Libertarianism without natural rights?

Economics Political Theory
61

That’s a really good point. Say these objective ethics exist. If so, so what? They are meaningless unless they are enforced by coercive means. Much like the laws the church or the state proposes. If there were no police, or no inquisitors, they wouldn’t mean a damn, because people would behave the way they want, “right” or “wrong”.

On the other hand, I can accept the laws* of physics as a limitation, because I can’t not abide by them. If I jump off of a skyscraper building naked, I will begin to accelerate towards the center of the Earth until I reach terminal velocity due to the friction of the air, and am stopped by the strength of the electromagnetic bonds of the concrete. I can’t just ignore them. The “laws” of morality (still haven’t seen em yet) can be ignored with absolutely no direct consequence, therefore, they aren’t “laws”.

*larger than Planck scale

62

One, you are assuming it is a great concern of mine what people’s position on this is.

Two, you are assuming I do not hold the NAP to be a part (the corner stone actually) of objectively true morality.

In fact so far you have done nothing but strawmaned me with your hysterical barrage of loaded questions built on faulty assumptions.

63

O.K., I’ll interact with no presuppositions. Your claim is that there is an objective morality that is universally true, and it can be deduced by reasoning. Convince me. I’ll consider any example. I’d especially like to hear what you deduce about the scenario I posted above.

64

:puffs on pipe & adjusts monocle, then sips brandy from his glass:

Indeed.

65

Nice to have you aboard as well. If you would like some links to some reading material, let me know I’ll PM them to you

66

Yeah definitely. I’ve only read what Stirner has to say, would like to get a hold of some Tucker.

67

I left a bunch of links on your “comments” section let me know if you recieved them

68

Sweet, thanks man.

OK, got them. Thanks again.

69

Ok, I’m sorry but I don’t want to look through an entire page of long and complicated posts. So I’d like to see if anyone could attempt to convince me of non theistic based ethics. I don’t even really understand exactly what morality is even supposed to mean anymore.

So my basic idea on morality: Man acts to alleviate his discomfort. As anyone who has ever heard of praxeology knows this is the only given. Where does this concept of “Ethics” or morality come into the realm of human existence? It is merely a throwback from a concept thousands of years old based upon religious sentiments, if one does not believe in a Deity or the divine then what can compel him to do anything? The answer is the same thing that makes you believe in objective ethics, their reason and their desires.

This, in my opinion, is where morality falls apart. Even if you can say that something is moral what necessitates that one should value morality? Value and worth are inherently and by their very nature subjective entities. So indeed one can prove the existence of self ownership, individuals own and have control over themselves, but so what? Why must one value this ownership in any but themselves? Rothbard began talking in absolute terms about how invalidating one invalidates all. But once more this is simply throwing in the absolute in order to ensure that the theory of natural rights is not overcome. As Mises sated (paraphrasing here from human action): A man does not choose over all of X over all of Y, only a specified amount of X over a specified amount of Y.

Man does not choose over invalidating (whatever that means) the right of self ownership for all, merely that for others, those against whom he would indeed choose to, say, steal from. So where does this leave us? In the dark pit of nihilism? No, because the nihilist misses the point entirely. We can go back to where objective morality was destroyed, to the realm of VALUE. What do we value and what are we willing to do to see it achieved? Do we value democracy? Do we value the king? Do we value universal property rights? It comes down to a single thing, the individual.

In a word, existentialism.

From there each individual should attempt to do his best to see his ethics realized. The most accepted way to do this is through logic, what is the most logical? From here we must employ intense reasoning and other studies, particularly economics, in order to understand the best ethics for X or Y.

I myself, understanding the above value a single thing in principal more than any other, consensual human action. I believe this is the most rational, and universally acceptable belief out there and the study of Austrian economics has lead me to believe that an anarchist society would be the best way to see this achieved.

Thoughts?

70

Seems well thought out, and as long as you aren’t trying to tell me how to live, more power to you!

I’ll throw in my two cents here. I think critical thinking about every fixed idea one holds leads to their eventual dissolution up to, and eventually (after some truly deep self-examination/meditation) including the ego itself, dissolving the illusory separation between subject and observer, i.e. the self and the universe, which in turn creates compassion for all, since the self and the rest are just facets of the same whole. I think the Buddhists call it Rigpa.

71

Inevitably all men, to some extent, tell other men how to live. If by your statement you mean am I trying to control large aspects of your life, then no, never. If you are saying that I will hapilly allow you to do that which you please, to indulge in involuntary behavior which is not provoked, then yes I am telling you how to live, just as if I were to come and steal from you and you stopped me, you would be telling me how to live.

72

Of course individuals impose their will upon some part of the world simply by acting at all, creating karmic waves, as the Hindus say. What bothers me is the pretension of righteousness in action, which is both irritating, and possibly dangerous if you disagree.

73

Indeed, “righteousness” is little more than a piece of propaganda trying to make you bow to some form of power while increasing the power of something else. But like a demon myth, it is only effective if you are foolish enough to “invite into your house”

74

Unfortunately, it’s also quite effective if the righteous has a gun, and you don’t. Hell, that’s why I pay tax!

75

No, that would be the gun that would be effective. The righteous attitude w/ a gun would be like getting shot by Fran Dreshir (sp?), it’s bad enough to get shot but do I have to hear that GD voice while it’s happening?

76

Morality could just be intuitive, lacking in some, warped in others, but commonly held overall.

77

Whoa, easy there Chairman Mao! Why don’t you go back to the collective farm, have a cup of “The Peoples Blend” fair trade Venezuelan coffee, and think about your next protest march.

Just kidding. On a more serious note, “common interest” does occur in a limited sense, but certainly can’t be considered as a basis for a universal moral code of conduct (which might be what you are alluding to at the beginning of that quote there). As shades of libertarians (I assume), we don’t approve of a mandate of the majority determining our economic position, why then would we allow “them” to determine the proper ethical position?

78

No where did I say (or even imply) such an idea, I just gave a possible source of morality other than compounded religious teachings. Perhaps, you’ve had a bit too much coffee and are over-energetically jumping-the-gun.

79

I’m sorry, I must’ve misunderstood. This sentence is then contradicting itself, or is repetitive and essentially superfluous.

I understood this fragment of the statement as a suggestion of subjective morality based on personal intuition. Seems reasonable enough, but then it gets a little confusing:

I believe that everyone has some sort of intuition, I think we agree on that. If this intuition is subjective to the individual, and not compared against some external measure, it cannot be considered warped, because that would imply some external standard morality, against which it is compared.

If we agree that everyone has a subjective intuition (we aren’t the Borg, after all), upon which they base their notion of ethics, then ethics are themselves subjective. So this part of the statement is really confusing. You are either repeating yourself and agreeing with The Late Andrew Ryan, or you are contradicting the beginning of your statement.

80

Actually no, “lacking in some” I don’t agree that all even have any moral intuitions. And it can be considered warp in comparison to that which is commonly held (i.e. standard). As we already know people share very similar intuitions. If you want to call that external fine by me. This is no different than saying you have a “warped sense of humour” for laughing when a bus full of puppies crashes. As generally people don’t find such an event to be funny at all.

TLAR asked about the source of morality, intuition is a source. But no, I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with him, just giving a possible source besides religious indoctrination.