You’ll make a fine spin doctor one day.
Wonderful.
Explain. Also, do you mean I shouldn’t mention all forms of the cosmological argument?
I think almost everyone prefers to be free from the state, on the condition that those around them will not be free from the state. Some people, it is true, believe that they lack self-control and need structure, but even in that group, most are more comfortable being religious without state compulsion. However, where the question gets interesting is the trade-off: someone can prefer to be free, but prefer a package deal without freedom - that is, the two packages actually presented are frequently: you and everyone else is free, or you and everyone else is controlled. Given those choices, I think most people on some topics prefer not to be free. Most people trust themselves, or at least think they themselves can be trusted, but not their neighbors.
I mean that theists aren’t deists. and if the best you can do is say that something is an ultimate first cause and caused itself (if that even means anything) you aren’t any closer to justifying doctrine, stories about the first cause that you labelled ‘God’ , stuff that he wants you to do, basically any knowledge of God aside from that he is the ultimate first cause requiring no cause having always existed (if that even means anything)
Yeah, I was conflating theism with deism.
It was better with the Seinfeld gag.
Yes, and I’m waiting for your evidence for your claims about me.
No, it’s not. AE uses causal-realism and methodological individualism, not appeal to magic.
I’m in no mood to find that thread where we debated your so-called lack of faith. It was entirely fruitless and long ago. Thankfully, I don’t need it:
causal realism: The view that substantive causal connections exist in reality, as opposed to the reductionist approach of the regularity theory of causation.
Yes, because you kept trying to project your life upon me.
As opposed to appealing to magic.
The causal-realist approach is employed by various theist and deist philosophers; it is how they deduced the cosmological argument. Hume, on the other hand, put forth the regularity theory of causation which was later used by the positivists and empiricists. Positivism, empiricism, and pretty much all atheistic thought is merely a reaction to causal-realism and the a priori method. They separated logic from causality, eliminated the latter, and are now eliminating the former.
When positivists say Austrians use “primitive methodology,” or that they “appeal to mysticism,” they’re really just attacking this approach.
Calling it “magic” doesn’t take us anywhere.
I agree with everything you just said. But some people do benefit from socialist programs right?
Yes, and there are two such situations. One is the bureacrat or government himself, who gains not only materially, but also in terms of his personal fulfillment in gaining power over others. The second is the person outside the government who is enriched by the program. In both cases, isn’t it just an example of a person wanting to be free while others are controlled, but accepting some control? The net-tax-eater would prefer not to be taxed at all while others are taxed and he’s given their money - but he accepts paying some taxes since he gets back more. The net-tax-payer, on the other hand, doesn’t usually figure out that he is such. I think the person who benefits economically is just a special case of what I said. The tiger, rather than taking away his neighbor’s property that he can’t be trusted with, gathers the neighbor’s stuff and gives it to him.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. However, I think the tiger is a part of human nature.
Do you mean the desire for the tiger?
Yes, quite right, the desire for the tiger is what I should’ve said.
Then I can’t say I disagree, or that it contradicts the article. Of course, I’d note that human nature is not unitary nor fixed. It is simply a term for common ways of thinking, and those ways arise both from experience and culture.
I tend to think human nature is fixed but that people can learn to be aware of their nature and more or less reach a level of enlightenment where they can think past their nature. But that asks something of humanity that it doesn’t seem to be capable of. Which is really at the heart of the answer to the OP’s question. Some people are able to resist the allure of the tiger, most people aren’t.
so it’s not fixed according to you maybe, as opposed to what you first said in that post?
This is why I’ve reminded you in the past that “i am a nice person” and you said that you ‘like to think you are too’. I’ve also pointed out the ability to exercise the will to rise above base-level experiences for a more generalized action of peace as I like to point out that’s what I currently do. it’s not fixed because of free choice/will.
Ok, but why should I think that? Your appeal to enlightenment looks to me like an attempt to square the belief that human nature is fixed with observations that tend to run counter to that belief. Wouldn’t it be easier to question that belief? If it is fixed, where did it come from, and what caused it to be fixed?
JAlanKatz,
I don’t have alot of free time at the moment but I would like to address your rebuttals. Perhaps I will start a separate discussion to do this as I don’t want the originator of this discussion to think that I am “highjacking” it.
I am also willing to look at the syllogism I originally employed for flawed structure; It is possible although I don’t think this necessarily takes away from my original response to the question posed. I think the human condition is a much better explanation for why we do the things we do, not just in power but in scope.
Fair enough?
I do appreciate your input.