Sorry Hayekianxyz, I would have thought that your argument would have been more effective because the fact is that Rothbard’s ethics are crap (although far better than Rand’s and better than what most political figures use because their moralities can’t even be considered “adolescent” in thier reasoning) , just as all “objective ethics” are in the end, but I find your examples relativly poor in exposing the flaws. Perhaps (I’m guessing here I may be totally wrong) because you hope to then advocate an objective ethic promoting the state afterwards, otherwise I would expect that you’d pursue the most fundumental logical fallacy involved in modern morality, the flaw of objective value.
Okay, I agree with that. But that’s not Callahan’s argument. He’s saying that libertarians have failed to give reasons for their fundamental positions, which is simply not the case.
Sorry Hayekianxyz, I would have thought that your argument would have been more effective because the fact is that Rothbard’s ethics are crap (although far better than Rand’s and better than what most political figures use because their moralities can’t even be considered “adolescent” in thier reasoning) , just as all “objective ethics” are in the end, but I find your examples relativly poor in exposing the flaws. Perhaps (I’m guessing here I may be totally wrong) because you hope to then advocate an objective ethic promoting the state afterwards, otherwise I would expect that you’d pursue the most fundumental logical fallacy involved in modern morality, the flaw of objective value.
Have you found something more satisfactory? Could you please share
Sage, I think in context Callahan is saying that certain libertarians don’t offer justification for their positions, because they consider the circular argument above to be sufficient for the case in favour of their particular brand of libertarianism.
“Have you found something more satisfactory? Could you please share”
This is worded oddly, just from the wording you just seem to be asking if I have found a better ethic with which to justify libertarianism… In which case no I have not found any better objective justification, just a million personal appeals which can be made… Sorry if that’s what you’re asking.
If this is not what you’re asking could you please restate it? And BTW that font was really wierd I thought it was your signature and it made these wierd line things appear whenever I make a new paragraph after I quoted you… Just saying.
We could rephrase it to that. What is the difference?
Huh? The state is composed of individuals. So why “the individual or the state”?
There’s a big difference between “what makes it your property” and “why is not the property of the state”.
Err, because that’s the question you posed.
Forum doesn’t work well on safari. Have you found a more satisfactory theory of morality / political organization?
I meant to contrast the individuals of the state with those not of the state, not to contrast “the individual” with “the state”, which would be pretty vague. But, because that is what you thought I meant, your first reply, where you asked me what my definition of my use of the phrase “the state” was and whether I meant it to refer to an omnipotent being, makes a bit more sense.
Not when I am contrasting two groups of individuals, which together constitute everyone: individuals of the state and those not of the state. If the individuals of the state own it, those not of the state do not; and, in contrast, if the individuals not of the state own it, those of the state do not. The only other possibility is that no one owns it. Is that what you are pointing out that I am ignoring? Or what?
But, an individual in the bureaucracy of the state is not the state. The state refers to the bureaucracy as a whole, with a monopoly on force. As such, this should be evidence enough that the state really has no legitimate claim to property, since the state is nothing but an idea. An individual that makes up part of the state can own property, and many individuals in present bureaucracies do own property. But, this is an individual owning property, and not the state.
So, I’m not sure where you’re going with your question. What’s the difference between a bureacrat owning land and a civilian owning land? The bureaucrat is not the state, he is just an individual that is part of the apparatus of the state. But, when an individual who owns property and works in a company does that make his property de facto property of the company? No.
The correct question regarding property rights is not whether property is a right of the individual or of the state, but what justifies property rights in the first place. Or, at least, how was the concept of property rights even conceived. I would guess that rather than some objective naturally-occuring right, the idea of property rights was developed voluntarily over a specific period of time, where one man claimed a specific parcel of land and other men respected his claim in the interest of reaching certain ends. But, I am not well read in the ethics of private property, so I couldn’t comment any further.
I’m just not sure your question even makes sense.
Does it make sense to say that, for example, ten landlords together own a complex of apartments?
Does it make sense to say that, for example, ten landlords together own a complex of apartments?
Yes. Which is some posts back I said that the concept of ‘the state’ owning property is the same thing as collective ownership,
“Or, do you mean the collective property of the bureaucracy which makes up the state?”
But ten landlords owning a complex of apartment tends to be different in the sense that these landlords voluntarily agreed to joint-ownership. This is different from collective ownership of the state, where the actual proprietors don’t agree with the collective ownership.
But, if a person were living in an apartment in a gated community and were to not like the amount of money per month that the landlords were telling him to pay them or any of the other rules, people like us would tell the person that, if he does not like the way that the landlords run the place, he should just leave, and that, if he does not leave, it is clear that they are providing him with a better opportunity than that of any of the other places that he could live; and, if he were to tell us that they were exploiting him or something like that, we would tell him that he is making no sense. But how does that differ from the people who tell people like us that, if we do not like the way that the government runs things in this country, we should just leave? In both cases, “the actual proprietors don’t agree with the collective ownership”; but, in one case, you would be for the guy not agreeing, and, in the other case, you would be against him. What is the difference?
“Forum doesn’t work well on safari”
Fair enough
“Have you found a more satisfactory theory of morality / political organization?”
I disagree little with Rothbard on political organization, I think that public mutualistic orgnaizations both military and otherwise but that’s beside the point, for the most part I think Rothbard is generally spot on, the state destroys society and it is an overall negative for anyone but parasites. Most of my CONCLUSIONS match Rotbhard in terms of what should be done but the “moral” reasoning behind this stars off in a fundumentally different place.
The fact is that morality, as defined as what one SHOULD do, is entirly subjective, by this I mean that it varies from person to person. This is because VALUE varies from person to person. If I value thing A above all else then I will die defending it, I want to keep thing A, for me this is the height of morality, you may come along and pick up thing A, for you it has no meaning whatsoever, there is no value, no ethic involved for you. This is because ethics are dependent upon value, value upon preference, preference upon perspective, perspective upon the individual in question. It varies utterly
For me the highest ethic, the most good possible, is the promotion of voluntary interactions, I value this, many people value this. I also consider that the ethics of the most people will be fufilled over time in a stateless society, and each individual will, for the most part, be in a position to provide for and fufill their ethic, if you value the poor being supplied for you will be able to work towards this goal, if you value the rainforest being saved, you can work towards this too.
However I do not hold this ethic to be universal in and of itself, there are pleanty who adore state and nation in and of themselves, according to this ethic they will be dissapointed, but the fact is I DONT CARE, just as they don’t care if my ethic is left unfufilled in their system, for there is a constant conflict of ethics, there is not one which is inherently better than the other, so long as each is consistent with itself, and even then all men are not known to be totally aversed to the appeal of contradiction
If you want to see a man who understands morality, Nietzsche, is a good philosopher to look into, although I consider many of the ethics that he seems to prefer are disgusting.
But, if a person were living in an apartment in a gated community and were to not like the amount of money per month that the landlords were telling him to pay them or any of the other rules, people like us would tell the person that, if he does not like the way that the landlords run the place, he should just leave, and that, if he does not leave, it is clear that they are providing him with a better opportunity than that of any of the other places that he could live; and, if he were to tell us that they were exploiting him or something like that, we would tell him that he is making no sense. But how does that differ from the people who tell people like us that, if we do not like the way that the government runs things in this country, we should just leave?
The person renting an apartment from a landlord signed a contract voluntarily, agreeing to certain terms. Nobody has signed a contract with the government. I’m not sure what part of “voluntary” is misunderstood.
I think this is even too strong. Sure, certain libertarians might use the above argument in their rhetoric, but if pushed they’ll probably turn to the NAP, Lockean property theory, etc., and thereby escape the vicious circle. Now if Callahan objects to these positions, he should stop beating around the bush and directly address them, instead of making false claims about circular reasoning.
The Late Andrew Ryan replied on 05-13-2010 9:08 PM
OK so you think there is no objective ethics. Do you think voluntary organization is morally superior to a non-voluntary state?
/thread
This is the same red herring continuum fallacy that every communist has used since time immemorial to distract from the communist running track:
-
The state is just.
-
See 1.
“OK so you think there is no objective ethics. Do you think voluntary organization is morally superior to a non-voluntary state?”
Inherently? No. According to my value preferences, and the value preferences of many others consistently replied? Yes.
Before getting executed, “murders” do not sign contracts with their executioners; yet their death is “justified”. To make sense, contracts have to rely on property rights which already exist. For contracts just document agreements by people and pertaining to transferring property, nothing more. So talking about contracts is just jumping back onto the “running track” again.