I have seen arron russos freedom to facism and mad as hell. I admire his zeal for justice, he was very passionate, I think the reason you dont see much abought nWO watchdogs (such as russo) on Antistatist forums is because once you oppose the idea that the state has any ligitamicy the type of state that is violating your rights is less important. I now view state capitolism, interventionism, collectivisation, sosalism, communism as just statism. However Globalism and the nwo should be in my opinion looked at as a bigger threat to our liberty then national level statism.
We have no need of such crackpot conspiracy nonsense here.
How long they can survive in a post-scarcity system is not relevant to this discussion. Concerning ethics, your point was never ‘murders can keep on murdering for an extended period of time.’ Communism presupposes a post-scarcity world. Now either a group of people have lived under communism [ a post-scarcity utopia ] thus transgressing your theory that no one can transgress supply and demand or communism never happened. Again how long they survive under communism, how well they survive is an entirely different point. It is the fact they can do it. That was your claim over murders. The fact they can murder people means that there is no universal ethic.
They can be transgressed, if they can’t be than there is no reason to tell people that monetary inflation leads to business cycles. There would be no reason to tell people that socialist and monopolistic markets cannot calculate. People wouldn’t be able to carry out these things. They try and for a time nothing erroneous happens. It comes back to slap them in the face. But you main objection to objective ethics is that people can do it, nothing about the results or legal ramification. Merely the fact they could and did eliminated objectivity.
I’ve conceded nothing. In discussing rational systems of ethics, you cannot expect irrational individuals to abide by rational. Do you think irrational people have the ability to be rational? Do you disagree with ‘ought implies can’?
That was never my point. You are creating (yet another) Strawman. Concerning ethics, my point was that if there is such a thing as natural law then it cannot be transgressed. Just as the laws of physics, economics, etc… cannot be transgressed.
Fact - There has never been a post-scarcity utopia. No one has lived in a post-scarcity utopia. They may think they did, or currently do, but that doesn’t change the fact that scarcity still exists.
Something erroneous is always happening. Learn AE, Jumping in the air doesn’t mean you are transgressing the laws of gravity. Hang gliding doesn’t mean you are transgressing the laws of gravity. The reason you tell people socialism cannot calculate is to save them, yourself, and everyone else involved the time and trouble. Just as you tell I child with an umbrella that he won’t fly if he jumps off the roof. (Learned that the hard way)
You’ve now conflated objective ethics with karma (which is also false).
You’ve done it again! Now you are blatantly stating that ethics isn’t universal. One’s “ability to be” has no place in the world of laws and objectivity. The laws of physics apply to the irrational and rationale equally. Same for economics. Not the same for ethics.
So, you don’t have any proof, at all, that morality == aesthetics. You admit that your position is just lame pseudo-philosophy? Thanks.
Nope. You need to prove two things :
- that common usage implies that morality == aesthetics. (Or else admit that you speak your own personal and arbitrary language.)
- that common usage declares that morality is subjective.
Now, common sense suggests that ‘subjective’ morality is sheer nonsense, since morality deals with relationships between persons, not with whatever whims or tastes persons hold individually.
Morality is not concerned with personal & private tastes, it deals with interpersonal and ‘public’ (so to speak) conduct.
You are equating laws with mechanical laws. Moral agents however have free-will so your saying that moral law is not a law because it can be violated shows that either you don’t know the basics, or else you set up a strawman (law will magically stop crime) because you only can refute strawmen.
If not answering equals no proof then you are in the same boat. (Minus common sense and history). Fact - People have different moral beliefs. Now, prove why they ought not to. (Or do rapists, murderers, Christians, vegans, anti-propertarians, etc… just not exist?)
And pseudo-philosophy? Really? Now you are appealing to academic standards (Make sure not to mention the laugh-inducing “objective ethics”).
Nope. You need to prove one thing:
- That common usage implies that morality == science.
Of course, because its not blatantly obvious that people have different moral compasses. You are going off of the deep end, leaving the realm of libertarianism and individualism and entering into the egregore. “Everyone is the same, they must be.”
Translation: It isn’t a law.
No we are not because your position is pattently absurd - I explained that the subject matter of morality and the subject matter of taste are different.
Fact - the vast majority of people think, for instance, that murder is wrong, AND when they engage in murder they try to rationalize it “we need to kill the terrorists” - of course, the rationalization fails…
This is, what, the 4th time that you pretend that people being wrong about X, means X is is not ‘truth-apt’ ?
Or philosophy. Whatever. It seems you first mocked ‘philosophy’ and yet you keep on doing (bad) philosophy…Not very consistent eh?
I think you know that skepticism is a (lame) philosophical position ?
No, I explained that morality deals with non-subjective issues. As to “'science”. you never defined it, so I don’t know what you are talking about. I mean, I imagine that for you science == physics and logical positivism ?
Anyways, morality/ethics are a branch of philosophy and as such they are ‘science’. You know, science used to be called ‘philosophy’ and there were two subdivisions : natural philosophy, now rebranded ‘physics’ and moral philosophy…
LOL. What’s that even supposed to mean ?
Yet you simply refused to do it with the dictionary. (Or at all for that matter)
Which just shows how ethics aren’t objective.
And again you fail to actually address my point.
If you took the time to read, you wouldn’t repeat such mistakes. (Maybe you would?)
Of course. Don’t question god, Jesus or the bible. Religious Ethical Zealot.
You sure did. I mean, you “Juan” explained it. Which is just saying false and not providing any evidence. Even when asked. For me, science doesn’t depend on whether people are “good” or not. (Objective)
Used to? What happened? (Thats not proof of objectivity in ethics in any case)
You, a supposed libertarian, are blatantly rejecting individualism.
liberty, be careful not to confuse opposite and obverse. What you have said is true for the latter but not necessarily the former
I wasn’t. I merely worked from his assertion that they were opposites.
I leave the minutiae to those best suited to it.
And communism transgresses the laws of supply and demand with a post-scarcity mentality.
If they currently do [ your words ] then the fact they ARE violates economic law. Now apply what you said to natural law.
Just because they think [ they can murder ], and currently do, that change the fact that [ natural law ] still exists.
But you suppose that they don’t want to waste time or trouble. You are applying normative ethical statements to a populace, supposing that people want prosperous, rational economic calculation.
It’s not karma. It’s justice. Person A steals from Person B, Person B seeks proportional justice.
And your committing doublethink. You previously stated in this very response that there are people ‘currently’ living under post-scarcity societies. Yet now you say that such a state is rational because the laws of economics apply to them [ which is obviously false ]
You are treating these laws like constitutionalists treat the constitution itself. Economic laws don’t grow fangs and attack you if you try to violate them. You can violate them, and rational people then realize ‘Ok that didn’t work and this is why.’ However an irrationalist cannot reason in such a manner and they are a portion of our society. So they will continue to violate economic laws without a care and if that is the basis for what is a law to you [ the premise that it cannot be violated by anyone ] then it is not a law for irrationalists. What you propose is only acceptable to rational actors. You know this. You are a smart guy. Anyways I’m done with this topic. I’ve spent too much time on it and it is going nowhere. I’m moving on so you can have the last word to bash me or tell me how I’m supposedly wrong or something along those lines.
This is getting ridiculous, can you comprehend anything? Like before, you are just mindlessly repeating yourself. Ahh…
False. A mentality doesn’t transgress. The physical world consists of scarcity. Communists still exist in the physical world (regardless of where there mentality may be). Therefore communists still live in a world of scarcity.
Not my words. THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE IN A POST-SCARCITY WORLD. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POST-SCARCITY WORLD.
False.
Law of Gravity - Always applies to everyone regardless of mentality.
Law of Supply and Demand - Always applies to everyone regardless of mentality.
Law of Nature - Doesn’t always apply to everyone. (By your own admission)
(Which one doesn’t fit?)
I don’t care whether they want it! I’m doing it for myself. I’m selfish.
Of course. Paul Warfield Tibbet Jr. murders 66,000 people. Dies comfortably at 92. Those natural laws sure are fickle. Hey maybe if those Japanese people just didn’t believe those damn laws of nuclear physics they could have transgressed them.
Lie. I never once said people currently or in the past lived in post-scarcity societies. In fact:
This completely contradicts Austrian Economics. If what you are saying is true then the printing of trillions of dollars really would be generating wealth (as opposed to following the laws of supply and demand).
I’ve already answered all of your objections…multiple fucking times now.
LOL. You are a moral nihilist who can’t tell the difference between murdering people and liking tea or coffee - and yet you lecture me on libertarianism/individualism ?
What.A.Joke.
Well, don’t let common sense get in the way of amoral ‘individualism’. After all, individuals have, for instance, the non-right to tax, enslave and murder other uh…individuals…? - Oh, and slavery is just a new and improved ice-cream flavor.
lol. Little skeptic troll is losing his temper ?