deontology tend to be associated is because a lot of libertarians take a Kantian approach to justifying natural rights. Kantian deontology isn’t based on the objective existence of moral properties “out there” so much as it is what is your duty as a rational being. This should give you an understanding of it as my own is a bit rusty atm. Kantian deontology tends to focus on the intentions behind an agent’s actions (one’s actions, to be good, must be motivated by their reason), but strictly speaking deontology doesn’t require it.

Consequentialist libertarianism, as I understand it, only sees libertarianism as a means to an end. That is, I believe my net utility will be higher in a libertarian society so I champion it and given the opportunity I would participate in it. I don’t do this because it is objectively right but rather because I believe it will result in more favorable consequences than the current system (state). If you have a different definition of consequentialist libertarianism then I might not be one. Note: By “favorable” I mean higher net utility.

The objective right in question here is: my utility ought to be maximised. I’m willing to grant that this mode of argument might actually succeed because it can take the form of an assertoric hypothetical, i.e. Since you value your “happiness” (utility), you should do X. You can arrive at the NAP via this system precisely because of the impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons. Still, it is as much based on a moral fact as any other ethical system. Otherwise you’re just talking about ordinary human action, i.e. the tendency to avert non-satiation of one’s preferences. Consequentialism is more than that. The problem moral systems tend to have is relating a goal (in this case adherence to a moral form of behaviour) to one’s interests. Consequentialism enjoys an advantage in that it can link the two in the form of the assertoric hypothetical I mentioned. However, in and of itself I think its an approach that needs refinement. The best exposition of it I’ve seen is the neo-Aristotelianism of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl, which is a blend of teleology/consequentialism and deontology. It’s also very protracted and lengthy and requires the audience hearing the argument to have a good grip of moral and epistemological theory.

The NAP, as I understand it, is similar to deontological libertarianism in that it is based on the assumption that initiation of force is objectively wrong. The same personal argument as above applies here. If your definition of the NAP is not dependent on objective right/wrong then I might be a NAP beiever.

The NAP can be argued for from a multiplicity of moral perspectives ranging from consequentialism to deontology to epistemologically motivated arguments to Aristotelianism (agent-based/teleological ethical theories.)

TLDR: Deontology and consequentialism are both moral systems (the former based on one’s duty stemming from their nature/external authority etc., the latter based on the desirability of the attainment of certain consequences), and the NAP can be justified using a variety of approaches.

150

By your definition of consequentialist libertarian I am not one. The key seems to your usage of “ought”. I do not believe that I ought to have my utility maximized. I desire my utility to be maximized. Positive utility results in the certain chemical reactions in my brain that encourage behaviors that lead to additional similar chemical reactions in my brain. The same is true for a dog who desires some things and avoids others. I believe that libertarianism will increase the frequency and magnitude of those chemical reactions while reducing the frequency and magnitude of negative chemical reactions (pain) so I am a proponent of it.. It’s not because I believe that I am deserving of those reactions, only that I strive to make them happen.

151

Jon Irenicus, how would you describe Mises on this topic (consequentialist, deontologist, utilitarian, or what)?

152

Mises is a difficult case and I’ve not read enough on him to make any such judgement, but I’d say he is a rule utilitarian based on what I do know.

It’s not because I believe that I am deserving of those reactions, only that I strive to make them happen.

That’s what I mean by an assertoric hypothetical (since I want X, therefore I should do Y.) The challenge for consequentialism is essentially to show to others why they should respect your striving and this is where the “ought” tends to creep in (particularly because not every situation which maximises social utility will maximise individual utility, e.g. for a murderer.) Different consequentialist systems try do this in different ways (Aristotelianism by internalising respect towards others’ striving by internalising it into your pursuit of happiness, through subjecting happiness to a higher level of analysis than is common to consequentialism and focusing on the agent, for instance; rule utilitarianism by comparing societies adopting different social codes and comparing their aggregated utilities, though this still doesn’t circumvent the problem I mentioned.)

Thus why I say they are still moral systems and face similar problems, unless you’re taking it in the sense of a “how to achieve happiness” guide. In that case it doesn’t matter, but it will have little to do with a social code. The foregoing is why I say that it isn’t as clear-cut as deontology vs. consequentialism (vs negative demonstrations, i.e. epistemologically based arguments, if you will.)

153

What if it would be impossible to show a murderer why they should respect my striving?

154

You could go the epistemological route, in that case. Even if the murderer holds to no system of ethics, faced in a court of law they or their counsel will attempt a defence of themselves, and it is that defence that can then be ‘tested’ for consistency/coherence. If they don’t attempt to defend themselves legally, it’s neither here nor there ultimately.

155

This is entirely a discussion of principles, that’s why the OP indicated his discomfort with the idea, while he also found it appealing. People who aren’t willing to discuss principles aren’t answering the OPs question. Ultimately, all of us will rationalize whatever we do, it is how humans are hard wired to handle making compromising decisions and the risk of failure. But our rationalizations whether it’s

  • someone else does it
  • it hurts the state
  • it hurts no one
  • it doesnt matter
  • I will be more libertarian later
  • its a necessary evil

are not compatible with libertarianism. It may be compatible with consequentialism or liberalism, but it is clearly not libertarian if libertarianism is to mean anything to do with the NAP.

Liberty Student, I just want to point out that I’m pretty sympathetic to your positions, if libertarians genuinely put such a high value on liberty as many here claim that accepting state funded jobs or the like should be less common amongst libertarians than it is. Of course, In my opinion a lot of libertarian rhetoric is cheap talk. That said, I think we can conduct this debate without accusing people of “rationalizing” their life choices whenever they post an argument or buying into Marxist crap whereby I believe what I do because I’m not a taxpayer (I thought Austrians had a problem with this kind of nonsense). I only posted originally to provide some context for the OP, that even under very favourably conditions the amount he’d be taking would amount to under a hundredth of a percetange point (if I’d reduced the number of years for the doctorate orthe cost per year which would both be reasonably then it falls further, as would it if I used a country with a bigger economy). And to point out that there were other supply side considerations that should be taken into account, namely that he would be more productive in the private sector given more education.

Let’s put our economist hats on for a second and try to handle this in terms of marginal costs and benefits to society*, that means no introducing dubious (non praxeological) distinctions betweens “needs and wants” as you did earlier in reference to roads. Here’s the reality with the OPs situation, the government initiative that he wants to benefit from probably has a fixed budget, in which case we can treat the budget as a sunk cost to society, in this case the marginal cost of the OP accepting the money is 0 (or at most there opportunity cost of a year outside of the market). So, do the costs to society outweigh the benefits? Well, that depends on whether the cost of the salary foregone in the years of the doctorate times the tax rate are compensated by extra tax revenue that results from a higher salary (with a given tax rate). The numbers I suggested earlier were very tentative, but you’d need a very significant discount rate to reach the conclusion that he won’t pay it back within a decade.

On the other hand, driving on roads has a positive marginal cost for society, albeit a very low one for an individual driver. A libertarian using the roads will increase the likelihood of acccidents, cause wear and tear on the roads and cause some from of pollutions. Now, for most but the nuttiest libertarians, I’d guess that not driving and not producing anything for society would cause more damage than driving, which is just one way of saying that libertarians put more into the collective piggy bank than they take out vis a vis driving.

What I’d like to conclude with is this, your original “would you take money from a thief analogy” should probably read more like “a thief steals a huge quantity of money, you need a cent out of that to get a train ticket to a job that will allow you to restitute the victim. Given that the thief is giving away all this money anyway, do you accept that cent?”.

*I should note, that throughout this discussion I’m using net tax transfers as a proxy for contributions tosociety, because that’s what seems to matter to you.

156

It’s a matter of sunk costs and the prospect that, no matter where you go or park your assets, that you will be taxed for them until the state is removed, or unless you somehow abandon your property and withdraw from civilisation. There’s an awful lot of indeterminacies involved here, though.

157

I think that your bad-ass piece of paper (that goes for any masters or PHD) is only bad ass in your own mind and in the minds of uni sell outs. It won’t help your marketability in any sector other than academia. So, if your goal is to establish a career in academia and become a net drain on society, by all means. In the real world, that is, the private sector, education, especially uni level counts for shit, and its really on the job experience that increases productivity. Unless you need that education to enter into a particular field because government regulations require it (as is the case in professions), either college level or on the job training is by far more productive.

Calling other people sell-outs is always a nice way to gain the upper hand in purity pissing contests (or by Liberty Student standards, it might just be an easy way to rationalise dropping out of college). However, the data fall pretty squarely against this claim of yours that education is worth nothing. For just about every subject a bachelors degree alone will lead to some premium in terms of private sector earnings, as we move towards more advanced degrees and towards harder sciences the size of this premium increases. For mathematics the median starting salary is 90K in industry (http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/2009Survey-StartSal.pdf), for a PhD holder, do you think the same can be said for bachelors degree holders?

158

If you`re a welfare bum, a public servant, a Goldman Sacs exec., a subsidized student, or the like, you have no right whatsoever.

It’s the “or the like” that bothers me here. It kinda suggests that your formula that if for a given person tax contributions > use of tax money they are a kosher libertarian isn’t so easy to apply in practise.

159

It is not true that market demand is the only measure of whether or not a service is wanted. Direct use of a good or service demonstrates that it is valued. We know roads are valued because of the fact that we drive on them everyday. It is better if government money goes into producing roads, or police services (not police disservices), or something that a net-taxpayer will consume then if it goes to someone on welfare, or GM employees, or anyone who did not actually pay for government services. At least that way, victims will be partially compensated. The fact that the opportunity cost of government services cannot be measured doesn’t matter in this regard.

And government money will always be released back to the market. A welfare bum will still buy groceries and liquor. It’s a matter of which market participants actually have a right to it.

Well, nobody has the right preemptive restitution. until the crime has occur, you can’t take your property back.

160

Academics are basically shills for the state. They’re sell outs. Their prostitutes who sacrifice their integrity for income. I think its perfectly fair to say so. (http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)

Whether or not it’s worth it depends on several factors. The difference in income that you will make. The time you sacrifice going to school. And the cost you have to pay for school. If someone makes a higher income, it does not necessarily follow that it was worth it. And going to school does not guarantee a job in your field. For many it’s not worth it.

The statistics you provided for recent postdoctorates is not all that great. The third paragraph says,

Readers should be warned that the data in this report are obtained from a self-selected sample, and inferences from them may not be representative of the population."

That means that there is sample bias. The sample is not selected.

Also typical Doctorates are not at the beginning of their careers, while most Bachelors are at the beginning of theirs. For the most part, these differences in income are the result of differences in experience, rather than formal education, which is why most successful men and women in the private sector never bother to get a PHD. I, myself, will never bother to get a Masters let alone a PHD. It would add little to my income.

If you look at the doctorates working in academia, who outnumber private sector doctorates 4 to 1, their median income is an unipressive 50-60k. Skilled machinists, and welders make more than this. There is a glut of masters and doctorates.