So then you are not a believer in natural law which is a universal ethical system?
I think that is a mischaracterization. Eudaimonia is a personal quest. Each individuals flourishing could be for any subjective reason. Perhaps yours is money or happy children while mine could be intellectual noteriety or a happy wife. The point of Eudaimonia is to explain the premise that each action we choose to enact is part of an overarching goal we have for our lives.
How are we to classify the ‘American society’? Is it not a subjective construct of what we make it out to be? I am more then willing to admit that there are individuals in this world who are racist but to classify them as being apart of ‘American society’ is a rather ambiguous comment.
Individuals make up society; Not All Individuals are Rascist, but enough of a number are to have an overall effect on society at large, etc.
You also forget about the occurrence of liberal racism.
I’d extent, however, that as racist some of American society may be (The government, obviously being the worst offender in this area, but the government / state is/are not the same as society, though they overlap).
There’s plenty of racism to be found in Asian countries against other Asians, but there is also a different between being racist & being anti-multicultural (i.e. I’m sure Japan has it own share of racists, but they are mostly pro-monoculture, i.e. the Japanese culture).
But yeah, even though an interesting tangent, & one not to be ignored, is off-topic nonetheless.
Well since there is no entity known as ‘society’ then they have no effect on anything but themselves and those unfortunate to feel their wrath.
Oh come on. You are tossing me a real clear politics article using the substandard definition of liberal as a 20th century definition. Like somehow what I am saying has anything to do with the DNC.
Actually they are quite xenophobic. One of the reasons I didn’t want to persue Asian Studies as a graduate program. There is a long history of anti-foreignism in Japan dating all the way back to the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate. I feel some pity for them though because it was the western governments that bastardized their nations through the unequal treaties.
The example wasn’t necessarily good, I admit, but it was an example of even state-society admitting there is a racism problem with enough of the individuals that comprise it, whether they are conservative (which is the usual scapegoat for racism) or liberal (which typically isn’t viewed as racist, but there is plenty of racist liberals out there). I think largely there is a general sort of cognitive dissonance concerning racism in America, imo.
As for xenophobia, I wouldn’t call that the same as racism (i.e. Is it racist for human beings to be xenophoic of actual alien civilizations possibly coming into contact with us? It might be irrational or rational to a certain degree, but being afraid of the unknown does not automatically make one a racist, here defined as: one who holds that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities).
As for them being anti-foreign, I am indifferent to it, honestly (I would negatively react, however, if I were to go there, obviously, but I would not hold any grudges either). It would be better for me to make a judgement on Japan if it were a stateless society, because the government and society do not act in sync with on another all the time.
If the Japanese people voluntarily wanted no foregniers in their country, what is wrong with that? Perhaps they want to preserve their own culture? There is something wrong if they leverage coercion in order to keep foreigners out, but non-coercive ways such as social shunning, not doing commerce, etc. are not wrong, imo. To me, it would be just as wrong for the state in Japan to intervene in keeping foreigners out as much as keeping them in, as well.
I make no illusions that everyone would be as tolerant as the next libertarian about immigration, in a stateless society and/or world, though. Some may want to withdraw to themselves, preserve their culture, & voluntarily &non-coercivley utilize selective breeding with their own race to do so. Others, like me, could care less what others do as long as it isn’t coercive & involuntary. Others still might fall somewhere in-between to remain flexible, etc.
The treaties, I agree, were horrid. The US’ treatment of Japan has been abhorrent, & I wouldn’t blame them for a second for not wanting me or other foreigners into their country. I wouldn’t agree necessarily, but I’d understand, at least.
Ok, but the US government /= American society. Remember, society isn’t an entity capable of reasoning or acting. So to say that “American society” is racist is to say that it is an entity capable of acting in a racist manner, whereas it is really a group of individuals with power perpetrating these things.
Anyway, I’m done.
Well conservatism is the old right regime which embraces reactionary ideals and caste agendas.
I will concede that xenophobia is different from racism but the two often go hand in hand.
Fair enough. Japan was once my subject of study and is not any longer so I wouldn’t say I’m rigerous in my denouncing their xenophobia but if presented with the argument that of course I will let my views be known.
There are those [ the youth especially ] who are more international and they have just as much say who can come onto their property as a old traditionalist.
The depth of my argument would only be to persuade them to accept individuals who have not harmed them simply because of what they are. If they are aggressive criminals then I will surely concede they have an interest in protecting themselves. However, to treat office ladies like human pin cushions who are only around for sexual learing is something I most certainly like to argumentatively combat. That and to show the liberalize nature of humanity that many Japanese youths cannot achieve due to conservative social norms. We are free to be that which we wish as long as we do not transgress the natural law of the world. That is what I wish to preach.
@ LS
I think that what he is trying to argue is that racism and sexism are “catalysts” (to borrow an analogy from chemistry) for aggression. They are neither necessary nor sufficient for aggression to occur, but they tend to increase the frequency or intensity of aggressive acts.
Dude, I’m sorry, but this is rife with errors.
The NAP is an interpersonal ethic. It denotes specific legal norms. It applies to conduct between individuals generally. In addition, it is not conditional. It does not “apply in some cases under condition X but not in others under condition Y.” Hence, it is universal. Whether or not some individuals hold it to be true is another matter entirely (and obviously it is not held to be true universally).
That’s a double edged sword.
After all, you are claiming, implicitly, that everyone (universally) ought not to educate others on how to live their lives.
“Big stones” yourself.
Except for Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella, their critics notwithstanding.
“Market outcomes” is not a singular determinant. It’s a range of possiblities. It doesn’t follow from fact that he prefers of some of these possibilities to others, that he doesn’t prefer market outcomes.
exactly…
“thick, thin, right, left…” same old divide and conquer tactics…
The mirky waters of “Aristotle… applying”… he allowed the applying of slavery and Alexander the Great due to Aristotle’s advocation of State power. So that would need clarified if you are going to have “Aristotle” and “apply” in the same breath.
I’m all about Aristotle and pursuit of happiness, but I know how to weed in the intellectual garden too.
Edit: Which I see later on in the thread you, Anarchist Cain, also have weeded through Aristotle too.
What I see happening a lot, maybe, is this: Is the pursuit of happiness that wombatron is advocating a question of law or preference?
That seems to be the question people are asking. maybe, maybe not…
Everyone prefers to have as large an income as possible and to avoid the disutility of labour. Flourishing for one person, can come at the expense of another’s flourishing. Personally, I find Mises’ Rightly Understood Interests argument far more convincing.
It seems that you are equivocating between ‘potential’ and ‘flourishing.’ Human beings also have the potential to commit suicide, but you wouldn’t consider that to be flourishing.
Now, I will admit that there is something to natural end ethics. I haven’t read enough to be knowledgeable about it. But, some of the authors seem to jump to hasty conclusions, and I wonder if they are completely wrong about what it means to flourish.
I’m a big fan of patriarchy. Families are more harmonious imo when the husband is a little older than the wife, somewhat wiser, and has accumulated wealth before marrying. I also think that each has their own role to play in marriage, and one of the husband’s roles is ultimate decision making for the household. I think it is natural-end enhancing. Care to explain how it isn’t? (We might just have different ideas of what patriarchy is.)
That is a rather ambiguous statement. Hypothetically if A and B are at the same auction and both want a snow cone maker so badly that they are willing to give all their income to have it. One must win would they not? Therefore if A wins then B obviously loses. However is A wrong in his attempt to fulfill his goal?
Why must the husband be older, smarter and wealthier then the wife? I think you cling to outdated dogma to maintain a feeling of control.
Care to explain why it should be that way? There is absolutely no reason as to why the man should be the ultimate decision maker other then appeal to traditionalist sexist views. Are you perhaps trying to assert that men are smarter then women?
I was thinking more along criminal lines but your argument works too. If flourishing for A directly conflicts with flourishing for B than it can’t be the basis of an objective interpersonal ethic because it would lead to conflict and the ethic would be self-contradictory.
I don’t know where you got that from but…
What are you? A shrink? Give me a break.
The family is a division of labour. If everyone in the family were equal in terms of what they’re bringing to the table, there would be no point to it. I just think that man and women are different and should specialize. This leads to a happier and healthier family.
If both the man and wife have equal authority, they will fight each other. This should be avoided. I think it is better if the wife dominate the husband than if there is equal authority.
Age tends to decrease the quality of the human reproductive system. This effect tends to be more pronouced for women than for men. So if one is older than the other, it should be the man. One should be older than the other becaue this allows for some time to accumulate wealth. Childrearing is expensive. Also, if one is older than the other, this allows the older one to learn more about the world and become wiser, mature, and humble.
So, I guess, I just think that it’s preferable for one to dominate the other and that it is preferable for the man to dominate the women for mostly biological reasons.
Now, what’s wrong with ‘celebrating diversity’? And why are you being so ‘intolerant’? I’m just ‘expressing myself’ after all.
I’m not sure where I stand on natural law. I do feel that natural law requires a “belief” and I don’t like committing to beliefs unless I understand them.
This, as we discuss it here, is not about individualism. It is entirely about collectivism. A universal set of VALUES. Not personal values. Not variety in values. A universal ethic about women, about race, about workplace interaction, about relationships. Where it comes into conflict with them, it does not recognize property lines, it does not recognize voluntary relationships.
I’ve been going back and forth with these folks for a good year, and yesterday/today, the pieces all fell into place.
One piece still doesn’t fit well with me, though. What becomes of the LL talk of pluralism? Wouldn’t a universal set of values sort of contradict it?
I know exactly what he is arguing. I’ve been arguing this with them for a year.
I would say it is superior not because of its uniqueness per se, but because of it allows humans to reach astounding heights (figuratively speaking), compared to other animals.
Only because you jump into the discussion here, when Wombatron and I have been discussing these topics on multiple platforms for some time. You’re assuming the context is exclusive to this thread.
I will explain explicitly, that I am not. Again, you’re lacking context on a discussion that has been ongoing for weeks if not months.
Offtopic. I have limited time for this discussion. You should start a new thread.
sigh, context again.
Leftists (not you Cain, in general) don’t appreciate social biology. They appreciate historical materialism. Someone like Walter Block brings up the distribution of male and female IQ on the bell curve, and they literally tear their seats apart and hurl cushions at him. Or if he mentions that women only earn less due to engaging in reproduction and child-rearing, they again flip out, because this undermines the premise that men dominate and treat women unfairly in the marketplace.
Facts are completely irrelevant when you can talk about lynchings and patriarchal rape something which for the most part, haven’t been seen in modern society for nearly 100 years and in nearly all cases, can be tracked back to a lack of property rights justice, not an innate savagery in man.