Because just asserting that humans have rights is just an assertion, with no logical thought behind it. I could just as easily assert that all life has rights.
It is an assertion, nothing more. Assertions are meaningless.
Are you being deliberately snarky here? Do you think I was being snarky at first? Or what?
What I meant was this: I’ve never read that the ability to intellectually defend one’s property and/or understand the concept of property were necessary prerequisites for self-ownership. If you’ve read that somewhere, I’d greatly appreciate it if you would share the source with me.
Indeed you could. All logical thought requires one or more premises – assertions, as you put it. These premises/assertions cannot be proven or disproven, they can only be accepted or rejected.
Forgive me, but what do you mean by “meaningless” exactly? If you mean that assertions don’t reveal any higher or deeper meaning (i.e. they are analytic, not synthetic, statements), then I agree with you. But so what?
I’ve seen David Friedman give presentations. He’s not the biggest man. I cannot fathom how you manage to stand behind him so often.
You still have not cited one moral principle.
Yes, I do love logic and not promoting ideas which are contradictory. You should try it sometime.
My example was in response to this dross about the relationship of free markets with non-aggression
Which, in typical StrangeLoopian fashion, you have avoided addressing. But then, maybe you just haven’t been able to source a quote from someone to use as a proxy for your own understanding fo the topic, and as I am a gentleman it is with great pleasure that I afford you more time to do so.
I just want you to firmly realize that when you accuse me of not being an anarcho-capitalist, then the same implication must be applied to David Friedman. You’ve never seemed comfortable pushing the consequences that far, so I will continue to use that defense.
Did you simply fail to understand what moral nihilism was?
As I had said, free markets do employ non-aggression (at least as libertarians use the term; leftists would consider asymmetric bargaining power a form of aggression), but that does not mean I would always (under all circumstances) enforce market exchange or non-aggression (as I said, repeatedly, I would be willing to steal a gun in order to shoot down a madman).
Clearly, I’ve reiterated these same points:
- Free markets happen due to the benefits of exchange, not from personal commitments to morality (although, I would claim that social norms play a large factor in securing these processes).
- I do not hold a deontological morality.
- I do not believe non-aggression, the Rothbardian kind, can be applied consistently and in all circumstances.
In response, you’ve stated:
- I am avoiding your arguments.
- I hide behind David Friedman.
- A is A.
Ah. No, I have not read it anywhere. It seems self-evident to me.
“As I had said, free markets do employ non-aggression (at least as libertarians use the term; leftists would consider asymmetric bargaining power a form of aggression), but that does not mean I would always (under all circumstances) enforce market exchange or non-aggression (as I said, repeatedly, I would be willing to steal a gun in order to shoot down a madman).”
If you are a moral nihilist, then for what reason would you violate a principle that you generally hold as pragmatic in regards to its relation with a free market (the NAP, obviously)? Is it a pragmatic matter of self-interest? Mostly just looking to further clarify your position, here.
In that regard, at least, one of the beautiful things about a NAP-guided, government-free society is that should you violate the NAP against someone, the victim is not obligated in any way to seek compensation from you, nor does a self-interested third party (a government) have any power to force such upon you and/or the victim. It can be argued that there are reasonable violations of the NAP, but what is and isn’t a reasonable violation is entirely up to the victim. It is purely up to them whether they see fit to seek compensation or not. In the case of stealing a gun to defend yourself and/or others from a violent madman, many reasonable people would outright pardon your violation upon them and that would be the end of it. And if, for whatever reason, the victim did seek compensation, I cannot see how a NAP-abiding PDA could seek anything further than the cost of ammunition used and perhaps maintenance for the weapon (unless, of course, you busted locks and other such things to get at said weapon). Certainly you see your life as more valuable than these relatively minor fees?
I do not necessarily see strict adherence to the NAP as a necessity because at a certain point the NAP itself becomes subjective; the power lies in the hands of the victim. What is important is understanding the consequences of violating the NAP and that the power lies in the individual. In your case of defense, if I ‘steal’ a fellow’s gun, but then he says it wasn’t stealing because my actions were justified to him, then does any third party have any business telling either of us that I violated the NAP in stealing from him? If I wrestle my drunken friend into an automobile to prevent him from making an ass out of himself (because of normal social expectations between friends in this regard), and the day after, he says that he does not feel aggressed against and appreciated the act, have I violated the NAP? Again, only the potential victim can state as to whether they’ve been violated.
Going back to your defense scenario once again, if the owner of the weapon chooses to say that you have violated the NAP against him, then a reasonable PDA would look at the scenario and say that he is correct, as it does meet the criteria. However, no random user on a forum can say that you have violated the NAP against this fellow, only he can say so. In fact, you are incorrect in making the assumption that you are violating the NAP within your own example in this scenario. What is correct is to say is that you have met the conditions necessary to be held accountable for a violation of the NAP, but once more, only the potentially aggressed can say whether or not there was a violation. While this may seem like splitting hairs, in my own view of the NAP, this is an extremely important distinction to make.
Edit: And before I get called out on this, there are both pieces of literature and numerous discussions on this forum about how to handle potential violations that involve an incapacitated or dead individual (and, for that matter, what constitutes being incapacitated). In short, though, if you want to be clear if you are about to partake in an act that would render a consenting individual services that meet the criteria for a potential violation of the NAP (such as taking actions to render them unconscious or dead), then you had better to make certain to get a signed statement or something else equally verifiable before you do.
Anyhow, wandered a bit off the discussion between the two of you, but I thought your talking point made a good opportunity to assault the above instances of assumption.
I’m a moral nihilist on factual grounds; I simply believe that moral statements are not truth-evaluable. However, fortunately, I’m also a human and have moral sentiments, so I am naturally attracted to some conduct and opposed to others. To be clear, I believe we have a moral psyche due to evolutionary adaptation (but, following Hayek, I believe some of those sentiments are maladaptive for the “extended market”).
To more directly answer your question, it’s because that’s what I would want to do (this is a combination of social norms, self-interest, and psychic benefits). I could not rationally argue the case for it, but I might employ rhetoric.
If some people would claim that stealing the gun violates NAP, while others would disagree (like you do), then I am simply indifferent. Having principles lead to such radically different judgments only further proves, to me at least, how groundless these principles are. But, as I hinted at earlier, such principles can be rhetorically advantageous. To be more precise, I didn’t “assume” that stealing the gun violated NAP, others had claimed so (although, I would agree with them).
P.S. Welcome to the forum!
Note that I do not disagree that stealing the gun violates the NAP. I only say that it’s not my place to say whether the NAP was violated or not unless I’m the potential victim. What I would say is, that if you stole the gun, you have met the conditions for a violation of the NAP (but only the potential victim can attest to whether they were aggressed against or not).
Otherwise, thanks for your response to my question… and perhaps your answer to my question will provide LS with a statement he was looking for as well.
Then you are not an ancap. You are a moral nihilist.
I consider myself a Friedman ancap. He is not a moral nihilist. Using him as a meatshield is pointless given your values (or lack thereof).
Then you are not an ancap, you are a moral nihilist. You are also not a libertarian. You are a moral nihilist.
I don’t care if you are a moral nihilist (some people here use it as an epithet) but I do wish you would stop saying you are things which conflict with moral nihilism if that is your stance. Just be consistent, and then we don’t have to have these endless debates due to contradictory premises.
This is a joke, correct?
Define anarcho-capitalism in a way that excludes any moral nihilism.
Show me one instance where Friedman explicitly necessitates the use of the non-aggression principle.
[quote=“[David D. Friedman]
(http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-should-count-as-nutty.html#links)”] The first is that I don’t have any solid basis for my own moral beliefs, any way of proving to a reasonable and open minded skeptic that they are correct. . . . There is good reason to believe that we know more about science than people did in the past, but I have not yet seen any evidence that we know more about moral philosophy.
[/quote]
I fully agree with that. You most certainly do not.
P.S. I am not contending that Friedman is a moral nihilist.
Can you define ancap which excludes non-aggression?
I never claimed that. Go back and read up thread.
I fully agree with that. You most certainly do not.
[/quote]
We have already discussed that quote in another thread, and I told you I do agree with that. Completely. It what separates me from a Rothbardian.
However, you do not agree with him if you really are a moral nihilist. You don’t have any moral beliefs, because you don’t believe morality or immorality are meaningful concepts. Again, that is what moral nihilism is, and you claimed you are a moral nihilist.
He obviously isn’t and yet you still use him as a meatshield in argument regarding morals. That’s my objection to your constantly standing behind him, when he doesn’t represent the point of view you CLAIM to have.
Good.
No, I can’t. What was the fallacy?
No. I don’t believe so.
My opinion.
A society that functions along the lines of the NAP.
Is consistent with its stated purpose/structure.
I don’t think where you are coming from is relevant.
liberty student, please explain to me how you believe the morality of non-aggression is necessary for anarcho-capitalism, but you also agree with Friedman that “I don’t have any solid basis for my own moral beliefs, any way of proving to a reasonable and open minded skeptic that they are correct.”
Let’s be quite honest: you have tried, over and over again, to convince us that the moral principle of non-aggression is needed for anarcho-capitalism. If you cannot see this contradiction, then perhaps you should review your favorite line: A is A.
Furthermore, if Friedman advocates anarcho-capitalism but also confesses that he has no way of “proving to a reasonable and open mind skeptic” his own moral beliefs, then one must be led to a very obvious conclusion: he doesn’t advocate anarcho-capitalism via moral beliefs.
I believe I stated that non-aggression, not the morality of non-aggression was necessary. Twice I think. Do you need me to link you to the posts?
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Are you sure you are up to this task?
I don’t have to convince anyone. Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on non-aggression as a moral principle or otherwise, although without a moral principle, it is hard to see how such a condition could be maintained consistently enough to achieve an ancap system.
Again, the ideas are not mutually exclusive. If you are going to appeal to logic, make sure you’re not creating a fallacy.
You’re just repeating what you wrote before.
As usual, this comes down to definitions. You claim to be a moral nihilist, and you claim to be an ancap. I tell you the two are not compatible, because ancap needs non-aggression to be ancap, and you as a moral nihilist, reject any conception of morality and immorality. You also claim to be a pragmatist, which I read as you are for free markets, until you aren’t. Such a position is not consistent with ancap which is always for free markets, without exception.
You can solve this by defining both moral nihilism and ancap in a manner which is (1) consistent with the Rothbard or Friedman and (2) not in contradiction with one another.
Of course, we both know you won’t define anything. You never do. You will attack my definitions, which are simple and naked, but you will never define the very terms you use to define yourself, and which you argue vehemently to maintain. It really is quite silly, when someone insists he is a X, Y, Z and yet refuses to lay out what an X, Y, Z is. But such is where we are at.
Feel free to commence your next round of strawmen any time.
Thus, you believe that a “conception of morality and immorality” is needed, correct?
I wanted to address this specifically, and wrt to claims you have made earlier. You continue to use Friedman to prove there is no moral component to ancap, however I believe that entire line of argument is a strawman.
Ancap is voluntary exchange. Aggression is not compatible with voluntary exchange, therefor, aggression is not compatible with ancap.
If you disagree with that, then you had best explain why.
I’d like you to do it without abusing David Friedman for your own argument in this discussion. Surely David Friedman would not argue that stealing a gun to kill a madman is a component of ancap, and yet you use that very example, to prove that ancap is tolerant of aggression. Likewise, you use his moral skepticism, to validate your moral nihilism. Besides being an appeal to authority (not even the right one in this case), you’re once again abusing his position. He’s not able to objectively prove his morals as correct, or from an authoritative source, he’s not claiming (as you do) that morals are meaningless.
I really enjoy David Friedman. I have enjoyed his participation here over the last couple years. I’d like you to stop torturing his ideas to support your own position. Please.