I’m not a Rothbardian mate? Not trying to argue with you: I am just curious about this statement.
That was directed a Bert, not you. : )
So fraud is moral in your universe? What does rothbard have to say about that?
Lets assume its equivalent to lying and it is wrong in our unvierse. For certain ends I might use it. Lets say I use it to save the lives of 1 million people at the cost of $20,000 lost in Fraud. No biggie, in all probability society would help pay back the restitution for the damages I owed.
You see what I’m doing here? I’m accepting that its wrong and the consequences of it, so I’m really not invalidating any sense of absolute ethics.
Do you see? Sometimes “immioral means” can be used for “moral ends” and depending upon what they are the probability of the outcome is a lighter sentence, forgiveness, outside assistance etc.
That was directed a Bert, not you. : )
Ah, cool. I was wondering how in the world someone might misconstrue me as “not a Rothbardian,” what with my pic and all. =)
I think we certainly agree about the lying part of this, that it can be used as a good means for Liberty. I disagree that it would ever be acceptable to Aggress upon someone, in any scenario. But that is a debate for another day.
Let’s say there was a war, Country W loses and is on trial by Countries X, Y, and Z. Facts are skewed and it it’s said they killed 10 million people by certain methods within their borders (outside of military warfare). Is this right? We’re talking on a large scale, not just trespassing on someone’s property to avoid a rabid pitbull or something. Now, there’s a very large and complex lie that this country/State committed these atrocities that didn’t happen, and now this becomes evidence against the State. What’s good and bad about this?
I see what your saying here Bert. If this were indeed the case, I like most people would feel pity for the populace in state W since they would be the ones punished for the actions/lies about state W. Yes I would even think it wrong. And this perhaps could be a negatice side effect of what Rothbardsdisciple is trying due via his tacting of “exagerating history”.
However, Rothbards disciple is using that tactic as a means to get people distrust/dislike etc the state. Not to get other states to come in and for compsensations to group x.y,z at the cost of the people in that state.
Possible, but very improbable.
However, this doesn’t mean that I agree witht this tactic, I’m only poiniting out why I think this argument against it doesn’t work.
I think we certainly agree about the lying part of this, that it can be used as a good means for Liberty. I disagree that it would ever be acceptable to Aggress upon someone, in any scenario. But that is a debate for another day.
I’m not necessarily sure that I agree with lying for the cause of liberty. It depends on the context. If were referring to historical data, imo this would be a bad idea simply because once discovered and proven our opponents could refer to us as liars, thereby lessening the strenght of our arguments. e.g. when someone confronts michael moore.
I’m not necessarily sure that I agree with lying for the cause of liberty. It depends on the context. If were referring to historical data, imo this would be a bad idea simply because once discovered and proven our opponents could refer to us as liars, thereby lessening the strenght of our arguments. e.g. when someone confronts michael moore.
Right, right, I certainly agree with that. There is definitely a contextual element to this. That is why I should carefully stipulate the conditions for hyperbole as “where believable and difficult to falsify,” and eke as “doing damage to the State, not the populace.” With these two conditions in mind, I think there is a good case for historical hyperbole. (Once again, only where truly believable; I think this is a tool that should be used sparingly).
When we converse, we engage in an economic transaction of time and information. This is why young people (who have much more time than information) profit from spending most of their time listening when they converse with old people (who have more information than time). This example is generalized but when you provide inaccurate information but claim that it is accurate, you are stealing part or all of the truth component of information. Its like devaluing currency. So there is a type of fraud involved, even if you think you profit, it isnt mutually beneficial exchange. Lying may not be a crime in most cases but it is usually wrong.
Most would agree that if you give poison to a guy who thinks it is water, it is wrong. But I think most here would agree that if someone who has been abducted and made to prepare food for his captor were to do the same thing, it would not be aggression. The standard for application of deception the same for the standards for applying any other weapon. Lying about war crimes and atrocities is like firing your ar-15 at random fencposts and cats in that both are irresponsible and likely to have unintended consequences.
Irresponsible use of kinetic weapons and mental weapons is a form of aggression. When you make false claims that are unnecessary for self-defense, you aggress against your audience.
Lets assume its equivalent to lying and it is wrong in our unvierse. For certain ends I might use it. Lets say I use it to save the lives of 1 million people at the cost of $20,000 lost in Fraud. No biggie, in all probability society would help pay back the restitution for the damages I owed.
You see what I’m doing here? I’m accepting that its wrong and the consequences of it, so I’m really not invalidating any sense of absolute ethics. >>>>
that is a ridiculous example and taken to the logical extreme justifies any kind of evil. Let’s say I save one million lives at the cost of one life, that would be fair right? If you disagree I will take a different tact.
Rothbards disciple is using that tactic as a means to get people distrust/dislike etc the state.>>>>
Suppose their distrust and dislike of the state was pumped up by nonexistent state abuses and they tried to have a revolution before it was time? Would rothbards disciple bear moral responsibility for the individual’s loss of profit due to calculating self-interest based on errant information?
Irresponsible use of kinetic weapons and mental weapons is a form of aggression. When you make false claims that are unnecessary for self-defense, you aggress against your audience.
So you support hate speach, Libel, Slander, laws like that? If I make false claims to an audience, whose property rights have been compromised? If say the sky is red and it is blue, what is the just punishment or compensation for that? This is very close to shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one. But what decides this case is the rules and regulations of the person who owns that property. And that is what you seem to be ignoring here.
that is a ridiculous example and taken to the logical extreme justifies any kind of evil. Let’s say I save one million lives at the cost of one life, that would be fair right? If you disagree I will take a different tact.
Well that example works for any kind of “lifeboat situation” in my opinion. I came up with when opeople were attacking the NAP with lifeboat situtations and I realized that 1) Even if one contradicts the NAP if you accept the consequences of your action e.g. punishment/compensation. That is you infringe anothers rights, they can infringe yours. How far, how, etc is left up to each individual society and their legal system. 2) The reality is people will break the NAP and society can sitll function. Why? Because of compesation/punishment.
Lets say you do save one million lives at the cost of one life. Lets say where in a libertarian society, where the family can demand your death if you kill someone (and its proven) or monetary compensation. The outcome is just because either the family gets compensation or your death. Furthermore. lets say the one million lives are children and the cost of one life is a retarded person. I think the family would most likely take compesnation over your death. You see…you see what your ignoring? Your ignoring the context of the society? That how people would treat your actions, and how they would go about punishing you depends on the context.
This example is generalized but when you provide inaccurate information but claim that it is accurate, you are stealing part or all of the truth component of information.
Do you believe in intellectual property? How am I stealing the truth component of information? You can’t own information or ideas, they can’t be divided, or locked. They are infinite. What your saying doesn’t apply to the realm of imagination.
So there is a type of fraud involved, even if you think you profit, it isnt mutually beneficial exchange
Your tenacious I give you that and your trying very hard. However, what your trying to do is actually undoing the NAP, and the Libertarian framework.
So in essence your saying the young man traded his time for the old mans words, and old man lied. So the young man wishes to be compensated for his time? This sounds like something out of “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”. This is all quite fascinating really.
Actually you know what this is brilliant. This would be a great silly sketch for montey python. Why the NAP is silly.
I don’t even know why I’m defending it when I don’t believe in it.
The reality however is that a free anarchist society, or any productive one for that matter, would not view a young man wasting his time listening to an old fool as a contradiction of his property rights. If the young man had traded money or some other resource yes, fraud might move into the equation. However, I suppose currently we don’t view time as a resource.
Very interesting idea though.
Pruitt- What do you think of my conditions (several posts above) for historical hyperbole? Are there any other conditions you would add to improve the contextual usage of this tactic? I would not like to use this tool erroneously. Thanks. =)
So you support hate speach, Libel, Slander, laws like that? If I make false claims to an audience, whose property rights have been compromised? If say the sky is red and it is blue, what is the just punishment or compensation for that? This is very close to shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one. But what decides this case is the rules and regulations of the person who owns that property. And that is what you seem to be ignoring here.>>>>
not all wrongs are punishable with laws. The effect is the same a devaluing a coin. People will still exchange time for information with you, if only to find out how to shut you up.
However libel and slander can be dealt with by civil court, p.r. Firms, and the nirmal effects of being a known liar.
Lets say you do save one million lives at the cost of one life. Lets say where in a libertarian society, where the family can demand your death if you kill someone (and its proven) or monetary compensation. The outcome is just because either the family gets compensation or your death. Furthermore. lets say the one million lives are children and the cost of one life is a retarded person. I think the family would most likely take compesnation over your death. You see…you see what your ignoring? Your ignoring the context of the society? That how people would treat your actions, and how they would go about punishing you depends on the context.>>>>
humans are not fungible. Also, human lives are not your property to dispense with. Since your scenario doesnt require consent, imagine that you possess one flawless diamond that weighs 10 ounces. I steal it and trade it for 11 one-ounce diamonds and put those back in your safe. If you dont like it you can sue me for the damages.
I am ignoring the punishment because it is irrelevant. There are worse punishments inherent in immoral actions than any government can impose. For example, the loss of one’s appreciation of human life and subsequent self-destruction.
Since your scenario doesnt require consent, imagine that you possess one flawless diamond that weighs 10 ounces. I steal it and trade it for 11 one-ounce diamonds and put those back in your safe. If you dont like it you can sue me for the damages.
Isn’t this the very point I’ve been trying to make all along?
I am ignoring the punishment because it is irrelevant
So to be on the same page, were merely concerned with what is right or wrong? Then I would say that quite a few of these scenerarios have been fuzzy, or grey. Get my drift?
not all wrongs are punishable with laws. The effect is the same a devaluing a coin. People will still exchange time for information with you, if only to find out how to shut you up.
However libel and slander can be dealt with by civil court, p.r. Firms, and the nirmal effects of being a known liar.
Were on the same page here. I was under the false impression that you were equalting morality with societal rules etc. My bad.
Do you believe in intellectual property? How am I stealing the truth component of information? You can’t own information or ideas, they can’t be divided, or locked. They are infinite. What your saying doesn’t apply to the realm of imagination.>>>>
this is not ip, it is fraud. Is labeling a bottle “potable water” and actually mixing poison into it aggression?
You steal the truth component when you write a fiction novel and sell it as biography. People might be “entertained” but they did not intend to purchase a comic book. They wanted a biography.
So in essence your saying the young man traded his time for the old mans words, and old man lied. So the young man wishes to be compensated for his time?>>>>
the compensation is the information gained through conversation. That is why people listen to each other, after all, they care about what they have to say. Remember time preference. they could be working instead of chatting. Also remember that this only applies to deceit. If someone likes hearing your crazy ideas about the moon, they are listening because they like receiving the information. The wrong only occurs when you attempt to provide false information to someone who desires true information and it is not necessary to defend yourself.
Actually you know what this is brilliant. This would be a great silly sketch for montey python. Why the NAP is silly.
I don’t even know why I’m defending it when I don’t believe in it.>>>>
earlier you suggested that aggression was ok sometimes so obviously you do not subscribe to the NAP.
However, I suppose currently we don’t view time as a resource.>>>>
who is “we”? Certainly not austrians.
I suppose but it might be difficult to operate under those assumptions. E.g. how to not violate the 2nd.
If you want to say things like taxation is theft sure you can say that, but consider how effective it will be. As long as your not stepping outside the facts, like fasifying numbers, data, etc then I think its fine.