Sterba libertarian critique

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@GilesStratton

And I can’t print documents without a printer, that doesn’t mean that the printer is my end. It’s just a means.

Likewise, I sustain my life so I can acheive other goals: whatever they may be.

Without your life, you can’t have any goals.

Which implies it’s a means, not an end.

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@GilesStratton

And I can’t print documents without a printer, that doesn’t mean that the printer is my end. It’s just a means.

Likewise, I sustain my life so I can acheive other goals: whatever they may be.

Without your life, you can’t have any goals.

Which implies it’s a means, not an end.

Giles, I think you and I have been agreeing on this point.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@GilesStratton

Which implies it’s a means, not an end.

And it implies an end, because you need to do what you can to sustain your life.

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@GilesStratton

And I can’t print documents without a printer, that doesn’t mean that the printer is my end. It’s just a means.

Likewise, I sustain my life so I can acheive other goals: whatever they may be.

Without your life, you can’t have any goals.

Which implies it’s a means, not an end.

Wait a minute. Maybe I didn’t read this correctly. Life is an end. There are many ends. When I eat a strawberry, as you mentioned before, I have achieved an end. There are quite possibly numerous ends if we include ideas. But this is all quite different than discussing which ends encompass more. Eating a strawberry is an end that occurs very quickly and involves little when compared to life being an end in and of itself.

[JackCuyler]

@wilderness

Wait a minute. Maybe I didn’t read this correctly. Life is an end. There are many ends. When I eat a strawberry, as you mentioned before, I have achieved an end. There are quite possibly numerous ends if we include ideas. But this is all quite different than discussing which ends encompass more. Eating a strawberry is an end that occurs very quickly and involves little when compared to life being an end in and of itself.

I’m not sure I agree. You cannot eat a strawberry unless you are alive. Therefore, life is a means, one of many, to eat a strawberry. Going a bit further, a major reason for suicide is that “there’s nothing left to live for,” – there are no more ends to warrant the effort to maintain the means. Taking Giles’ printer example, one must use means to keep one’s printer in good repair, but that does not imply a working printer is an end, simply that there is a chain of means to achieve an end.

EDIT: Grammar fix

[liberty_student]

@wilderness

When I eat a strawberry, as you mentioned before, I have achieved an end.

I love strawberries.

[Harry_Felker]

@liberty student

@wilderness

When I eat a strawberry, as you mentioned before, I have achieved an end.

I love strawberries.

When I read things like this…

@liberty student

@Donny with an A

With regard to the question of the conditionality of your rights, I’d say you have the rights all the time, but that they can be infringed in some situations. So they aren’t conditional (as in, they never go away), they’re just never absolute in the way that you’re saying. It doesn’t mean that property can be taken anytime someone’s under duress, though perhaps one could argue that extreme duress could be used as justification (and perhaps one would want to argue that compensation would be warranted by such a taking).

• I have rights all of the time, but they can be infringed some of the time.
• They aren’t conditional, but they aren’t absolute.
• It doesn’t mean property can be taken under a justification of need, but we need a justification to validate taking property.

I am happy I am a footnote in this discussion…

P.S. Big Fan of Strawberries

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@GilesStratton

Which implies it’s a means, not an end.

And it implies an end, because you need to do what you can to sustain your life.

Because I need my life to attain other ends - in other words, it’s a means.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

And an end. Much like evolution and gravity are both theory and fact. It can be both, you know, Giles.

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

It can be both, you know, Giles.

Sure it can, but it needn’t be.

[wilderness]

@JackCuyler

@wilderness

Wait a minute. Maybe I didn’t read this correctly. Life is an end. There are many ends. When I eat a strawberry, as you mentioned before, I have achieved an end. There are quite possibly numerous ends if we include ideas. But this is all quite different than discussing which ends encompass more. Eating a strawberry is an end that occurs very quickly and involves little when compared to life being an end in and of itself.

I’m not sure I agree. You cannot eat a strawberry unless you are alive. Therefore, life is a means, one of many, to eat a strawberry. Going a bit further, a major reason for suicide is that “there’s nothing left to live for,” – there are no more ends to warrant the effort to maintain the means. Taking Giles’ printer example, one must use means to keep one’s printer in good repair, but that does not imply a working printer is an end, simply that there is a chain of means to achieve an end.

EDIT: Grammar fix

Well the problem with a means-end dichotomy is that there are numerous successive events chaining from one mean to the next end. I was not talking about ultimate end. What I was saying here is Giles and Knight if only talking about an end that is not an ultimate end, then it depends on what their starting mean is. If their start is life, then as I see the ultimate end being flourishing/quality, then there is something more to life (birth-death cycle). This is why I said previously that if the ultimate end was life then nobody would be able to tell the difference between a dog, statist, and libertarian. Yet with quality being an ultimate end, then I am able to tell the difference. Cause there is more to life. There is living the good life.

What you are saying here is correct. Life is a means to the ultimate end (living a good life). I’m basing my perspective on human nature. This is telos chatter too so life is a means and an end in and of itself. I use life (means) to eat strawberry (end) to sustain life (end). (and this sentence shows why Giles and Knight are being circular as I’ve pointed out). Telos reaches back upon itself in a feedback loop manner.

[wilderness]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

And an end. Much like evolution and gravity are both theory and fact. It can be both, you know, Giles.

Ah, correction to my previous post. Knight you have made a distinct point here. thank goodness[:)]

[JackCuyler]

@wilderness

I use life (means) to eat strawberry (end) to sustain life (end). (and this sentence shows why Giles and Knight are being circular as I’ve pointed out). Telos reaches back upon itself in a feedback loop manner.

They can be circular, but not necessarily. I eat nutritious foods, to sustain life so I can enjoy beer and fatty foods and cigarettes, breaking that nasty circle.

[wilderness]

@JackCuyler

@wilderness

I use life (means) to eat strawberry (end) to sustain life (end). (and this sentence shows why Giles and Knight are being circular as I’ve pointed out). Telos reaches back upon itself in a feedback loop manner.

They can be circular, but not necessarily. I eat nutritious foods, to sustain life so I can enjoy beer and fatty foods and cigarettes, breaking that nasty circle.

uh? So you counter human nature if any amounts of beer, fatty foods, and cigarettes can be shown to be unhealthy. I’m not sure what you mean here.

Or maybe you were joking…[:D]

[wilderness]

Anarcho-Mercantilist,

I don’t know if you missed this post or not. You had a very long post that I went through, but no worries.[:)]

@wilderness

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Below, we will focus on the libertarian usage of “aggression.” Let us specify which actions constitute as “aggression.”

Does does the “non-aggression principle” allow “right to self-defense” or the “right to violently punish others”?

I’m going to go one by one on some of these before I read them all. So let’s see how this goes. I’m interjecting my opinion of course.

I think aggression is initiation of force, as you probably have heard of this definition before. So self-defense yes. I don’t think there is a “right to violently punish others”. Not sure how that’s a right in the first place.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does the “non-aggression principle” allow trespassing or hate speech?

No trespassing due to aggression of a person’s extension - their property.

Has nothing to do with hate speech unless you means threats to coerce and that depends on more context.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

We will show that the term “aggression” is highly vague.

Some will define “aggression” as “the initiation of physical violence.” However, the term physical violence is also vague. Does “physical violence” include noise pollution?

It can since sound is physical. Context of course is needed. The virtue tolerance in a particular context can be productive.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does it include perceived threats of violence?

depends as I mentioned

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does “physical violence” include fraud? Whether noise pollution, threats of violence, and fraud are “physical violence” still begs the question.

Fraud can be a coercion to take something that you did not buy at least that’s how I see it, but I’m not very insightful, admittedly, in accounts of fraud.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Libertarians usually defend the right for broadcasters to homestead radio frequencies. However, if a malicious broadcaster “trespasses” another broadcaster’s radio frequency, can we label this as “physical violence”?

Sound waves are physical and measurable.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Obviously, the criminal changed nothing physical or tangible.

Those mentioned above are all physically studied by the physical sciences.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

However, I disagree with Liberty Student and Wilderness with their slippery slope fallacy from lifeboat situations.

I never saw a slippery slope anywhere in this scenario. What do you mean?

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Just because one may legitimately violate another’s property in extreme scenarios, this does not imply that one may legitimately violate all property in all scenarios.

I’m starting to wonder if people understand what justice really is. It really is a renewal of harmony. A ‘no harm, no foul’. Mercy is act of justice. It states nothing ever happened and Klemm is able to occupy the cabin if it is cold. I know people don’t like it when I refer back to Tom in this scenario, but I’m in real life and Tom does come back. Are we trying to make a law that Tom has to give mercy? I’ve asked this previously, but in the spirit of how some people reply back to posts they read the post, I assume, and then simply generalize back a comment. When I ask questions - well - I’m asking a question to whomever I’m responding to unless I otherwise say. I go line by line on people’s posts at times, except on this post Anarcho since we are as yet in a discussion so I’m pulling out the topics I find interesting to begin a conversation. This is a natural way to start a conversation I presume so I’m not doing anything that unique.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

As shown above, that rights can only be enforced if one realizes that there are good consequences in enforcing them, one would not enforce this situation on all property in all scenarios, as in full-blown communism.

Suppose Klemm is a libertarian. He knows the consequences of the collectivization of property, such as general decline of prosperity. Klemm would still violate property in extreme life-threatening scenarios, because he does not know the good consequences in enforcing property rights in this extreme situation. However, Klemm would not use the slippery slope fallacy to expand his infringement of Tom’s property in this lifeboat situation, to non-lifeboat situations. He would not advocate property infringement in non-lifeboat situations because he knows the good consequences of respecting property rights in non-lifeboat situations, such as general prosperity.

Ah, i see what you are saying about slippery slope fallacy now. I never really saw this as a slippery slope at all. I thought it was about Klemm and Tom only.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Liberty Student and Wilderness claim that there exist a certain degree of “vagueness” in the application of rights. Examples include the disputes in property boundaries, gray areas in the application of rights, and uncertainty whether if property damage actually occurred.

I think you have this mixed up. I never saw vagueness at all. Actually BP and Danny kept repeating that there was vagueness in property rights and they were trying to fix that vagueness. I on the other hand saw no need to fix anything.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

However, I see the conception of “rights” as very vague in itself.

You see vagueness, ok.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Therefore, it is a slippery slope to label Brainpolice and Danny as communists.

Maybe this is, but I wonder still. It simple become odd that Tom could never have a say. I’m referring to real life. They insisted on sticking to the decision to be made before Tom would know. I said if I were Klemm I probably would go into the cabin. I also said I hope Tom’s a nice guy. I would rather any Tom’s make virtuous decisions on their own without a society coercing a Tom to make moral decisions. It’s a good exercise and responsibility trait for any society to be able to make these calls as individuals. It only strengthens the moral fiber of society in my opinion instead of burying our own exercise of making moral decisions cause I believe in ‘use it or lose it’, meaning, if moral decisions are not used by individuals they lose it.

When BP who has said property does not come before a life, but then advocates and would even root for Klemm to aggress against Tom all for the occupancy of the cabin - I therefore wonder of his contradiction. If the cabin is not that important as a property issue and he claims life is foremost, then why are Klemm and Tom fighting over the cabin as one potential outcome? Why is this cabin so important? Cause shelter is an extension of a human in this world, so are our clothes, especially in cold snowy places. Without them we die to exposure so a cabin is the very life of Tom. This is what property is about.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

I also have a problem with treating trespassing, murder, and theft as “equally immoral.” The motto “all rights are property rights” treats them that way. This is an over-simplification, just like how psychological egoism and argumentation ethics are over-simplifications.

All property is not the same.

thanks.

[hayekianxyz]

@wilderness

uh? So you counter human nature if any amounts of beer, fatty foods, and cigarettes can be shown to be unhealthy. I’m not sure what you mean here.

I think what he’s saying is that all people value life, as demonstrated by the fact that they’ve not killed themselves. However, the fact that people engage in various activities that will shortern their life span shows that life is not always the ultimate end. The fact that I’m sustaining my life does not demonstrate that life is my ultimate end, only that I value it, for whatever reason that may be.

Or at least, that’s what I got out of that post and it’s very similar to the point I’ve been making.

Now, with regards to your earlier post you claim that life is one end amongst many. This seems plausible to me, I’ve seen Den Uyl and Rasmussen (amongst others) claim that there must be an ultimate end. They then go on to assert that life is this ultimate end, I’m not too sure they’re correct here and this is the argument I’m making. People live for a variety of reasons, not necessarily just for the sake of living. The fact of the matter is that their argument hinges on life being the ultimate end, since then all things must be judged by the extent to which they allow one to maintain life.

[laminustacitus]

@wilderness

I use life (means) to eat strawberry (end) to sustain life (end).

One could very well just eat strawberries because they are delicious, not because they help to sustain life. In fact, theoretically, one can ever enjoy strawberries so much that you eat enough of them to kill yourself at which point life is just a temporary means for attaining the end of gorging oneself on strawberries. There’s no reason why a, and b (those being life, and eating strawberries respectfully) automatically lead to c (sustaining life).

[wilderness]

@GilesStratton

@wilderness

uh? So you counter human nature if any amounts of beer, fatty foods, and cigarettes can be shown to be unhealthy. I’m not sure what you mean here.

I think what he’s saying is that all people value life, as demonstrated by the fact that they’ve not killed themselves. However, the fact that people engage in various activities that will shortern their life span shows that life is not always the ultimate end. The fact that I’m sustaining my life does not demonstrate that life is my ultimate end, only that I value it, for whatever reason that may be.

oh

@GilesStratton

Or at least, that’s what I got out of that post and it’s very similar to the point I’ve been making.

Now, with regards to your earlier post you claim that life is one end amongst many. This seems plausible to me, I’ve seen Den Uyl and Rasmussen (amongst others) claim that there must be an ultimate end. They then go on to assert that life is this ultimate end, I’m not too sure they’re correct here and this is the argument I’m making. People live for a variety of reasons, not necessarily just for the sake of living. The fact of the matter is that their argument hinges on life being the ultimate end, since then all things must be judged by the extent to which they allow one to maintain life.

I agree. Life is not the ultimate end. Life is a ground to a more ultimate end called quality, flourishing, excellence (any other similar concepts).

[wilderness]

@laminustacitus

@wilderness

I use life (means) to eat strawberry (end) to sustain life (end).

One could very well just eat strawberries because they are delicious, not because they help to sustain life. In fact, theoretically, one can ever enjoy strawberries so much that you eat enough of them to kill yourself at which point life is just a temporary means for attaining the end of gorging oneself on strawberries. There’s no reason why a, and b (those being life, and eating strawberries respectfully) automatically lead to c (sustaining life).

You could make that argument yes, but within the perspective of human nature it might be a weak argument. Why? - Cause it would be counter to human nature to gorge on strawberries and kill oneself. It’s counter cause the human dies.

I’m not making the argument life is the ultimate end. I’m making the argument that life (the birth-death cycle) is an end, but not the ultimate end. Meaning while we live there’s more to life than survival. If we take baseline birth-death cycle as the ultimate end, then there would be no difference between a dog, statist, or libertarian. There most certainly is a difference, so, simply living is not the ultimate end. Life is the ground to discover this more ultimate end.

[hayekianxyz]

@wilderness

I agree. Life is not the ultimate end. Life is a ground to a more ultimate end called quality, flourishing, excellence (any other similar concepts).

Well, the fact of the matter is that the arguments I’ve seen put forward in favour of Aristotelian natural law depend on equating “life” and human flourishing, which I don’t think is possible. Now, I don’t even think they can get to life qua survival being one’s ultimate end, but I’m inclined to reserve judgement until I’ve read some of the more advanced work on the subject. However, my opinion is that it is entirely necessary for them maintain that survival and “a good life” are exactly the same, because if not, and they continue to advocate the examined life (or whatever else) they’ve admitted that life is not the ultimate end and that life itself can be judged by another standard of value, in which case their argument thus far falls apart. On the other hand, should they maintain that survival is the ultimate end they’ll be left with a somewhat odd ethics (namely that people should do whatever they can to live as long as they can, even if that means living in a bubble their whole life). The only way out of this is to maintain that life literally is flourishing, which I don’t think they can do.

@laminustacitus

One could very well just eat strawberries because they are delicious, not because they help to sustain life. In fact, theoretically, one can ever enjoy strawberries so much that you eat enough of them to kill yourself at which point life is just a temporary means for attaining the end of gorging oneself on strawberries. There’s no reason why a, and b (those being life, and eating strawberries respectfully) automatically lead to c (sustaining life).

Yes, exactly, this is the problem I see. The moment one is even willing to put something above their own life the argument falls apart, and empirically it seems people are quite often willing to give their life for some other values (whether that means joining the army to support your country, donating an organ to save a loved one or even getting executed because you wished to take revenge on somebody who has wronged you). Logically there’s no contradiction in this either, so it appears that the virtue ethicists are on weak ground.

At which point they are literally exempt from the morality put foward by the egoists and virtue ethicists. Which seems a bit odd, considering that this seems like a lapse into subjectivism by an ethical system called “the Objectivist ethics”.

@Wilderness

You could make that argument yes, but within the perspective of human nature it might be a weak argument. Why? - Cause it would be counter to human nature to gorge on strawberries and kill oneself. It’s counter cause the human dies.

Why is it against my nature to gorge on strawberries? If I am a rational being and I hold eating strawberries as my ultimate end, then it seems quite rational and therefore in line with my nature that I should eat many of them. I think you’re going to have to define human nature before you begin by making such claims.

Also, keep in mind that unless you’re willing to bring God into all of this (which, for obvious reasons I’m more than willing to do, but I doubt Jon, Bawaa, Plauche etc. are) you’re going to have to deal with the fact that biology tells us that our nature is to stay alive for just long enough to see our children to reproductive age (as it is with all mammals), in other words, our “end” is to pass on our genes, not to stay alive. Now, as a Christian this poses no problems for me.