I’m sure I (and others) could speak of human welfare and then define said well-being in terms of something, like: poverty rate, literacy rate,…, access to clean drinking water, etc…
But its certainly subjective whether increases and decreases in said terms constitute “good” or “bad.”
Unless you have a wide influence, whatever you choose to advocate in political discourse on the internet will not likely materially effect your life one way or the other. Might as well give voice to whatever lies in your conscience and/or what makes sense to you.
Yeah, I think humans do naturally avoid conflict.
It satisfies human needs and wants of utility.
Destruction (qua destruction) obviously doesn’t lead to wealth and prosperity.
No they cannot, (but I don’t think they care)/
Perhaps for an individual, definitely not for society.
Me too. Kudos!
Yes of course. You can ‘define’ anything you want and create any positivistic and arbitrary metric you feel like creating. Again I hope you realize that’s just positivism.
Yes, according to your own ‘radical subjectivism’.
So you understand that Mises was an amoralist and you also understand, I hope, that his system is just self-refuting positivism ?
Wealth for society ? Can’t we have just a bit of consistency here and stick to so called ‘methodological individualism’ ?
Duh, All metrics are arbitrary.
Of course. Can you give me an objective, non-arbitrary metric?
He obviously wasn’t an amoralist: Tu ne cede malis and all, but his system of Utilitarianism was certainly rubbish, much like natural rights.
As in the total value of wealth held by individuals within a society. Read Smith for starters.
That’s just a family motto. I take it you concede all my points. Thanks.
Is there a system which is not rubbish ?
Actually he specifically chose the motto to be his guide in life. I take it you rescind all of your points. Thanks.
Let me rephrase, criminality for the sake of personal gain.
Society is just composed of individuals.
Again, more implications that Mises implied an ethical system beyond utilitarianism. For what is evil? Is it merely the minimalization of utility to the greatest amount of individuals? Is evil whatever the majority dictates it is?
FRB. [:P]
I’m trying to figure this out. You’re obviously not a natural rights theorist, you’re not a utilitarian, so I’m curious to know what your ethical system is?
No. He was an amoralist. The concepts of right and wrong are meaningless for amoralists. On the other hand Mises did more than one evil thing in his life. Not that it really matters though.
To sum up, Mises vociferously denied morality and tried to replace it with a half-baked positivistic system partly founded on the meaningless concept of ‘social utility’ - I thought you understood that some posts ago, but it seems you really didn’t ? Not that it matters either…
Same answer. For an individual sure, wealth cannot be created by criminality though.
So am I. I think Angurse just likes to fancy that he can ‘refute’ everything ?
Why not? If I stole your house, your car and your savings would I not become wealthy [ postulate that you have a good deal of money in these things if necessary ]
That’s oh so incorrect. You see, if people prefer crime then the more crime there is the wealthier they are. The problem is that you seem to be trying to equate wealth with material stuff, which is a pretty big blunder for a ‘radical subjectivist’ like you.