They definitely need to add a “save draft” function.
If you were more concise, this wouldn’t be such a big issue. Not a totally uncreative way of bowing out though.
Okay, I think I’m done with this. Jack, I don’t agree with the position you offered. Send me an e-mail if you’d like to continue this conversation. The same goes for Thedesolateone, and I guess anyone else who really wants to. Jon, obviously you know how to get in touch if you want to talk more. I need to get back to real life.
His inability to be concise, I surmise in this instance though not all but with Danny yes, is due to his need to plug up the holes his theory has. So in order to not sink on each post he makes the post long trying to fill in the holes. Some of his posts are so long it’s a no wonder when the reading is done. Lots of holes, the post was sinking quickly, and fumble… liberty lost somewhere along the way. I imagine a little scratching of the head too on his part. But I digress this post was a post about posts, and a little touch of intellect on how he complicates the situation and loses liberty somewhere in the abyss of his theory. Unfortunate.
Or maybe it was a bow out as you point out here LS.
Though I’m intrigued by your potential answers, I’ll end it here. I think we’re coming from starting points that are too different if you think it’s not morally wrong to harm innocent bystanders, which really is what the whole cabin problem really boils down to.
Have a good one.
Only Danny really knows. I’m happy he has relented that he cannot defend Respectarianism.
Any theory which can’t be presented succinctly, within a logical progression that doesn’t rest on fallacies (non-sequitur) isn’t really a theory.
I gave up after I said my piece earlier. Respectarianism is collectivism (ethical nihilism) dressed up as feelings and compassion, as it always has been throughout history. The problem isn’t that it is irrational, but that it is not consistently irrational. It is literally a system of make it up as we go.
And as proof, this thread shows that very clearly, there is no principle or axiom underpining Respectarianism.
I agree Jack.
And Danny also is blind to what it took for Tom to acquire the cabin. Blood, sweat, and tears all quite possible. A life of suffering to build his dream cabin and Klemm comes along and homesteads it.
His theory opens the door for all kinds of whistle blowing activity, in other words, dangerous actions in what could have been a potentially good relationship between Tom and Klemm. But Danny negates the potential good relationship and replaces it with an active coercive relationship. Unfortunate. And to think, reasonably nobody’s liberty had to be lost. But Danny threw out reason and prized coercion. Again unfortunate.
Yeap. Danny’s position was the “make it up as (he) go(es)” position.
For example, he came up with the intellectual exercise that it was Tom’s cabin, thus a recognition of Tom’s property. Then oh maybe 10 pages into the thread he started saying well it depends on what is, is - depends on what Tom’s cabin means. He came up with the idea and then conceded the fact that he didn’t even understand his own intellectual exercise that he devised. He conceded that he didn’t understand what he meant by saying it was Tom’s cabin. Yet he never could answer the simple question:
Is it Tom’s cabin? yes or no
I mean even a “no” on his part would have cleared some of his mud up so he could intellectually relate his position better. Then he kept having to repeat it was Tom’s cabin, but then said it really wasn’t Tom’s cabin. He has no principle to sustain comprehension even to his own self as his words speak for him in this thread for all to see.
I asked Sage that question too, and he didn’t answer it either.
Edit: LS, by the way, that post you wrote that you are referring to was outstanding! [:D][Y]
LOL. I guess materialism and positivism are so self-evident…
I wouldn’t consider physiological monism or materialism to be related to positivism. And yes, I would say there is substantial evidence that points to that aspect of materialism.
Of course. It’s almost self-evident. And ‘scientific’.
Are you implying that induction is worthless in all fields of knowledge? I don’t think what I referred to is misapplying the scientific method.
I was going to let this slide, but I think I will reply to it now.
Danny may be more familiar with the relevant literature. We have an economics prof in another thread who is not only more familiar but certified very knowledgable about economics, and he can’t understand Say’s Law, even when it is explained to him in simple terms by unknown, unpublished laymen (Jonbostwick and nir). Steve Horowitz verified that FRB is ok because over dinner with some ecognorant coworkers and their spouses, they all told him if there was no FDIC they would not be scared and make a run on the bank. Steve Horowitz is a professional economist.
Just because someone is published doesn’t mean what they wrote is correct. Just because someone has a degree means they know anything worth knowing, and just because someone reads a lot doesn’t mean he actually understands what he has read.
I have read, and will continue to read Danny’s blog.
The problem with only reading is, you only get the seen of the opinion you are reading. In all circumstances. you have to create the act of analyzing the unseen (what was not covered in the book but is relevant). It is impossible to read a book that provides you with the seen and unseen, when the very premise of providing that perspective is seen, and thus has everything not in the book is unseen. What if the author has misreported? What if he has misinterpreted? What if his exposition wasn’t rigorous?
That’s Danny’s problem in this thread. He sees only Klemm and Klemm’s need. He has not even considered (though many of us tried like hell to get him to acknowledge) the unseen. What are the consequences to Tom? What are Tom’s rights? What is property? Why have rights? What do they mean? What is the reductio of acting out of need or emotion without regards to any other decisions but your own survival?
Those questions never got answered, and thus the seen was not advanced. I read on another forum, loosely quoting Tom Woods or maybe Jeff Tucker that the problem with economics being understood by the average bloke, is that it requires two knowledge steps, and most people only make one. That is to say, they only judge the seen.
Economy is booming, people are getting rich, speculate!
Bush says there are WMDs, blame Iraq, Attack.
That’s problem reaction solution. One knowledge step between problem and solution.
We (praxeologists, Austro-Libertarians) use two steps between problem and solution.
Problem. Reaction. Analyze Problem. Solution.
People need to be challenging the Austrians, the ancaps and the LLs. Not in the Ad Hom manner in this thread and so many other discussions. In deconstructing their arguments, and challenging their premises. That means Mutualists should be beating the tar out of Carson, and Hoppeans should be challenging DTGTF. Blind adoration and dogmatic repetition are poisonous to learning. Even if you agree with something, TEST IT. If you can’t explain and apply a position you read and claim adherence to, then you didn’t really understand it or worse, you will misapply it (see Hoppe, sexual preference as time preference, adoption, purchasing engineered children, kaput)
Hehe I guess this is the part where you all pat yourselves on the back and congratulate yourselves on a foe well vanquished. Good work, guys! Maybe I’ll have time in a week or so to take this back up, but I have to get ready to leave for North Carolina on Friday night, so I really can’t keep talking for the time being.
In any case, I’ll say this for the people who will inevitably be directed to this thread in the future as definitive proof that a) libertarianism the way that Liberty Student and Wilderness see it is objectively true, and b) I am an idiot:
My position is based on the view that in any plausible ethical theory, there will be a recognition that individuals uphold multiple, incommensurable, and ultimate values (or, if you want to talk in an Aristotelian language, eudaimonia is composed of multiple constituent values which can not easily be traded off against each other). This position is founded on the philosophy of Isaiah Berlin, and is reflected in the work of John Rawls and recently, Gerald Gaus and David Schmidtz.
As a humanist, I count among these values the inherent moral significance of certain of other individuals’ interests and projects (not all interests and projects; the murderer’s interest in killing doesn’t seem morally relevant). But I also count among these values those considerations which are self-directed – the furtherance of one’s own interests and projects and the preservation of one’s own life. To take proper account of others is to treat them with respect; to refrain from subverting some of their interests for the allegedly “larger” good of others, to appreciate that they are important and valuable in the same way that you see yourself to be important and valuable, and to acknowledge that their flourishing demands that they be free to live their lives according their own plans just as you need to be free to live according to yours. And just as I think that it would generally be disrespectful to me if someone coerced me on the way to their own ends, so too do I believe that appropriate respect generally demands that we refrain from coercing others.
But in situations where people face disaster which could be averted by imposing relatively small costs on me, I would think that it would be appropriate for them to consider the option of actually imposing those costs. To do so would not ignore the value of my life; it would simply recognize and uphold how strongly they value theirs. And I would do the same if the situation were reversed; if disaster were coming my way, and I could avert it by imposing a small cost upon someone else, I would not think myself unjustified in going through with that action. For example, imagine that a bus were coming towards me in a narrow alleyway, and the only way for me to avoid being killed would be to jump to the side where another person was standing. Imagine that I know that my jumping would result in the other person being knocked down – certainly a cost to her which would normally be unjustified for someone to impose. I take it as obviously true that I would nevertheless be justified in jumping out of the way of the bus and saving my own life. And similarly, I would not think badly of a person if I were the one in on the side of the road and someone knocked me over to save her life. If anything, I would be mortified if I ever found out that someone would simply allow themselves to be run over just to spare me being knocked over, even though they wanted very badly to live.
As I said, an integral part of my view is built on a recognition of the value of individual’s own interests and projects. And I recognize that individuals’ interests and projects do not exist only in their own heads, but also involve objects found in the material world. It is natural for people to become attached to and invested in material objects, and I know how important many of the material things in my life are to me – so to do I recognize that other people value their possessions. In order to live together peacefully, and in order to plan our own lives effectively and fulfillingly, we need to have security in our possessions – we need rules demarcating mine and thine, and we need to respect those rules. Just like it is important not to interfere in others’ lives by using force against them personally, or by defrauding them, etc., it is also important not to interfere with, damage, or invade their property. As these external objects become inherently tied to the interests and projects of their owners, interfering with these objects will be morally akin to interfering with the owners themselves. But just as I would think a person justified in knocking me down to get out of the way of an oncoming bus if her life were in danger, I would think that she would be justified in knocking over an eisel on which I was painting in order to get out of the way, even if doing so would cause my painting to become dirty and damaged. And so too would I think myself justified in knocking over someone else’s eisel if my life were in peril. Again, this would simply be a reflection of the value and importance of my own life, and not a slight against the significance of the eisel to its owner.
In this thread, we discussed a thought experiment that was originally proposed by Joel Feinberg, in which a hiker is caught in a severe and unexpected blizzard, and the only way that he can save himself from near-certain death is to break into a cabin owned by someone else, which has been boarded up for the winter. I called the hiker “Klemm” here and the owner of the cabin “Tom.” I contended that clearly Tom’s claim to his cabin is significant, and that normally, the moral importance of this consideration would trump the justifications that people might try to offer in order to legitimize breaking in. But it seems uncontroversial to me (as it has to most people who have considered this thought experiment over the years since its proposal) that Klemm’s situation is so dire that breaking into the cabin would be morally justified, in the same way that knocking over the eisel to avoid the oncoming bus would be.
My opponents here have categorically denied this position, pointing out that Tom has a property right in his cabin, and that this right is absolute. To deny this, they believe, would be to commit oneself to a complete rejection of the moral importance of property claims. In other words, either the moral of importance of property claims is infinite, so that nothing could ever possibly trump them, or the moral importance of property claims must be zero. They seem to believe that no alternative is possible. And if they are right, and if we further assume that the moral importance of property claims is clearly not zero, then obviously Klemm could not justify breaking into the cabin – the moral importance of Klemm’s life, we would need to say, is either some finite value or zero, and either way, the infinite importance of Tom’s property claim automatically trumps it.
My contention is that we are not faced with such a dichotomy. It is possible to say that property claims are important, and that Klemm’s life is also important, such that it is at least in principle possible that when these values conflict, we might see either consideration win out. In most cases, Klemm’s life is obviously not going to be in danger, and so property claims will rule. But when Klemm’s life is in danger, and the property claim in question would be infringed in a relatively minor way, I think that it is clear that the significance of Klemm’s life trumps the significance of Tom’s property claim.
Now, my opponents have seized on an important problem in an attempt to establish that my view is untenable. The problem is this: if we allow that both Klemm’s life is morally important, and also that Tom’s property claim is morally important, we may be confronted with situations where we aren’t sure which value wins out. Rawls called this the “Priority Problem,” and it is a fundamentally important area of discussion in modern liberal theory. Some thinkers have sought to offer “priority principles” to help us decide which value trumps which other value, while others have expressed skepticism that there can ever be an answer. My view is closer to the latter view.
This, I think, is less of a problem, however, than it might appear to be. Where our moral views underdetermine what people ought to do in borderline cases, we can tip the scales one way or another through the production of broadly recognized legal norms, as embodied in the common law. These solutions will not necessarily reflect the “truth” about morality. But such norms will help people to make their decisions and to form expectations about what other people will do in certain situations. It is also a well documented psychological fact that when certain distinctions come to be enshrined in law, people often begin to see those distinctions as morally correct, even if they may never have come to that view had the distinctions never been made.
At the end of all of this, you will likely see Liberty Student, Wilderness, and whoever call me a collectivist, a statist, and whatever else. They will also probably take great offense to this paragraph, and use it to try to paint me as some sort of name-caller, while likely calling me names at the very same time. I leave it to you to decide whether or not my position is as ridiculous as they say.
If you’re interested in reading about the ideas I discussed here, I would recommend taking a look at Gerald Gaus’ excellent book, Contemporary Theories of Liberalism and David Schmidtz’ Elements of Liberty; both have been enormously influential on me, and I think that they do a great job in those books.
Now it’s time for bed.
When you say ‘evidence’ - what are you referring to ? Do you mean there’s evidence that the brain is material and is the substrate which somehow enables thinking, feelings, self-awareness, etc ? That may be true, but it’s not really news…
Basically a social-democrat n’est-ce pas ?
I think you made yourself look like an idiot, but each reader can determine that for themselves. It’s not like I, among others, didn’t try to stop you.
While I didn’t enjoy your calling me a lunatic, I understand you did it out of frustration. That you didn’t apologize or take the higher ground later is what makes it disreputable.
Still, I don’t dislike you. I just think your ideas are contradictory and you haven’t been able to defend them well. I’m sure you have good intentions in mind. Unfortunately, that doesn’t substantiate a position where there are no negative liberties. Forgetting the conflict resolution issues for a moment, economically, all sorts of unnecessary knowledge problems arise that undermine any sort of effective market activity.
Put simpler, when you are this close to the socialist calculation problem, your spider sense should be screaming like a banshee. That’s presuming you have placed any value on AE. I find more and more that people from the LL and RL camps do not. The market as method is secondary to their preferred outcome bias.
Anyway, have a safe trip.
It’s also logically the only aspect of consciousness that can be knowable. Out of body experiences, near death experiences, phantom limb experiences etc have been reproduced in controlled settings without resorting to any supernatural or metaphysical explanation. I don’t think this is news, but then why the controversy? I was merely pointing out that, given a lack of evidence for the metaphysical entity of self, it can not be objectively claimed that destruction of the mind is any different than destruction of a limb. That was, after all, the quote I was responding to. I don’t follow your criticism. Care to elaborate?
Right. When inconsistencies arise in a system of ethics, we can always rely on argumentum ad populum.
This, emphasis mine.