The “running track” objection amounts to no more then**:** Prove that it is immoral for me to rape you. You call it rape, I call it love. Who says your body belongs to you? What right do you have over your body? Where do these rights come from? ,etc, etc… Thus, the “running track” argument.
Like I said before, the argument is not against libertarianism per se, but against the existence of any sense of morality. It matters not that the survival of human kind depends on some moral code, because the “running track” argument then leads to the question: Who says human life must go on… ?
It’s a recursively infinite argument. You could literally program a computer to to take this “running track” stance in debate.
No, it would be more accurate to say that it is against not only morality as Rothbard saw it but against any sort of objective morality, not just any sort of morality.
“No, it would be more accurate to say that it is against not only morality as Rothbard saw it but against any sort of objective morality, not just any sort of morality.”
Well first of all, the purely subjective approach to morality appears to be more and more irreconcilable with the many scientific advances over the past 5 decades in the study of human nature; behavioral genetics, cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, etc… (see for example just this recent http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html)
So pure subjectivists that do not try to incorporate any objective basis at all may explain why they are so obsessed with “running tracks”
Second,a purely utilitarian point of view seems also to be irreconcilable with the “running track”. I said before that by judging the consequences of both systems, one can get off the “running track” in favor of private property, for which you replied that the consequences are irelevant since they are subjective and you literally agreed that the issue can be settled only by some divine purpose declared by some god.
As I said before. If your argument can be simulated by a machine, then there is probably something wrong with it.
Not really. Sure, it is “objective” that most people have moral sentiments and that they are similar between different people. But that is not at all what I am talking about. See this post. What I am talking about here is what I called the “moral thoughts” in that post. It is pretty obvious that most people feel similar feelings about similar interactions; so it is not exactly a “scientific advance” to recognize that. But, again, either way, that is not what I am talking about and it is not what other people are talking about when they argue about whether morality is subjective or objective.
I don’t know what your point is there.
Which is an advantage. Why would I want to be on a “running track”?
Uh, it is not my argument.
When did I say any of that? By the way, you didn’t answer my questions in this post at all.
Before getting executed, “murders” do not sign contracts with their executioners; yet their death is “justified”.
What?
To make sense, contracts have to rely on property rights which already exist.
Go back a couple of posts of mine and see my argument on how I believe property rights came into existence (I’ll quote below). And, in any case, you’re not saying anything new. I already suggested that the real argument is whether or not property rights are justified. Your question was how do I know property is not owned by the state, which I responded (and somehow the conversation went off-topic).
In any case, this is what I said earlier,
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
So talking about contracts is just jumping back onto the “running track” again.
To tie it with what I said a couple of posts back, if a person signs a contract he is explicitely recognizing the relevant parcel of land as property of another person. This is a part of voluntary exchange.
Where did I pretend that I was saying something new?
The argument is not about whether property “rights” in general are “justified”; it is about whether certain property “rights” in particular are “justified”, I believe.
So what is our argument against the state? Is it that, although most people consider their control of things as “justified”, we think that we, and those people, would, if we took their control of things back, be better off? If so, you have no disagreement with the argument presented in the original post. As I said to DD5, his argument is not against any sort of morality, it is just against objective morality. He is showing that, if you are a libertarian seeing things from an objective point of view, your argument is just a “running track”. With that, I agree.
They are recognizing it as under the control of the other person, yes. But why is that relevant?
Your original question was why property didn’t belong to the state, which was new. But since then you’ve seemed to lost track of your point.
I don’t even know what this means.
This is getting dull. I already outlined my argument in previous posts. Let’s not argue in circles, please.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
No, Gene Callahan is arguing that anarcho-capitalists cannot explain why individualistic property rights are non-cercive while the state is coercive without arguing in circles. Honestly, the only circular argumens presented so far in this thread are those in support of Gene Callahan.
With that said, I do disagree with objective morality, but Callahan’s issue with anarcho-capitalism and property rights is much broader than that.
Because they are recognizing property rights. Tie it back to my beliefs in how property rights arose. Property rights is a social norm developed and imposed voluntarily in society as a means of cooperating and reaching individual ends. The state, as a collective bureacratic apparatus, did not have this basis in terms of claiming property ownership.
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
By and large, the “non-aggression principle” IS largely the focus of Callahan’s critique. I don’t think Callahan would maintain that the circle can’t be broken, that would imply a hostility to all libertarian philosophy. Rather, I think what he’s saying is that he wants to see more libertarian philosophy and less empty libertarian rhetoric.
“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.
Could you explain to me what your value preferences are based on. Are they entirely based on whim? Like you woke up one day and said, voluntary organization > non-voluntary. Or did you arrive at it in some other way?
Trying to come up with a justification for private property is a fools game and is equivalent to someone on trial trying to prove his innocence without first hearing the charges. Good title is presumed until it is shown to be bad title. The state doesn’t have good title on its property because it comitted unjust acts in order to acquire it. We know that it commited an unjust act because it can be shown that it violated conventions against torts. If it is shown than an individual violated a convention against torts in obtaining property they do not have good title either. “Innocent until proven guilty” isn’t just a pragmatic rule-of-thumb, it is a result of the asymmetry between verifying and falsifying statements (in this case, about title to property).
Few of you get his point. He is not proposing an alternative ideology in place of libertarianism, but rejecting ideology altogether. The series so far:
So I’ve been seeing this come for a very long time, and it’s not complicated. Gene has become a conservative - not a national Review type but a serious student of Oakeshot. Most of us went through that stage already and came to anarchist libertarianism through struggle and serious reading over years. I don’t think Gene ever really went through that struggle. Perhaps it was all too easy for him coming in, and now he senses the need to work through fundamental issues in stages, starting with the conservative tradition and working from there. It’s only the digital age that intensifies matters because we are all being asked to follow this evolution piece by piece. My suggestion is not to worry about it. When he finds his way back, he’ll be stronger than ever.
It is silly to call libertarianism an ideology. In that case everything is an ideology and the term is meaningless. I feel the guy has never actually udnerstood the philosophy and has just realized it.
Ideology is a term used by Napolean to attack the liberals who opposed him. He called them ideologues. A better way to think of the term ideology, which I actually like, is that it refers to systematic thought concern society. Of course anyone who favor unsystematic thought (particularly as a means for exercising power) is against ideology.