Hello, I am new to the Community

Miscellaneous Newbies
, , , ,
61

Please define for me force?

OK… I see the contention…

To all humans, Liberty is a natural state, is not exactly true… Unfortunately Domination is a natural state, it is natural for humans to dominate their environment, their circumstances and most atrociously other humans. Liberty is the moral state of the individual, and when I speak of morals I do not speak of Dogmatic Morality, I speak of the moral justification of Liberty, which is, individualism, equality, justice, compassion and capitalism…

Are people able to choose to not defend Liberty, of course, but when one does not want Liberty, the choice to coerce Liberty from others should not be an option…

I treat True and individual Liberty as synonymous, if you feel this is incorrect omit “true” and replace it with “Individual”

But yes, general Liberty is not Liberty at all, I probably should have said that better…

I do want you to know that I am enjoying this exchange…

62

Ok, good, just gettin’ my barrings on what you know and surely you are on what I know. Exchanging some knowledge on this free market forum. [Y]

So justice over government in this context. ok.

So why do you need a government (monopoly rule via coercion, which therefore violates liberty right off the bat)? Sure taxes would be voluntary, but then why call it a government? What’s so special about it?

63

I wholly disagree

We are not living the Constitution today, we are living a government interpretation of the Constitution, which is like asking a child molester to interpret what constitutes molestation, and then hiring him as a babysitter…

Where is the government given the authority to judge what is a first amendment violation? The fact is that it does not have this authority…

64

Force, aggression, coercion. If you have an apple in your hand, and I take it from your hand without your permission (consent) then that is by force. I have aggressed against your property. If you are exercising your free speech, and I cup my hand on your mouth, that is aggression. I have touched you without consent.

The only way you can lose your liberty, would be for someone to positively interfere with you. That interference is aggressive force.

We need to stop using the word liberty, because it’s a subjective label and I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing at all.

We’re born free. That is to say, we’re born as free willed rational beings. In this regard, liberty (freedom) is our natural state. We could be born in the middle of a war, with only one arm, 3 months premature etc. But we are free in that we have free will to act. Interacting with nature is not an example of domination. Domination would be interacting with other rational beings with rights, in a manner that lacks consent. Like hitting someone, or taking their food by force. That would be domination. Hunting a deer, or chopping down a tree is not domination from a rights perspective, because animals and plants are not rational beings with rights. Anyway, we’re way off topic.

Right, I replied to something like this on your blog. It’s very confusing. I even saw Wilderness’ follow up, which was even more confusing to me. Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. It is a rational way of dealing with ownership in a world of scarce resources. It is value neutral, which is to say, it is not necessarily moral or good.

Justice, equality, compassion are all values based. I think we can safely say that someone who is not compassionate can still be free. And someone who is not for equality, or does not desire equality, is still free. And justice is somewhat arbitrary, in that what you consider restitution and what I consider restitution for the same offense might differ greatly.

Overall, I am struggling with this notion of liberty being contingent upon so many complex subjective factors.

That’s why I like the NAP. It is a 3 letter acronym, and in one or two sentences, you can state the whole thing very clearly. And it’s so simple, it is very hard to misinterpret, which I think is the hallmark of any good moral system. But the NAP is not why I have rights, or how I got my rights.

Of course not. But again, one does not have to actively promote their liberty in order to have it. Because that implies they begin without liberty.

Good, because I don’t want to turn you off on the discussion.

65

All’s I was saying is rights come from the individual. All morals are not rights, but some rights are moral. Courage is a virtue, is moral, but in what context? Cause a murderer might be brave, but that’s a vice. Context helps. Liberty is moral. What I mean is liberty is personally moral to me. Moral is a personal attribute. Moral is personal and if you’re religious between you and your God. Rights on the other hand are interpersonal - between people. Rights involve a society. Rights come from the individual - all comes from the individual - but in a society certain values of the individual are required rights in order for quality interpersonal relationships (as opposed to interpersonal relationships that lack quality - a criminal and victim interpersonal relationship. That’s not a good relationship and rights therefore have been violated). So life and liberty are natural rights inherent in human nature, the individual, and being rights are on the interpersonal level too.

Simple way to put it:

morals and values - have to do with the individual only

rights - have to do with individuals in interpersonal relations (between two or more people)

Rights emerge out of the individual. Rights are moral. Rights are values. Rights though go further than morals and values. Rights are interpersonal and have to do with society and that’s why they are called rights. They are natural cause they are inherent in humans. Natural rights are of human nature. Natural Law defines human nature but also gravity and many other things. That’s why gravity is called a natural law. Natural rights are natural laws too, but only for human nature, not for animals or plants or gravity for that matter, as you brought up LS.

any questions?

Liberty is freedom (free-will) and this happens when there is no physical coercion or threat thereof. That’s liberty. The NAP is a principle (the P) that upholds the right of liberty.

66

OK…

Let us say Tom creates a car that runs on sunshine and farts, stinky but completely free energy, and said theoretical product performs comparably to the current fossil fuel car.

Dick who lives or works next to Tom’s lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom’s home, Dick slips away from a crowd and sees Tom’s Schematics for his car, or sees them on Tom’s Computer …

Dick copies these schematics (does not steal them) or e mails himself the files…

Then Dick sells these schematics to Ford

Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain…

I am truly enjoying this

67

Not a question, but a comment. I swear I have OD’d on the words moral and liberty between this thread and that blog post. If I don’t read or write the words liberty or moral for two months, it will cause no discomfort. 14 sentences in that paragraph, lol.

Right, I agree with this. And the NAP is a moral principle. We don’t need anything more complex based upon a combination of values like justice, compassion, equality, which seems to me to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (someone correct me if I am wrong).

68

You can’t own ideas in someone else’s mind. Only the state creates IP monopoly through law, it does not occur in nature, as explained by the zero sum example. In nature, two people can’t own the same thing without having an ownership conflict. But two people can own the same idea with no ownership conflict.

If he wants control over his idea, he must hide it from others, contract with them not to share the idea, and hope that no one else thinks of it independently.

IP is 100% a state created fiction. Anyway, we’ve got other fundamental things to hash out, as long as you are pro-state, it’s going to be hard to make a case against the various state monopolies everyone takes for granted.

69

ok…

Sees them how?

So he violated Tom’s property by using Tom’s computer, not to mention he probably trespassed and violated Tom’s other properties (yard, house, etc…)

And the rest of your scenario…

70

yeah, it was long… I thought about that on and off today while I was out and about. I’m trying to sharpen my use of those concepts. Agreed. I also want to throw too much out there sometimes - I get excited…lol I do have an excess at times no doubt. I need to work on it more. Thanks for the feedback.

You don’t need to explain them, but it doesn’t hurt. I’m not quite sure what the significance these pillars are of Harry’s. For instance, the NAP would allow justice, compassion, equality, and much else to flourish. That’s what liberty does. It creates diversity and that’s the virtue of libertarianism versus socialism (which wants to crush diversity. Socialism is very uncreative).

If these pillars are virtues, then there are tons more virtues than this. The significance of virtues and goods are they are the fruit of a human flourishing (pursuing happiness), in other words, how a human attains quality in his or her life. Without a human flourishing, being excellent, and having quality, well, rights wouldn’t exist. A bunch of vice oriented individuals not flourishing and life would definitely not be excellent (in virtuous kind of way).

Here’s an example of how much more to being human isn’t strictly a rights issue (but rights not violated make this possible): A basic good of a human is health. A mentally healthy human will uphold the NAP and thus liberty. They won’t go around coercing others. That’s the argument for insanity based cases in which the health of the individual destroys their ability to uphold the rights of others. This was just one example.

But stating and discussing NAP does simplify the understanding and is an excellent way to introduce to people our basic, but significant stance. We don’t coerce others. It’s our non-aggression principle and libertarians are very principled people. We stick to our principles without swerving too far off course. Ron P. is a very principled person. He could be a north star guiding ships across the ocean. He doesn’t change his stance much at all.

71

I like the apple example…

So now you tell me that it is compassionate that this apple will nourish you, who has no other access to food, and you tell me it is my social responsibility to give you the apple by sacrifice, because I have the apple, I must be better off…

Without touching me your tears have aggressed against my property because sacrifice and compassion are not the same…

But we are not born with the respect of other free willed rational beings, this is why man dominates man by nature…

Yes, this system describes voluntary interaction based on value given for the receipt of goods, services, etc (or property if you prefer). It is because of volition that capitalism is moral, it is the free will of the buyer and seller that we witness the virtuous nature of capitalism. Anything less than capitalism is not moral because of the trespass upon free will of any party of the exchange of said property.

The issue is you are looking at it from the perspective of your interaction with another and not from another interacting with you

Compassion does not only concern the less fortunate, it is a protection of the givers of charity from legal plunder

Example: Just as it is compassionate to give to the needy, that is volunteer property, time, anything of value, it is compassionate to keep the charity voluntary and not force the productive to be slaves of the less productive.

Equality is more to the point of respecting the one factor that makes us all “similar” we are all free willed individuals and thus have the natural rights inherent to this property, ability is where we are not equal, but treated equal in regard to the value of the ability we have.

Example: Individual A is a “good carpenter”, and B is a “poor carpenter”…

Now Individual A demands a higher wage than B because his work has a greater value (less repair, more satisfaction of the customer, more professional, etc.). Now it is a violation of Individual A’s rights to arbitrarily devalue his work to the level of B’s for the sake of equal wages, because equal work is not done. Similarly, you do not give a plumber a surgeon’s wage for clearing a drain, you pay him the value of the work done, just as you pay the surgeon the value for the work he does, and this is the notion of equality that I speak of.

Justice does not indicate the government over the people, but the equal protection under the law of all individuals as opposed to the implied aristocracy of political connection and the individuals personal responsibility in regard to the actions voluntarily taken. Justice is only arbitrary when you take it from the stance of the end result of a violation, the sentencing, the justice I speak of is: the Law (either Natural or Arbitrary) apply evenly, that is no arbitrary advantage given, and when action is taken, without coercion or force, the sole responsibility rests on the individual voluntarily acting

Example: There is no justice in the United States today, we see countless politicians using political connections to skirt the Law and take no responsibility for their actions…

The way NAP is talked about it seems to me like I am pulling it apart with my ideas, not so much trying to, I first heard about NAP from you guys and these articles predate this conversation, but, and this is my opinion, if you look at what I propose with these “pillars”, using them morally (as I put it) derives this NAP, I would like to know yours and wilderness’ thoughts on this…

No, one does not, but the one who does not is choosing to not have direct control over the maintenance of his Liberty, thus is more apt to lose it…

Not True, it applies not only to the achievement but the maintaining of such liberty…

I do know where the contention is, and I feel the fool for it not hitting me sooner…

I am not speaking of free will, I am speaking of living free, as one sees fit

72

Laying on the desk, or on the screen of Tom’s computer - Dick was at an engagement at Tom’s House, so he was invited into the home, I thought I said that…

That is what I want to know from the people who think IP is wrong, how does this play out…

  • Did Tom lose value, but he is responsible because he did not hide it when he had guests?
  • Did Tom lose value, and Dick has violated Tom by going into the study despite being invited in the home for a social engagement?
  • Did Tom lose nothing because he had not attained a production contract before Dick did?
  • How does this reconcile if Tom decided that he did not want the invention to reach production?
73

No. Aggression is only physical.

This is utterly false. Man has a mind, and the innate capacity for reason, which allows him to understand that trade and tolerance are beneficial. Animals dominate each other, animals are not capable of rational thought. Don’t confuse evil (revolt against reason) with nature.

Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. Capitalism is not the act of exchange.

Capitalism is value free. Morals are irrelevant to capitalism. It is a rational system.

Capitalism is the ideal system, because it is rational. The alternative is socialism, which is irrational, that is to say, without private property ownership and the market exchange which flows from that, there is no way to ascertain prices, and without prices, you cannot rationally order scarce resources. You would have chaos. Capitalism has nothing to do with morality of free will or exchange. It is a system based on a rational ordering of a world of scarce resources.

No, the problem is that as you have laid out these various values you place on things, you add subjectivity, and if my subjective valuation differs from yours, then I may come to different conclusions about liberty. Since our values are subject to change, it means that the definition of liberty (as you define it) is fluid and not solid.

The compassion, equality, justice portion of your post is not necessary for liberty. If we have non-aggression that’s all we need. And there are simple and plain cases to be made for a moral system based on non-aggression. You’re making one of the mistakes of the Constitution. By trying to be too specific, it is too easy to circumvent.

The NAP underpins what you have written and more. It cannot be a derivative from your position (which is narrow and prone to defintion errors) and likewise your position cannot be derived from it because you eliminate all sorts of possibilities for moral judgements based on the NAP outside of your own.

I don’t know how many more ways I can say this. Being free willed is a natural state. It isn’t something you have to achieve, and it is not necessarily something you must maintain.

They are the same thing. How can you possibly live free as you see fit without free will?

74

Not so much long as staccato. We’re all works in progress.

By being so narrow (trying to define everything) it’s inviting epistimological errors.

He doesn’t have to change course because he understands his direction. I don’t know if you have read any of his books, (Revolution Manifesto does not count), but even his short book about Mises, Ron Paul is one very smart and intelligent cat. He gets all of this, objectivism, praxeology, austrian economics and a whole lot more.

75

So he violated property rights. He didn’t merely copying them - he stole them. He walked onto his yard, into the house, and fiddled around his desk. He’s a criminal. What’s this have to do with intellectual property?

Your whole scenario is about a theft. It didn’t even get to the issue of intellectual property yet. Dick is a snooping thief.

76

You pulled apart NAP, but then you derive this NAP? So you took it apart and put it back together again? Sounds fun, like playing with blocks…[:P] but joking aside, I’m still not getting the significance you are giving these pillars.

If individuals are not aggressing against each other, then a flourish of virtues and goods are active. Not only these pillars of yours.

77

So, if someone throws away a chair, no one can ever own it again?

I don’t see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies.

So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly?

Of course copying should not be illegal!

78

So invitation in the home does not mean one has access to the home?

So it is theft, and not copying, to copy something on someone else’s desk?

Is he still a snooping theif if Dick sees the schematics in passing, remembers them and reproduces them at home?

79

Common sense, that I’m sure you do have, says a guest is that, a guest. Once invited into a house that can’t roam around the house shuffle through somebody’s papers on a desk and access their computer. I’m a guest in somebody’s house does that mean I can put my muddy boots up on their table and be offended that the home owner tells me I can’t do that? Surely the guest shouldn’t be offended.

If you’re saying I was invited into the room, allowed to walk around the desk, and the home owner is allowing all this to take place (allowing you into his study/den). Also if the home owner is watching you look through some papers on a desk without making you go away, then I would say the home owner allowed you to look at the papers on the desk. Wouldn’t you? So no theft.

I don’t know the whole context of this, but what I outlined above shows a situation in which the home owner allowed Dick to look around and see the schematics and thus no thief. Maybe you’re thinking of another situation?

80

So implementation of a system of taxation that compels your children, without their consent to abide by is not coercion if I do not need to bera physical force onto them?

So are you postulating that the world actively revolts against reason?

Well then what is it when you wish to exchange your apples for steak?

Why is capitalism rational, price assignation is how socialism solves this issue, but that violates the natural right to private property ownership, making it immoral. It is private ownership of property that puts the decision (by volition) of the fate of said capital goods (scarce resources), the market exchange based on your voluntary decision (derived from property ownership) ascertains the price, thus your right to property ownership is represented by Capitalism, anything else, either by price assignation or confiscation, is immoral, as it violates the NAP.

Example: There are 100 widgets (scarce resource) and you own 50 of them, you can choose to sell them on the market, price ascertained by this, you can choose to keep them, price increases because scarcity increases (supply decreases) as you are not releasing your 50 to the market or you may give them away (decreasing demand) and therefore decreasing price. (I know this is very simplified)

Now a societal contract (government for sake of argument) decides that it is not good for society for you to have this choice and confiscates half the widget supply for redistribution (obvious violation) or fixes the widget price, making your choice concerning widgets irrelevant to price (still a violation as your benefit to having widgets is artificially tampered with). Now, a lesser resource, we will say cogs, are not tampered with either way, and it is more beneficial because of this to own cogs.

In regard to the example:

  • How are you treated equally to cog owners?
  • How are you given justice in this matter?
  • How is this compassionate to any owners of widgets?

I disagree, the definition of liberty is very concrete, I just propose the most logical formula to achieve a life of freedom while interacting with others, and I use reason to assign these values, through examples of voluntary interaction of individuals as compared to compulsory interaction. Much in the same way that presentation to the market voluntarily of scarce resources derives a value to said resources, giving natural order to a world of scarce resource, presentation of these principles in a society derives a moral value to living free as an individual in a society of individuals.

How does the NAP stand against those that disregard it? I think you are falling into the Utopian Trap, where everyone would abide by it, and this is not the case, as those that would not can use any of these principles not present to circumvent NAP:

Example: If you believe you are not equal to others, let us say you are above… then how does NAP apply to you against those you believe are not your equals? If you believe there is an inequality between you and others, violating the NAP is justifiable, just as it is justifiable to not concern the NAP to animals and the environment…

This is your opinion, but it is only based on the brief of a much larger work, I have found that brevity keeps readers, and the remainder of the series is the in depth logical argument of these “pillars”, I had thrown this into the gauntlet to really give you a compass to see where I am coming from, not for you to think that this is the extent of my work on the project.

I am not questioning free will, I am questioning the automatic connection, that if you have free will you live free, this is just not the case, you live in a world with other people and at some point interact with them, at this crossroads you can live free or you can not. This is the liberty you can chose to maintain, or not, and in the case where living free is opressed by a social contract (government) it must be achieved, or not. What I am saying to put it bluntly is that having free will alone and nothing else is not enough to live free, without it it is impossible, this is true, but it is equally impossible, when interacting with others, to only have free will (a wholly internal concept), and invariably keep said free life.

If you think this postulation is wrong, ask the Native Americans…