Most humans do just not feel guilt within a limited range on their families. Most humans also feel guilt even when they harm strangers. In addition, evolutionary psychologists argue that humans have a hardwired instinct to feel remorse after they have harmed someone.
[:)]Yes Rothbard is talking about ethics (thus morality) and in that same strain of thought Rothbard discusses in his “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Enomonic Thought” in the same way Aristotle does:
"Man, in the famous Aristotelian phrase, is uniquely therational animal — the species that uses reason to adopt values and ethical principles, and that acts to attain these ends. Man acts; that is, he adopts values and purposes, and chooses the ways to achieve them.
Man, therefore, in seeking goals and ways to attain them, must discover and work within the framework of the natural law: the properties of himself and of other entities and the ways in which they may interact."
By working within this “framework” the good and/or bad is discovered. Happiness (desire, pleasantness, quality) is the telos. There is wiggle room in our actions due to free-will.
Again, you may not want to admit this, but might does make possible. I have asked a lawyer about this, I don’t think she really understood the question, but at the end, she basically said that “unless an action is against the law and can be punished in accordance with the law, it’s not a crime if someone commits it.” I’m paraphrasing really, I should’ve written down what she said.
They can be contended. In a court of law. Not by you in your backyard, but you can bring suit against the state.
I do, and so do you.
At which point it will be judged. By employees of…the State. No conflict of interest there…
Well, they are wrong. Guilt has nothing to do with any social interactions I want to be a part of. People try to guilt me all the time by telling me I’m heartless, well maybe they’re just pathetic. Guilt is a feeling no one should ever feel. I get told that what I do is wrong because someone else thinks so? No. I reject guilt and remorse. I accept responsibility for my actions instead.
Correct, morality doesn’t stop anyone, man can act in a way he should not. Stealing might be efficient in the short term true enough, but nature has rewarded the men who have long term goals not short term ones. For example, the fishing pole is quite a long term goal, but damn is it rewarding. Stealing, murder and the like are the choosing of short term rewards at the cost of long term survivability. Bottom line murder and stealing are not preferred evolutionary strategies. Likewise just “getting things done” is not all that goes into our reward calculation is it. What if I wanted a fishing pole at the cost of my left arm, would that be a wise decision still?
You are making morality into something its not. There is no universal moral code. Morality has nothing to do with what is and is not allowed, everything is allowed. There are things you “should” not do, that is morality. But you can still do them. Morality - the way a man should act. Its not any more complicated than that. The is ought dilemma is the thing you are struggling with, and I was attempting to clear it up for you. There is nothing about what is (the current state of reality) that says what should be. The only way you get from is to ought is with a goal in mind.
Here is my simple example, the nature of reality is that I’m hungry, I “should” eat. That is morality. Don’t make it something it isn’t thats what states and religions do.
Different judges want different things. For instance, the Supreme Court is full of people who believe in limited government and the power of the Constitution. For instance, Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative judges. Also Roberts and Alito. Kennedy has been the swing vote for a long time, and even with Souter gone, you’ve still got a very conservative court. If Obama has his way, you’ll get a bunch of liberal judges who believe the Constitution is just a dead piece of paper that doesn’t matter. So you see, it’s supposed to be our job to make sure that Conservatives get elected as president so they can elect conservative judges to the Supreme Court.
Oh noes, a lawyer agreed with you! Un problemo senor, a lawyer is not a philosopher. She was not making a moral argument or a immoral argument. All she was saying is that if you can get away with it it is, in a sense, not illegal. However, she makes no claims about morality or the lack there of.
I don’t eat because it would be “immoral” not to, I eat because if I don’t, I’ll die eventually. Also, being hungry is uncomfortable. Morality never enters the picture. And the fact that you’ve annexed the word "should’ as an indicator of moral imperative shows to me how far you’re reaching to find some shred of morality in man’s existence. But you won’t find it. We do what we do because we want to. Not because someone else wants us to.
Well, what I took this to mean was that morality is not a very strong glue. In other words, I can commit “moral crimes” all day but nothing happens to me. So why shouldn’t I commit “moral crimes?” There needs to be a strong disincentive like the promise of pain or force to keep most humans in line. This is why governments evolved. That’s really what governments do. They say “these are the rules, anyone who punishes them and is caught and proved to have broken them will suffer undesirable consequences.” They are a tool men use to keep other men in some semblance of order. Anarchists, I believe, will find extreme disorder in their system. That’s why I don’t want it. You ask “well, what keeps men working so amicably in a market?” I say it’s because it’s in their interests to. But it wouldn’t be if everyone knew that they could do whatever they wanted without SERIOUS fear of consequence. Private courts don’t represent that kind of consequence. Public courts do. Has anyone here ever been to court? It’s intimidating. Very very intimidating.
They are still hired by big government conservatives like Bush. While they may be marginally better than the dirty pinkos they would still be ill-suited to judge the crimes of the Bush administration against Americans (we’ll stick with that). Would they rule the Fed unconstitutional? The FDA? Welfarism? Torture?
Conservative is a relatvistic pose that changes in relation to liberalism. A conservative 70 years ago would have proposed the elimination of welfare and progressivism. The libertarian would have agreed. Now slowly conservatives have wimped out on this claim. Only a fearless and morally consistent anarchist libertarianism can be counted on to stand against the depredations of the State consistently no matter what.
Psst…the constitution is dead. Face it. The imperialists, progressivists, imperialists and a gaggle of other State expansionists have killed it by reinterpreting it over and over again. Nothing your wannabe conservative judges can do can resuscitate it. It means nothing now. It protects you from nothing now.
I’ve just said that the government has a strong argument for interfering in the market if they can interfere, theoretically, with people lives and property. Now, the more I’m thinking about this, the more I’m realizing it may be a fair price to pay. The question to me becomes: “to what degree should the government be able to interfere?” This, ofcourse, is arguable. I say very little.
Really? Why wouldn’t private courts represent that kind of consequence? Aside from the Stirnerite stuff you have never made a good case for this. If the free market is greater than the State at providing food why would it not be better at punishing those who steal our stuff or break contracts or murder or what have you?
“Very little” is vague. Please offer some argument about why a government could interfer instead of just asserting it. In what fields can government interfer in your opinion?
Or, you know, maybe he’s a sociopath? Someone incapable of feeling empathy, and lacking that innate aversion to violence that most humans feel?
"Dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organizationby the following criteria:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations."
Also, if you’re not interested in ethics, there are defenses of anarchism as the most efficient system. Start here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
Especially David Friedman’s book. The awnsers are not all on this forum, and this is not a gathering of the world’s greatest philosophers. Go do some reading and then come back with more specific objections, ones that have not been awnsered in length by the authors mentioned above.
-
Yes, I believe the court would rule against welfare even now with so many conservatives on the bench. I don’t think that’s the issue most people are thinking about and I believe the court would rather let the legislature worry about it because of how emotionally charged an issue it is. The same goes for all your other concerns. The Fed is something the Congress needs to deal with. Torture, in my opinion, is very easy to define. And it’s clear to me that some of what was done by us was torture, and some of it wasn’t. Waterboarding isn’t really…pulling nails out and sticking hot pokers in your skin. I mean I saw Chris Hutchins go through it…it looked horribly uncomfortable but the fact that he was even willing to try it makes me realize…it’s not torture. He wouldn’t volunteer to have his teeth pulled out one by one, would he? I have no thoughts on the FDA.
-
Who is your fearless anarchist working to fix things now? I can’t think of any one representative (in any government branch) who goes as far as you guys do. Why do you think that is? I think it’s because no one wants those people in charge. I mean…Ron Paul is hardcore conservative and he gets massive blowback at the RNC. What do you think an anarchist would get? Booed off the stage. And the democrats don’t want an anarchist either because they’re really the labor party. Anarchist Libertarians live in a world where they are entirely isolated from the rest of the population by their ideas. That’s why no one lets them make choices for other people.
-
I beg to differ, I believe the Constitution is alive and well in the people who believe in it. It’s dead to some and alive to others, and we need to elect the people to whom it’s still very much alive. And by alive, I don’t mean that it should be changed, just honored.
Nonsense, I prefer non violence. I just don’t rule violence out. I’ve said several times now I have a heightened sense of empathy which makes me immune to sympathy. Sympathy is to look down on people, which I don’t make a habit of doing. It’s also to forgive them for their stupid mistakes, which I don’t like to do. Empathy is to look them in the eyes and be able to say “you got yourself here, I know this because I understand you and your decisions.”
Dear god! Jacob, I expected higher of you! Would you except this argument from a leftist who said that all taxation is justified because you are only paying for what you get?
The fact that government is a monopoly that you have no choice in supporting is why it is both “inefficient” and “messy” in your terms and why I also believe it is immoral. But let’s ignore that. I assume you understand STV. Without competition and the revealing of subjective value there is an economic order that can’t calculate. Socialized courts are just as inefficient and messy as socialized shoes, if not more so. The fact that you have yet to realize this is a pity, as you are an intelligent fellow who would be a great asset to the cause of liberty and civilization if he would only follow his own logic consistently.
Tragic, really.