Why don't human beings desire liberty?

[Omega]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Omega

Notice that in my original question to you whether you believed the idea or concept of freedom rose from a vacuum or is of human construct. You answered ‘human construct’ without considering other possibilities.

Look at the first example. It’s not even plausible to believe the idea rose from a vacuum.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

You’re not seriously trying a form of presuppositionalism, are you? Seriously? A Cartesian variant, which itself is an Anselmian variant? Seriously?

@Omega

Yes, I most certainly am. Why do you ask?

Partially to confirm something I’d suspected (that it’s a good possibility that you’re somehow connected with Gene Cook), and partially to point out what I just did, viz. that it’s a variant of a refuted form.

I do not know who Gene Cook is.

What exactly is the refutation? Is the argument I presented invalid or unsound?

[Solreyus]

@Aster_Lacnala

Most people desire only as much liberty as they can get without compromising their security. It isn’t that they don’t want liberty - they just want other things more.

This is actually an excellent point. People, mostly due to indoctrination, cannot fathom how security could be provided without a state. To stop paying taxes, etc. they would need to be assured of at least fairly good protection for themselves and their family. This is why agorism is so important in stressing the development of market provided security and other institutions to a) prove to people that alternatives to coercion exist and b) protect them from a state which will grow increasingly violent as people engage in civil disobedience. After that, as the violent nature of the state is revealed (when threats of violence turn to actual violence), people who were complacent and apathetic before will be outraged (read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

But it all has to start with entrepreneurs…

Edit: Wow, didn’t see how long this thread had grown.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Omega

I do not know who Gene Cook is.

Ok then. But originally using the handle “Unchained” and being a presupper, there’s a good chance of that Unchained being Unchained Radio. Please take care to not let it be shown that you’re being less than truthful about not knowing Gene Cook.

@Omega

What exactly is the refutation?

That it’s a form of a refuted argument of a refuted argument. Presup just re-words Decartes’ perfect being argument (i.e. the concept of perfection needs to come from some being external to humans, which the presuppers change to logic/reason/truth/science/etc needs to come from some being external to humans), which itself is based upon Anselm’s ontological argument. Clear enough?

[laminustacitus]

@Esuric

Society affects the individual, but so does other external phenomena. For example, people in California fear earthquakes, and this too alters their behaviors.

Again, conveniently overlooking my post on social psychology:

@laminustacitus

@Esuric

@laminustacitus

And yet you cleanly avoid the issue of mob behavior, and group-think as if they are not real things.

How does this explain your position?

It does not explain my position, but rather they show that there is something very instinctive about society, and the human need to be in society. For instance, take Asch’s conformity experiments in which college students were asked about the length of lines (which bloomj31 has already cited and yet nobody has bothered commenting upon even though strongly corroborates almost to the point of proving the thesis that both of us are making). When individuals were answered the questions alone they erred less than 1% of the time. However, when others (all confederates of the experimenter) had already answered incorrectly, one-third of the time they went along with the group answer and were, in the words of Asch, “willing to call white black.” Furthermore, have you ever heard of Stanley Milgram’s frightening experiments? If you have not, I suggest reading up on them for they are frightening examples of how man has an instinctive nature to fit-in and be part of a group. Furthermore, groupthink, which is a very real phenomenon in social psychology, shows that individuals are willing to moderate their opinions in a decision-making group in order to maintain group harmony. All of these are problems that have been brought up, but you simply ignored in your reply to bloomj36 about society.

[laminustacitus]

@Hayek

It may be an exaggeration to assert, as a modern anthropologist has done, that “it is not man who controls culture but the other way around”; but it is useful to be reminded by him that “it is only our profound and comprehensive ignorance of the nature of culture that makes it possible for us to believe that we direct and control it.” He suggests at least an important corrective to the intellectualist conception. His reminded will help us to achieve a truer image of the incessant interaction between our conscious striving for what our intellect pictures as achievable and the operations of the institutions, traditions, and habits which jointly often produce something very different from what we have aimed at.

There are two important respects in which the conscious knowledge which guides the individual’s actions constitutes only part of the conditions which enable him to achieve his ends. There is the fact that man’s mind is itself a product of the civilization which he has grown up and that it is unaware of much of the experience which has shaped it - experience that assists it by being embodied in the habits, conventions, language, and moral beliefs which are part of its makeup. Then there is the further consideration that the knowledge which any individual mind consciously manipulates is only a small part of the knowledge which at any one time contributes to the sucess of his actions.

[Omega]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Omega

I do not know who Gene Cook is.

Ok then. But originally using the handle “Unchained” and being a presupper, there’s a good chance of that Unchained being Unchained Radio. Please take care to not let it be shown that you’re being less than truthful about not knowing Gene Cook.

@Omega

What exactly is the refutation?

That it’s a form of a refuted argument of a refuted argument. Presup just re-words Decartes’ perfect being argument (i.e. the concept of perfection needs to come from some being external to humans, which the presuppers change to logic/reason/truth/science/etc needs to come from some being external to humans), which itself is based upon Anselm’s ontological argument. Clear enough?

Knight,

I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m being less than honest about my knowledge of the person and/or work of Gene Cook: I answered it honestly and therefore have no false sense of guilt. Since this is a trivial matter in my mind and I don’t want it to distract from our present or potential future discussions, I am going to let it go.

What I do want to concentrate on is the second part and so I think it’s important to separate the association that you are making between Descarte and Anselm and whatever shortcomings their respective views may have and presuppositions themselves. That is, I think that one can hold presuppositions and not have to embrace all, or even parts of Descarte’s and/or Anselm’s philosophies and still be on solid ground. Would you agree? Please answer this question succinctly. A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice. There are several reasons for me asking this, not the least of which is that you appear to be trying to link my views unnecessarily (since I really haven’t said much in this area, yet) with these two. At minimum you are committing the “genetic fallacy”.

If you want to have an intelligent dialogue with me, I will gladly participate but, I want you to know that I recognize that you personally “throw out” very little for others to go on and then you attack their arguments. This lacks integrity in my opinion and doesn’t make for particularly meaningful discussions. I guess what I’m trying to say is that ANYONE can do this. Is this what you want to do?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Omega

I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m being less than honest about my knowledge of the person and/or work of Gene Cook

There’s no implication at all; simply a statement.

@Omega

What I do want to concentrate on is the second part and so I think it’s important to separate the association that you are making between Descarte and Anselm and whatever shortcomings their respective views may have and presuppositions themselves.

It’s impossible for you to do that, given that what I said is true. And no, I’m not using the genetic fallacy, but you did just use the dial-a-fallacy fallacy. The fact is that anyone who’s taken even an Intro to Philosophy class knows that Descartes’ argument is a variant on Anselm’s. I simply showed the extension of Descartes to presup. No implication as to the entirety of their respective philosophies was given, and as such, you committed a strawman. Surely you want to be taken seriously, don’t you? Then I should think you’d not want to go around using fallacious arguments when you’re all in a huff because someone knows the key to your childish argument.

Do be a good lad and pick your jaw up from the floor.

[Omega]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Omega

I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m being less than honest about my knowledge of the person and/or work of Gene Cook

There’s no implication at all; simply a statement.

@Omega

What I do want to concentrate on is the second part and so I think it’s important to separate the association that you are making between Descarte and Anselm and whatever shortcomings their respective views may have and presuppositions themselves.

It’s impossible for you to do that, given that what I said is true. And no, I’m not using the genetic fallacy, but you did just use the dial-a-fallacy fallacy. The fact is that anyone who’s taken even an Intro to Philosophy class knows that Descartes’ argument is a variant on Anselm’s. I simply showed the extension of Descartes to presup. No implication as to the entirety of their respective philosophies was given, and as such, you committed a strawman. Surely you want to be taken seriously, don’t you? Then I should think you’d not want to go around using fallacious arguments when you’re all in a huff because someone knows the key to your childish argument.

Do be a good lad and pick your jaw up from the floor.

Knight,

A simple reading of your statement clearly shows that you WERE implying that I may be less than honest about my knowledge of Gene Cook. Take it for what it is and let’s move on.

First, what EXACTLY did YOU say? All I see is you ‘parroting’ what you have heard/learned somewhere. What EXACTLY Knight, is YOUR view? Show me in discourse EXACTLY how a person is not reasonably justified in holding to the belief that God exists based on presuppositions.

I notice that you did not answer my question about presuppositions, Knight, so, I will ask you again: Do you deny that presuppositions are, by necessity, employed in various spheres of this thing we call ‘life’?

[Omega]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Omega

I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m being less than honest about my knowledge of the person and/or work of Gene Cook

There’s no implication at all; simply a statement.

@Omega

What I do want to concentrate on is the second part and so I think it’s important to separate the association that you are making between Descarte and Anselm and whatever shortcomings their respective views may have and presuppositions themselves.

It’s impossible for you to do that, given that what I said is true. And no, I’m not using the genetic fallacy, but you did just use the dial-a-fallacy fallacy. The fact is that anyone who’s taken even an Intro to Philosophy class knows that Descartes’ argument is a variant on Anselm’s. I simply showed the extension of Descartes to presup. No implication as to the entirety of their respective philosophies was given, and as such, you committed a strawman. Surely you want to be taken seriously, don’t you? Then I should think you’d not want to go around using fallacious arguments when you’re all in a huff because someone knows the key to your childish argument.

Do be a good lad and pick your jaw up from the floor.

Knight,

FYI, my jawbone is still intact. You haven’t impressed me yet.

[Omega]

Knight,

You are also VERY mistaken re: your attempt to refute my statement that it is important to disassociate Descarte and Anselm from the notion of presuppositions themselves. One can, and WE ALL DO, hold presuppositions and not embrace Descarte or Anselm, you know?

By the way, I checked out Knights of BAWAA and I’m getting a better idea of why you respond the way you do.

[DanielZ]

Notice, you did not ask a question, you instead provided what you thought was an answer. In fact, you considered the answer to the question to be “simple”. Upon further review, it wasn’t so simple, was it?

I still think it is that simple, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be convinced otherwise. I am still open minded. I was partly being facetious by prefacing my answer with ‘easy’, but I have not been convinced otherwise (yet, that is). And my questions were right below!

But there is “selfishness” as you call it. Creating a fantasy world may be OK if you’re writing a novel, but there is a real world out there. I will have to say that I reject your answer.

As I said in my first post, maybe this is a more idealistic answer than the original poster desired, but it still answers the basic question in my mind (“why does society always choose government?”). And it should also be noted that selfishness is different from want and desire. Quickly pulled from the internet, the definition of selfishness is “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others”. Maybe without regard for other’s freedom or liberty?

-Daniel

[Stranger]

@Fred Furash

@Aster_Lacnala

Most people desire only as much liberty as they can get without compromising their security. It isn’t that they don’t want liberty - they just want other things more.

This is actually an excellent point. People, mostly due to indoctrination, cannot fathom how security could be provided without a state. To stop paying taxes, etc. they would need to be assured of at least fairly good protection for themselves and their family. This is why agorism is so important in stressing the development of market provided security and other institutions to a) prove to people that alternatives to coercion exist and b) protect them from a state which will grow increasingly violent as people engage in civil disobedience. After that, as the violent nature of the state is revealed (when threats of violence turn to actual violence), people who were complacent and apathetic before will be outraged (read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

But it all has to start with entrepreneurs…

Edit: Wow, didn’t see how long this thread had grown.

Which brings it back to my point that security and liberty are equivalent.

[Omega]

Well folks, since I want to get this charade out of the way I’m going to spell it out for you: We ALL employ necessary presuppositions every waking moment of every day.

For example, one must hold that the senses are reliable and give accurate information about a mind-independent physical world and not merely information about my successive sense impressions. There is a philosophical dispute among the major schools of thought on this, so it is less than honest for Knight to unequivocally state his terms as ‘fact’. Perhaps he does not know this, I do not know.

Also, we presuppose that the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Thus, we assume that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, that language has meaning, and that truth exists and involves some sort of correspondence between theories and reality. Who among us is willing to throw these things out the window due to their being presuppositional?

There is more that could be said, but this should suffice as a starting point to show that it is unwarranted and fallacious to exempt a belief in God based on presuppositions. Thus, it is incumbent on one to show why one should accept the above mentioned items based on presuppositions, yet not be justified on using presuppositions for belief in God.

Lastly, I have not used Descarte’s or Anselm’s ontological presuppositions and even if I did choose to use parts of them at some point, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God is an impossibility as Knight would have you believe. The truth is, I actually employ a variant of the Kalam Cosmological Argument like William Lane Craig. You can check him or J.P. Moreland out and see for yourselves. I get the distinct impression that one will actually learn more good, useful information from these two examples than from the BAWAA website.

I would like to move on to my own AE education and learning.

Goodbye Knight.

[filc]

@Stranger

Which brings it back to my point that security and liberty are equivalent.

What do you mean by that? as in being the same thing?

[Stranger]

@filc

@Stranger

Which brings it back to my point that security and liberty are equivalent.

What do you mean by that? as in being the same thing?

As in one cannot be enjoyed without the other one.

[filc]

@Omega

I would like to move on to my own AE education and learning.

This is definitely the best way to move forward Omega. Sometimes I think things get a bit too ridiculous and superficial here. I’d rather people research the material and come to their own conclusions. GL!

[wilderness]

Omega,

Just so you know. I believe in God. I have tremendous faith. But I don’t find the need to argue that God exists, etc… I mean part of how I understand God has to do with something unreasonable, ie. faith. I also understand that I can’t know full well when it comes to knowing and thereby talking about God so it’s pointless for me to try to rationalize God completely in a conversation with anybody. Who am I to think I can fully say anything about God. Maybe I lie at times when it comes to God. I don’t know. I think that: ‘I don’t know’ says it best for me. Maybe God is a fiction I’ve created for myself. Maybe I’m duping myself and following along with an idea that is a lie. But I like fairy tales and at times find them enjoyable.

[filc]

@wilderness

Omega,

Just so you know. I believe in God. I have tremendous faith. But I don’t find the need to argue that God exists, etc… I mean part of how I understand God has to do with something unreasonable, ie. faith. I also understand that I can’t know full well when it comes to knowing and thereby talking about God so it’s pointless for me to try to rationalize God completely in a conversation with anybody. Who am I to think I can fully say anything about God. Maybe I lie at times when it comes to God. I don’t know. I think that: ‘I don’t know’ says it best for me. Maybe God is a fiction I’ve created for myself. Maybe I’m duping myself and following along with an idea that is a lie. But I like fairy tales and at times find them enjoyable.

Well said, and I second you.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Omega

A simple reading of your statement clearly shows that you WERE implying that I may be less than honest about my knowledge of Gene Cook.

No, it doesn’t.

@Omega

First, what EXACTLY did YOU say?

Facts.

@Omega

I notice that you did not answer my question about presuppositions

Don’t have to. Not interested in watching you wail and cry about how I’m mean because I won’t let you just define your magic pixie into existence. Nope. Don’t care. Get over yourself and your reduces-to-already-refuted-arguments argument.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Stranger

Which brings it back to my point that security and liberty are equivalent.

One is supported by the other.