I think Rothbard in a sense is like many on these forums. They talk of objectivism but really underneath they assume something like conscience-based libertarianism. They regard initiating violence as wrong which is more in tune with the human conscience. I sometimes get the feeling that the only thing stopping them from becoming natural rights skeptics themselves is a hesitation to be called such.
On a more serious note, this is largely semantics. To a large extent we’re playing tug-of-war over how best to define words like “ethics”, “right”, “wrong”, and “ought”. For example, when I say “wrong”, I mean “counter to conscience.” When you say “wrong”, you seem to mean “counter to man’s nature”. Now, I don’t know what other term I could use for what I’m talking about; and I suspect, you don’t disbelieve in the phenomenon of conscience, so I suspect you wouldn’t think the concept I’m talking about doesn’t deserve its own word. But, you could just as easily say, “unnatural” for what you’re talking about, and it would be a lot less confusing to other people.
“So you are postulating that wealth must be created in order for it to count?”
No. Wealth must be created for society to become wealthier. As a fixed amount can only be transferred. Remember this is the problem with welfare, which is really just theft.
I don’t like appeals to authority. I don’t really care what Paul said, I watched what he did. I’m not condemning him for it, but if you claim it was all part of the Rothbardian strategy, then that is really disappointing to me. Ron Paul knew people weren’t sending money so he could ho-hum it out. He even admitted that he expected to be dropping out in December before the NH Primary IIRC. He never intended to run to win. And people sent him a record setting amount of money, because they wanted him to win.
Like Mrs. Paul had told him in the 70s about the occupational hazard of running for office. You just might win.
When Hess ran for Governor of WVA, he had no intention of winning and he made that clear up front. I think that is ethically correct.
Same thing I told Nir. If I collect money for cancer research, and have no intention of actually researching cancer, is that or is that not fraud?
And don’t tell me donations aren’t an exchange, with the same expectations of propriety as commercial exchange because they are. People don’t donate irrationally (without a rational end). There is an expectation of what the donation will be used for, otherwise people would arbitrarily donate to anyone, at anytime, in any amount.
No, I don’t have time to do private convos. When I post it, it will be at NoT. Folks can discuss it wherever they like, but I’d like it to reach a wider audience than just this forum community if I am going to get around to doing it right.
I don’t think so. You’re posting on someone else’s property. They’ve made the expectations for the posting standard clear. You have violated those standards in the past but with a new focus on growing the community, you’ll have to conform to those expectations if you want to continue to be active here. The choice is entirely yours.
First off, I was pandering to Jacob, so he would mark my post as the correct answer. I want to be clear about that. I would have told him Obama was Satan if I thought it would have got my post promoted. [;)]
People steal or rob because they are protected from recourse, or they see it as the best of short term options, not weighing out the long term consequences, and if we take AEthics and estoppel into account, the fact they are relinquishing their own right to property.
The problem for Jacob, and with all of these arguments, is that generally lay people don’t care what Rothbard said. I agree with Rothbard on many things, but for different reasons than he advanced. To make the case to Jacob, I had to try to inform him that his intuition about stealing was correct, but then also appeal to his emotion, to remind him why he is not a robber and a thief.
I agree with lilburne (hopefully stating this correctly) that I am informed by my intuition and emotion. Objective ethicism is some appeal to facts, which have weight, but if the facts contradict with my intuition and emotion, it is unlikely I will be able to overcome those psychological factors to act against what I feel is instinctively my best interest. I also don’t like appeals to the nature of man, the nature of nature. I think it is a lot of bunk. I think it is really backwards thinking (no offense to any theists in the crowd) that relies on a superstitious approach to the unknown. Instead of saying “I don’t know” we just make up or attribute a false authority to a notion.
I don’t think it is a disservice. As long as it is not ad hominem, there is no reason why certain ideas should be beyond reproach. That sort of thing would hurt AE (or any other school of thought) more than help it. A good example of that is how closed a system Objectivism is, because no one can contradict Rand, and her theories are held to be perfect and correct, so there is no room for growth or scholarship within that school of thought. It’s basically a bunch of people pretending that the other scholars in the tradition are her characters in the book, as though they were pseudo-real individuals, separate from Rand herself.
Do you really think politics is a game of moral and philosophical consistency?
I mean you say that by doing something to someone and using some argument to justify it, I subject myself to the possibility of them doing it to me and then justifying it on the same terms. Now, that may be true at a personal level. But is that really how politics works?
I mean I hear all sorts of silly rationalizations for policy choices, and I think that politicians play to an audience that often has a very limited memory and a very strong sense of ideology.
This applies to left or right. Both sides are steeped in ideological fervor and short memory. So yeah, do you really think that by using the state to achieve whatever desired ends I might have, that I open the door to another group doing the same to me or does it really come down to how hard I can sell the ideology and how fast I (or whatever party I choose) can make people forget about what we did to get what we got?
On another note, don’t you think the ideology and short memory becomes an even bigger smokescreen when the people benefiting from it are anonymous? (Take, for instance, the wall street bankers who got bailed out. They’re nameless, faceless suits.)
It’s not a problem for me. I’m just showing that you don’t even understand the ‘subjectivism’ that is the foundation of your own non-philosophy.
So, saying that economics deals with how much stuff is produced is really a joke. Or maybe you are soviet planner…
I see, you can’t refute a single line of what I said. As to reading more Mises… I prolly have read more Mises than you. I’ve read “Liberalism” “Omnipotent Government” “Theory and History” “Foundations of Economic Science” “Socialism” and “Human Action (though I skipped some chapters)”.
I don’t think I’m confused about Mises. The one’s who’s confused about basic stuff here is you. And Mises is hardly a consistent thinker so maybe he was confused about himself.
By the way LaughinMan and I asked what’s the name of your political system. Do you think you can answer that ? Or maybe you can’t because you don’t really know what you are talking about.
Do you understand that’s a non-answer ? Why are you being evasive ?
I knew you would parrot that like clockwork. Don’t kid yourself. This is a discussion forum. You don’t get to dictate what I discuss or how I discuss it. Besides amoralists like you or your ‘friends’ can’t ban me because what I say is ‘wrong’ since there’s no right and wrong. Of course they have the ‘power’ to act like cyber thugs, but they are not justified, go figure.
It clearly is a problem, you cannot quite grasp ethical subjectivism is. (Which was pretty obvious from the start actually)
Its a joke because you have a different sense of humour, or using well-known definitions instead of lesser-known, or unkonw definitions is a joke? I’m still wondering how you objectivists get around the fact that all metrics are arbitrary, do tell.
Um?
WRONG
WRONG (IGNORES THE FACT)
I can’t refute? Honestly now. Complete disregard of facts, doesn’t count as a refutation my friend.
Political system - Voluntaryism.
No, its ethical subjectivism. If that doesn’t count as a system, then I simply don’t adhere to any.
No, I think politics is a zero sum game race to the bottom. I reject politics. I embrace markets.
As an argument, as a justification, yes. If you read De La Boetie and I hope you do, political power is based on consent. That consent must be justified from time to time. Some people lie. If you can expose their lie, they may lose consent. One cannot make a good and moral decision, if he chooses to willingly justify his actions with things he knows to be untrue.
To which one might ask, who cares if I am good? Well, generally, people seek the good and avoid the bad, and it is much easier to move through this world as a good man than as a bad one.
I think anyone who participates in elections and then complains about the results is sore loser. I think anyone who uses the political means, has no argument when someone uses the political means against them.
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t really care about politics so I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. I reject the political means. I reject zero sum games whenever I can. I look for market opportunities in discourse and in action that produce win-win outcomes which benefit both parties and increase net prosperity.
What I meant by the anonymity thing is simply that there’s no way to know which people, through government means, have taken your money. I mean I have no idea who they are, do you? I don’t even know where the money has gone. It’s a faceless game, for the most part. Sure, there are figureheads; presidents, congressmen, state reps, local reps, but they’re just figureheads, the real beneficiaries are the constituents. And they’re anonymous. Haven’t there been studies done that show that people are much more likely to be willing to harm someone they don’t know? Or to harm someone when they don’t actually get to see the person being harmed?
Societal pressures such as guilt and shame are useless in political games because there is no proximity between the victim and the victimizer.
Right, which is why I reject politics. If you really believe people should be accountable for their actions, then you might want to reject politics too.