Are we getting a view of your current breakfast table? I think your love of toast is irrational. I prefer blueberry muffins.
Yes, they choose to surrender their decision making process to their leader. And yes, they are able to make that decision. What part confuses you?
Perhaps this whole storm in a teacup boils down to what notion of condemn we are playing with. if it is the uttering of displeasure, then condemn as you please. is it something else?
do they do that once and forever, or do they do it constantly, their mind always coming back to the question of whether to keep going along or to depart?
No, the question is whether they should commit to eating whatever Jim tells them to eat, or whether they should use their critical thinking skills to arrive at their own decisions.
I am having pancakes with blackberry sauce for breakfast. Is it okay?
There are no shoulds about it.
Did you decide on that plate yourself or did someone decide on it for you? enquiring minds need to know!
Well thank god I’m not guilty of committing a false dichotomy over that.
If its voluntary then what others prefer compared to what I prefer is largely irrelevant. It is not as if my preferences are somehow objectively better then someone else’s preferences.
Really? So, if 99% of the people prefer to teach others that, oh, I don’t know, that liberal socialism is the holy grail and the road to universal happiness, that doesn’t affect you huh? And the belief that democracy is A-okay, that doesn’t affect you, huh?
How do we get where we are? We are here due to an absence of critical thinking. So, yes, you ought to condemn the failure of others - and yourself - to think critically.
Of course there are should’s. People who want to avoid dying of thirst should drink something.
of course, in order to not displease me, people should not do those things that affect and would displease me.
are we done yet?
not relevant to what i wrote.
you forgot to write ‘given that…’ and therefore building the hypothetical imperative which you now mention.
note: i did not deny shoulds ‘in general’ and ‘always’. merely under your example. please turn up your radio.
Thank you. Almost done. Does uncritical thinking please you, or is it responsible for displeasure which affects you?
What affects me is what I prefer to a large degree. If I wish to combat the idea of socialism then I shall do so. Now if someone runs a red light while I’m crossing the street, sure it affects me, I don’t live in a vacuum nor have I claimed such. However, ultimate decision making is always retained by me.
Such is your personal preference and Nir is right. This has devolved into a mere question of aesthetic pleasantness concerning lifestyle choices.It is like yelling at people for choosing Target rather then Wal-mart.
John might be right. I don’t think anybody is denying that John is mentoring whomever may come along and read this thread.
in the most general case, it does not displease me, it may even amuse me. people say the silliest things!
By the way Stefan,
‘Writing articles inMises.org–fun, interesting, stimulating. Won’t do a damn thing and hasn’t done a damn thing for the past 80 years since Mises first wrote.’
Did you really say that? For shame! [:(]
If dissemination of liberty-minded ideas and theories doesn’t do a damn thing then why have the free domain radio?
Curious here. You reject morality as basis of legislation? Or do you posit voluntarist morality as a basis of legislation? And if you do so, do you also posit it as an encompassing moral theory?
Aesthetic lifestyle choices isn’t morality. Aesthetics and morality are two different subdivisions of philosophy and therefore we can speak of aesthetics and morality in different terms. If you wish to speak of morality then fine but realize that you are now changing the subject of the topic.