But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is. I have issues with Rothbard and Hoppe on ethical theory, as well, but at least they have the foundations right.
“Voluntary exchange” is simply not a proper object of moral theory - it’s like saying “cumulus clouds are not an unconditional moral good” … gibberish. Morality concerns the choices and actions of an individual. When moral propositions are made regarding an unorganized group (humanity is an unorganized group), they simply mean “for every individual…” “It is immoral for humanity to allow murder” really means “for each and every individual, the act of committing murder is immoral.”
Holding organizations responsible for their behavior is a bit more complex and modern law is in horrid shape on this subject. It holds some people responsible for things they should not be held responsible for (e.g. a pawn-shop owner who unwittingly sells stolen goods) and fails to hold other people responsible for things they should be held responsible for (e.g. board members and senior staff at banks that go bankrupt).
I do not hold the free market or anarchy or liberty as ends in themselves. I wrote a post on this issue a long time back, you should take a look. Something much bigger is at stake, here. The root moral cause of the State is the justification and acquiescence to hypocrisy or double-standards. Privilege and special exemption is the essnece of the State. It is the widespread, popular acceptance of bad morality that is the foundation on which the State is built. Without it, the State would collapse in an instant.
So, I think we (all of us) need to go back to the drawing boards on morality. What is right and wrong? How do we know? Parts of the answers are scattered throughout the world’s religions and philosophy but they have been and continue to be actively suppressed. Those who rule us understand the root source of their power: corrupted morals. They suppress good moral teaching either through direct oppression and censorship or (the new method) by drowning it out with garbage and propaganda.
What is right and wrong? It is simply pleasure and pain. What brings you pleasure is morally right. What brings you pain is morally wrong. Of course, this has an asterisk on it. Unlike other animals, you are capable of long-range planning and foresight. Your immediate suffering or gratification may lead to other longer run consequences that you prefer or disprefer more strongly than the present pleasure or pain. Hence, your action (choices) has both a long-run and short-run component to it and this is why what feels good at the moment may not always be morally right and what feels painful at the moment may not always be morally wrong.
I’m working on a short book-length treatment on this subject. Minus the stuff on reincarnation and some of the more mystical stuff, the Buddhists (certain schools anyway) have it precisely right. So did Epicurus. Given the immediate appeal of these religious and philosophical ideas to any mature adult (to use your term), ask yourself why these ideas are so rarely heard. I’ll tell you why. It’s the same reason you’re probably afraid to take your car to the mechanic - he just may use his specialized knowledge and superior credentials to bully you into having to pay him for work and parts that you did not need. Mental bullying is profitable just like physical bullying is. The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others. Just like the State wants to disarm its subjects in order to render them the more vulnerable to its predation, so it wants to suppress right morality in order to maintain the evil status quo.
I’m not interested in denigrating your proposed Constitution - you clearly went to a lot of work to put it together and I respect that. I just don’t agree with your approach and a lot of your ideas and conclusions.
Clayton -