Well just because there is debate doesn’t mean it is subjective. I mean Keynesians debate Austrians on the business cycle, that doesn’t mean economic laws are subjective.
lol. The label didn’t stick out.
“I think what I’ve done over the years is different from other people running for office, because most of the time people run for only one reason, which is to win a political office. They go out and they take polls and figure out what they need to say because the goal of winning comes before anything else. In my case, winning is important, but I need to win on principles that are important to me. If I win on other peoples’ principles, I lose.” - Ron Paul
Why does it matter what the “get out the vote organizers” believe? What does it matter what your donors believe? That’s their problem. Remember the media fiasco around the white supremacist donating to Ron Paul, and he wouldn’t give the money back. Well why the hell should he?
“fraud is [the] failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft.”
Where is the voluntary transfer of property title?
They are called donations for a reason.
Take it to conversation? Although I believe others, and myself would benefit from the exchange.
I realize that, but the main point was that despite all the assertions of an objective morality, it hasn’t yet to be proven or agreed upon fully on what constitutes an objective morality, which is why I can admire the efforts of those trying to do so, while at the same time valuing the skepticism surrounding it from both mere logical disagreements (not pro subjective morality), & those whom are pro-subjective morality.
I’m far more interested in reading & understanding something that makes sense, than getting social points for proclaiming to be an ultimate altruist, born of a New Libertarianism Version 2.0, tailored to my own solipsistic thinking :\
Fair enough. Like I said before, we seem to keep on running into these debates concerning ethics. It’s been discussed to a staggering degree.
I don’t think it is an “ad hoc” definition and - it is both a definition and an ‘insult’. Buy why would you feel insulted by my stating the fact that you don’t have any moral position ?
Of course. You can also enlighten me as to why 2+2=5 (in your own little deranged world).
Collectivistic paranoia ? I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about…
Sorry, I have trouble understanding what you say. I think it’s because you are way confused. Are you saying I ‘censor’ people ? Do I maybe have the ‘power’ to censor/ban people ? Or rather have I been banned three times when the ‘mods’ feel like banning me ?
Nope. I don’t see any contradiction. Do you think you can show this contradiction to me, clearly and in a couple of lines ? Please don’t resort to pseudo scientific trash like calling me ‘paranoid’.
Hey nitroadict, are you calling me an idiot ? I think you are way more of an idiot than I am
I know you were not tossing insults at Mises because then you would lose your forum account forever.
I already told you before, I don’t find any of your comments insulting. I think you are a funny man. When you curse and swear at me, I just laugh. Juan, internet serioso.
See, this stuff is great humour.
Yep. You are no better than a thug no ?
He wouldn’t say that he would say something like “I’m a utilitarian…but therefore I see the value of property, prosperity, and life’ especially when since the basis of utilitarianism is whatever maximizes the social welfare of the greatest amount of people.”
A Benthamite utilitarian wouldn’t object to such a situation, I don’t think its so safe to assume Mises would object either, given the fact that he made it clear he was a utilitarian and supported some taxation and conscription (the latter is disputed though).
Not at all. Mises vociferously supported military slavery.
Why not?
Agreed, its a shame, but its true.
Well… there are those that dispute that (Tucker, Hoppe), but whatever, you’re making my point so thanks.
I am not making your point but stating a fact.
My point is supported by the facts you are stating. Thanks.
Because there’s no such thing as ‘general’ human welfare, only individual preferences and those individual preferences can be anything from liking vanilla iced-cream to liking mass murder.
You’re welcome.
Well firstly, you can’t even measure the utility to be gained by property, prosperity and life so how you can say it is the greatest amount of utility is rather odd. Which brings me to my second point which is that you can only establish that these institutions are positive due to the fact that a large majority of the human populace lives by them which then leaves me to question..why do they follow these codes? I recall LS saying something several days ago something similar to how robbery is far easier to achieve our desires then non-coercive interaction [ which I agree with ] and yet why aren’t we constantly robbing people? Is it just simply a coincidence that such a large group of individuals actually live by such guidelines and look onto those that don’t as outcast, rogues and bandits? If you say they live by them because they bring about positive consequences then you are just going to go in circles because then you postulate they are positive because a large amount of people follow them.
And some may think I am doing Mises a disservice by questioning his ethical relativism. Are you really prepared to say that Mises would accept a world in which a minority does the forced labor of the majority in order for the maximization of social utility? It seems rather despotic for a man who no doubt championed individual secession and freedom.
Tell it to the utilitarians.
Ask the utilitarians.
Then I won’t use that reason. It could be that LS is wrong, it could be religious reasons, it could be that people generally want to avoid conflict, it could be…
He championed them because he knew they were necessary for wealth. “The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity.” We have nothing else to go by but the mans writings.
Here’s another gem
If I’m not mistaken that was written during WWII when the anglo-americans firebombed german cities daily and burned people alive (civilians of course) in the tens of thousands.
I think it all leads back to human nature, religious or secular.
But what is so great about wealth? And if it is all relative then what about people who simply want destruction? Why not follow them? I would also argue that utilitarians combat government that isn’t efficient in meeting the needs of the greatest amount. They cannot properly say they oppose government on ethical grounds other then through the principle of maximization of social utility. And again, why does freedom lead to wealth? It would certainly be easier to completely disrespect your rights to property and freedom and take what I want in order to become wealthy rather then respect them and engage in voluntary trade.