Agreed, but couldn’t this be in their self-interest?
So if you have some sort of philosophical fumbling that lies behind it, right is armed forces?
How much effort and action should be put into something before he can call it his?
I don’t, and this is actually my point. I don’t expect other to help me to survive or respect certain ideas that will enable me to do so. I don’t see why I should be able to claim ‘resources to survive’. Nature and thereby human life is a free market.
Seems we agree more, than I thought - and btw thanks for a very reasoned contribution. I haven’t read Hoppe, so I can’t say how the IC is defined, but I use something similarly. Feel free to elaborate, comment or correct.
Exactly! My ‘search’ is to figure, if people don’t do as they ought to - and we might not always expect them to - what then? My claim is, that the way out is to say, that if properrty rights are violated then it will end up hurting both the violated and then violater.
First of all, every incentive to innovate and for that matter produce in general is eradicated if it’s up for graps.
But second, and to me most importantly, there’s always a bigger fist, and this creates a consensus of respect for rights as a good thing. As a consensus the gruop/society/family will back it up like a musketeer pledge, because what could happen to one could happen to all. So from my point of view property rights is merely a practical matter.
And btw, 1918, 1921 and 1933 are historic landmarks that back my claim.
/ Jacob - who was hoping for a more sober debate here on Mises.org
From everything you’ve explained and what Sphairon has mentioned (and you are agreeing with Sphairon it seems), then “merely” downplays the importance of “a practical matter”. For as you stated “…this creates a consensus of respect for rights as a good thing.” Meaning: It is a moral argument. This plays right into what Juan said earlier, which I thought was fantastic: “Saying that A can force B to do what A wishes is not a moral argument, at best you’re stating a fact.”
We most certainly agree, one cannot reasonably argue against the fact that the strong can in fact oppress the weak if they wish to do so. I don’t know why there is that much resistance to this simple insight. You didn’t even make a “might makes right” claim, you just stated a fact.
Do I emit the Hoppean vibe? Haha. I don’t know what Hoppe thinks of the intersubjective consensus. If you want more of this style of thought, check out confederalsocialist on YouTube. Personally, I think the intersubjective consensus is a set of values that a critical mass of people agree upon in a given area, thus stabilizing relations and providing certainty of the law. Definitions may vary, though.
First of all, every incentive to innovate and for that matter produce in general is eradicated if it’s up for graps.
That’s a very good economic argument for private property that, I think, is quite striking and intuitive.
As a consensus the gruop/society/family will back it up like a musketeer pledge, because what could happen to one could happen to all.
Another fine practical point.
No, you were banned for a day for refusing to back your claim. You feel that repeating your stance is enough; it’s not. You got a little nudge in the direction of hopefully letting you know that such behavior is not tolerated here.
That, on the other hand, was quite poor.
Indeed, but it isn’t my words 
I can imagine whose words those were. [:P]
But I better stop before I go to Ban Town myself.
All action is self-interested in a very loose sense - but what of it?
Um, having reasons is not philosophical fumbling. And yeah, if an advocate of force wants to say their position is correct, they’d best have actual reasons for it.
Depends on what is being transformed. Rothbard suggested the relevant technological unit as an appopriate measurement, and Hoppe for local standards as recognised by courts. The point is there must be some connection between the owner and the resource, as opposed to, none.
Yes, you do. If you don’t, may I just come and take your computer or do what I will with your body? You will resist, or…? If everyone is out to kill you and doesn’t “respect certain ideas” how do you plan on surviving? The ideas matter significantly. And as to why you should be able to claim resources to survive, it’s pretty much because they’re necessary for it. Either way, someone will always claim them, and if the so-called strong wish to usurp the resources of others they will have to anyway (even with the chimera of so-called “usage rights”)… so it makes their claim all the more hypocritical and they must provide a reason for why it’s OK for them but not anyone else, You’re saying nature is a free-for-all, not a free market, the latter of which depends on well-defined boundaries of ownership.
And the reasons for those being such are…?
If you’re hoping for a more sober debate, perhaps you should begin by checking your ideas and realizing that just because something is happening now doesn’t mean that it’s actually a function of the discussion. Further, you are the one who has to back your claim. You are claiming it is relevant–so show it. Don’t whine because I’m pointing out your failure to show cause. Not. My. Problem.
We all know that. What, exactly, is the point of stating the obvious ?
Now, if the ‘strong’ can oppress the ‘weak’ and they feel like it they will oppress them. Utilitarian arguments of the type : the strong would be better off if they gave their slaves some freedom are nonsense from the point of view of the ‘strong’.
Nothing. Thieves and murderers rule you and you can drink, think or do what your masters allow you to do. That’s…a fact.
But that’s not true.
So what. The people who make up the gov’t want power, not riches.
What ? The thing is, the people who are strong will ‘freely’ associate in order to oppress the weak - that association is called government.
What ?
What I’m finding interesting is an application of an analogy devised by Pirsig in his metaphysics of quality that mirrors what you’re saying. Jacob is discussing “force” in a brutish way to help him arrive to his conclusions (Jacob not being “brutish”, don’t misunderstand me, I mean the kind of force he is discussing). I’m not focused on his strategy, but how this discussion is emerging to what I find interesting. Force is a biological notion. The “muscle” as Jacob mentioned. In Pirsig’s analogy there are these levels of value patterns. Biological being a level and thus the force Jacob is mentioning. And now you, Sphairon, bring up “intersubjective consensus” which is the next level called social. These levels being value patterns thereby what your discussing Sphairon can also be called social value patterns or social values. The intersubjective consensus is a social value or social pattern (labeled either way). Now the next level is called intellectual values or intellectual patterns (of value). And so what we have going on is this. Jacob’s force is biological (muscle). Sphairon you mention that if a society is going to come to a consensus, the consensus is a “set of values… agree(d) upon…”. The society could agree upon force or the society could agree about intellectual values. For an intersubjective consensus to agree upon biological values in their actions without consideration of intellectual values, then the social values are not recognizing these intellectual values (they are present just not being used/recognized for people are reasoning creatures). These levels are morally hierarchical, but at the same time each preceding level is a foundation for the next emerging “higher” level. Higher as in more moral. Thus the foundation levels must be present for the more moral levels to emerge. What this means in this context is with intersubjective consensus intellectual patterns will emerge. Now what those intellectual patterns will be is another question. But as intellectual patterns are considered in the consensus more and more and not a variation that uses intellectual values to support biological virtues of force (muscle), then the discusses and values in the society become more about the intellectual values and less about biological values. The biological values will not disappear for the “police” or some kind of protectorate will always need to be present to counter criminal biological values of coercive violations. So the police using biological tactics of force to counter the criminals biological values of force is a prevention of the lower level corrupting the higher levels. It is a matter of direction. Criminals rising up (so to speak) the levels emerging from lower morality whereas the police are emergences of the higher level to prevent the criminal aspects of biological forces from toppling more moral values such as society and intellect. Of course the police could be corrupted and considered criminals and it is the intersubjective consensus that would determine if such acts have happened. And where is the intersubjective consensus or social patterns getting such insights on events? The intellect. And the more the intellectual patterns are exercised and brought to consensus, then this is the same as saying the more the higher moral standards of intellectual patterns are introduced into the social consensus. And property rights are an intellectual pattern that is fruitful indeed and the intersubjective consensus (social patterns of value) taking heed of such an intellectual pattern results in moral arguments that are better than arguments based on a lower biological pattern such as “force/muscle”.
this strikes me as nonsense.
and again a confusion between ‘norms’ and ‘morals’
Dear God…
So property rights don’t involve morals? interesting thought of yours, but I don’t agree.
nibbler491,
lol it was long indeed, but now I can refer you somewhere…
perhaps you will admit to having strawmanned me. check my sig.
Well, you said what I wrote was nonsense, so, maybe you ought to remind yourself of your sig? Unless your able to provide intellectual discourse, then how am I to know what your talking about? Specifics are encouraged. For in this forum it is the clarity of ideas that come across in a perceivable manner. Unless of course you want to talk about your social life here, that’s possible in the lay out of forum. For anybody can read what you type about your social life, but I doubt many of us are here to track another’s social life. Yet to actually use force in this type of forum is not possible, unless you count ones fingers hitting the keyboard, but I can’t see you do that. I assume you do, but can’t see it. And that type of brute force really doesn’t infringe on my property. So it’s all good aka moral.
i dont see the value in bandying around odd terminology like ‘levels’, etc. but i wont do a full critique of your ‘analogy’
lets look at your final sentances.
surely its not that one class of arguments are better moral arguments than another. (as you seem to have stated it)
but that one class of arguments are moral arguments and others are not moral arguments.
I felt compelled to do so because every time somebody brings up the issue of enforceability, there is this panicking denial of “no, he can’t since we all own ourselves”.
the strong would be better off if they gave their slaves some freedom are nonsense from the point of view of the ‘strong’.
Yes. Fortunately, that was not my point.
I claimed that blackballing and the probability of tolerated retaliation by victims is what will keep “the strong” from oppressing “the weak”. That’s the utilitarian side of my argument. The reason why blackballing and tolerated retaliation are possible is a favorable intersubjective consensus. This consensus involves not necessarily utilitarian criteria. Maybe it will resemble an Aristotelian model. Or a Kantian one.
That’s actually quite a fair analogy. Not just that, but your whole post. However, it’s not an attempt to justify a given set of values (as some seem to be interpreting it), but an explanation as to how a given set of values may emerge, isn’t it? As such, I find it very enlightening and have to agree.
The thing is, libertarian philosophy draws heavily from intellectual considerations. That was a problem I had with natural rights a few months ago; I asked myself, if my “natural rights” are not enforceable, then of what use are they? Well, they are useful as a concept. They describe a way how to properly handle human interaction and give plausible explanations derived from plausible axioms as to why it should be exactly that way. This may be ignored from a biological perspective, but force (a “biological argument”, if you will) doesn’t invalidate the integrity of an intellectual claim. Physical reality (biology) may not match my claim, but I’m still entitled to it. How fast and to what extent it will be enforced depends, again, on the intersubjective consensus.
Yes, some moral arguments are better than others, but it is does involve context. Indeed one can argue that another argument is immoral whereas one’s own argument is the moral argument. There’s nothing wrong with such an analogy. But I can see how the use of force is moral. I brought up a protectorate of property rights against criminals. The criminals are coming into somebody’s house to kill the inhabitant. The inhabitant defends his or her self and kills by force the criminal intruder. The inhabitant had a moral justification to defend him or her self. This is in light of intellectual values of property rights. Yet, what about the State invading another country, such as Iraq, on a false premise. By force the justification was based on a preemptive strike to kill them before they kill us in the U.S. Now this justification for war was not based on the intellectual values of property rights. Yet it has been justified over and over again not just by the Bush administration but also many in the public. The war was right they say. Yet what intellectual value are they basing this war on? None that I know about based on property rights. Was it more about social values stirred within a neocon community that based their efforts to go to war on biological drum beats such as stimulating the fear of the U.S.? sure was. Was this fear propaganda working in concert with social value Statism, which includes nationalistic tones called patriotism? sure was. They said you were a good American if you supported the war. Then they showed the bombs on TV and how many people tuned in maybe even socialized, had some primal biological testosterone stirrings flowing through their veins as they watched people die, and drank some beers as the “Shock and Awe” played over the TV waves? I never have been able to find a good intellectual argument for going to that war, but many still argue it was for the good of the country. I can say the act of war was immoral. But with this explanation I provided I showed with more explanatory power why it was immoral. Good intellectual arguments are better than social arguments of patriotism and even older arguments of “Let’s just kill the bastards”. I am drawing a moral distinction in these values. Some value the intellect. Other value the social. And lastly some just wanted to kill them cause they heard it was a good thing to do so. They got their adrenaline pumped and went to Iraq to kill them before they came back to the U.S. and killed us. People can be deceived. I’ve been deceived numerous times, but that’s why exercising the intellect may help change events for the better in time. Each of these are values. You mentioned “norms”, well, that’s what the intersubjective consensus advocates. Whatever the majority of the people involved in the consensus decide to apply is the norm of that societal consensus. Norms don’t always mean intellectual, but sometimes they might. Norms just show the median or average pattern being applied. Sometimes a good moral intellectual argument is definitely not the normative value. That intellectual argument is valued by somebody or a small group of people, but it doesn’t mean it’s the norm.