My Philosophical Basics

[WorldIsMine]

I should explain my foundational positions beforehand so as to avoid confusion and arguments where we're using the same word for two different things:
1. I am a Neo-Aristotilean. I completely reject the possibility of reason without accepting the laws of logic as a foundation. To me this contains the following: a. An understanding of the basic implications of these laws, IE what is a valid argument and what it must contain and b. a general understanding of fallacies, and what is not a valid argument and what an argument may not contain.
2. I am an rational, amoral anti-ideologue in the vein of Stirner, though with a good more classical argumentation, like axioms and syllogisms, to establish why egoism is rational and the only rational position. Despite his sometimes bizarre and often hyperbolic style, Stirner nonetheless comes clear as having an almost perfectly rational and coherent idea of egoism from an Aristotilean argumentation perspective.
3. I accept the Misesian/Rothbardian school of Austrian economics because I believe that methodological individualism is a logically corellary with both of the positions of 1 & 2. I view a totally free market as the most productive possible situation for all social human beings.
4. I am NOT a libertarian. I am an anarchist in the sense that I reject all authority (and thus the authority of the State), but I do not advocate anything as particular to justice or morality - I reject both of these concepts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. I am a Neo-Aristotilean. I completely reject the possibility of reason without accepting the laws of logic as a foundation. To me this contains the following: a. An understanding of the basic implications of these laws, IE what is a valid argument and what it must contain and b. a general understanding of fallacies, and what is not a valid argument and what an argument may not contain.

Cool. I regard myself as a neo-Aristotelian as well.

2. I am an rational, amoral anti-ideologue in the vein of Stirner, though with a good more classical argumentation, like axioms and syllogisms, to establish why egoism is rational and the only rational position.

What do you mean by calling yourself an "amoral anti-ideologue"?

BTW, I'm an ethical egoist in a eudaimonistic sense. I find plenty to agree with in Aristotle, various neo-Aristotelians such as David Norton, and Ayn Rand.

3. I accept the Misesian/Rothbardian school of Austrian economics because I believe that methodological individualism is a logically corellary with both of the positions of 1 & 2. I view a totally free market as the most productive possible situation for all social human beings.

Cool, I would like a totally free market as well, although not so much for considerations of economic theory, though certainly I appreciate the efforts of free market economists. I tend to see free markets as most in harmony with the efforts of individuals to flourish, and not just because the free market produces the cheapest television sets.

4. I am NOT a libertarian. I am an anarchist in the sense that I reject all authority (and thus the authority of the State), but I do not advocate anything as particular to justice or morality - I reject both of these concepts.

I am roughly a libertarian, though I prefer the term "Aristotelian liberal". I was at one time an anarchocapitalist, however for various reasons I now favor constitutional republics. I consider ideologies to be useful tools in that understanding reality is useful, and tend to see them in this spirit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WorldIsMine]

amoral anti-ideologue

Ideology is, as I define it, the view of something as possessing intrinsic value or authority. Morality would simply be a subset or component of ideologies. As all values and regard come from an individuals own judgment, the idea that something could be superior to my own judgment and values is really nonsensical.

I tend to see free markets as most in harmony with the efforts of individuals to flourish, and not just because the free market produces the cheapest television sets.

The Austrian position would be that these two things are coequal, people are allowed to make their own choices and the market coordinates exchanges between people. Thus a cheap television and more free time to spend arguing online are both aspects of the market's productivity and the equivalent individual freedom of action, each is possible because of the other.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As all values and regard come from an individuals own judgment, the idea that something could be superior to my own judgment and values is really nonsensical.

When you say that nothing is superior to your own judgment, do you mean that you can't be mistaken in your judgment?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WorldIsMine]

When you say that nothing is superior to your own judgment, do you mean that you can't be mistaken in your judgment?

No, I may be correct or incorrect in my assessment of things, but as values are intrinsic to valuing observers and not objects or situations in themselves. Neither ice cream nor natural rights have any power to compel me or unilaterally determine 'goodness', any goodness I grant to ice cream is do to my own values of it. Since morality-ideology posits commands or values independent of the observer it is reduced to nothing but question-begging.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, I may be correct or incorrect in my assessment of things

Good to hear.

Neither ice cream nor natural rights have any power to compel me or unilaterally determine 'goodness', any goodness I grant to ice cream is do to my own values of it.

Let's say that someone were to tell you that taking a moderate dose of vitamins every day was good for you, and not simply because you happened to desire vitamins. How would you respond?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WorldIsMine]

Let's say that someone were to tell you that taking a moderate dose of vitamins every day was good for you, and not simply because you happened to desire vitamins. How would you respond?

I would presume he meant that it improved my health, and that I valued my health to some extent. Which is true enough, thus (by proper use of the word, amorally) vitamins might very well be good for me. But they are not good absolutely. It is an ontological good. On their part it is nothing but a combination of their perception of technical facts and expectations of my valuations.

 

[platzapS]

3. I accept the Misesian/Rothbardian school of Austrian economics because I believe that methodological individualism is a logically corellary with both of the positions of 1 & 2. I view a totally free market as the most productive possible situation for all social human beings.

Why is "productive" the term you use to praise the system? Why is it a better standard than happiness, or the alleviation of suffering?

 

[WorldIsMine]

Why is "productive" the term you use to praise the system? Why is it a better standard than happiness, or the alleviation of suffering?

Markets and prices allow coordination of human behaviour toward the production of things that people value. Markets (including all voluntary exchanges) are, in fact, the only situation in which you can say that everybody gains since nobody would participate if he did not.
The essence of my support of the market is the fact that I am in support of civilization, which not only rests upon the market but is for all intents and purposes civilization itself.

 

[Im_A]

I should explain my foundational positions beforehand so as to avoid confusion and arguments where we're using the same word for two different things:
1. I am a Neo-Aristotilean. I completely reject the possibility of reason without accepting the laws of logic as a foundation. To me this contains the following: a. An understanding of the basic implications of these laws, IE what is a valid argument and what it must contain and b. a general understanding of fallacies, and what is not a valid argument and what an argument may not contain.
2. I am an rational, amoral anti-ideologue in the vein of Stirner, though with a good more classical argumentation, like axioms and syllogisms, to establish why egoism is rational and the only rational position. Despite his sometimes bizarre and often hyperbolic style, Stirner nonetheless comes clear as having an almost perfectly rational and coherent idea of egoism from an Aristotilean argumentation perspective.
3. I accept the Misesian/Rothbardian school of Austrian economics because I believe that methodological individualism is a logically corellary with both of the positions of 1 & 2. I view a totally free market as the most productive possible situation for all social human beings.
4. I am NOT a libertarian. I am an anarchist in the sense that I reject all authority (and thus the authority of the State), but I do not advocate anything as particular to justice or morality - I reject both of these concepts.

welcome

thanks for your explaination of your views. whenever someone goes into great detail about one's views, i'm always curious to know the background of the person's prior beliefs. i believe that a person prior's beliefs lead them to their beliefs that they presently hold, whether for the prior beliefs or against the prior beliefs. so if you could/want to, feel free to share what your beliefs were prior to all of this.

as far as me:

in terms of God-somewhere between pragmatic agnostic and ignostic.
pragmatic agnostic or apathetic agnostic because, i don't believe the existence of God is vital for our existence. i don't see how existence would change from as it is as we see it today if God would exist or if God didn't exist. thus is it is a very pedantic aspect of our existence to me. i like reading and searching about ideas of "God" but at the same, my apathetic agnosticism, or the kinder version, pragmatic agnosticism is pretty concrete now.

ignostic because there is no one definition of God that theists, deists, atheists, agnostics base their view upon to make their desicion. its all very humanistic and differing from one's experiences in this existence. so until we all can agree to one definition of what "God" means, i see the debate as useless and pointless to even try to debate about. i see in all actuality the debate about what is the definition of God as a more logical debate and a more productive debate in terms of God's existence as the actual existence or use of that "being's" existence.


in terms of morality-deontology in the style of Kant.

for a quick explaination here's an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics#Immanuel_Kant this describes my views of morality to a tee.

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

• Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
• Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

in terms of politics-liberal democrat(not meaning Democratic US party), but in a perfect world, i'd be a libertarian socialist. but i don't like basing my ideals in the hope of a perfect world. i see democracy as the best and most realistic form of government known today and thus i support that. i'm a liberal democratic(note this does not automatically mean i apply liberalism to my political views), because i believe in representation for all people, but when the majority gets the rule which oppresses the minority, i become outraged and believe that things must change if we are to be a true and pure democratic government. in terms US political parties, i find myself leaning more towards the Democratic party.

in terms of economics-i don't adhere to a specific school of thought. i think personally that the economical structure should be about balancing out the positive economical needs and the normative economical needs. and that may be the goal of all schools of thoughts and i don't know what the schools of thought are and what they teach. for me, the most important aspect of economics is how it affects the country and the world i live in but also making sure it is balanced out with ethical behavior and what it does to our enviroment.

my background-became a Christian when i was 12, and walked away from the faith as of last year. i never really adhered to a specific theological school of thought. i always seemed to be trying to seek for the ultimate truth in Christianity. the basics aren't enough. for something to be ultimate truth, has to touch all areas of life and existence. so i was in between churches throughout the entire time, and then church went stalemate quite a bit off and on after i got older. this thread isn't about that, so i'll keep that for another day but that's just a brief history.

hope your enjoying this forum as well as the other parts of CF.

 

[platzapS]

I believe in objective reality, and that things exist outside our perceptions. For philosophy to be useful, it should be informed by scientific knowledge when possible.

I believe that reason is the only reliable way to find truth. Faith is worthless as a source of knowledge.

I base my ethics on reason and compassion/alleviation of suffering. I generally subscribe to some form of utilitarianism, although I admit that can break down in certain circumstances.

In politics, I favor republicanism/liberal democracy, in which leaders are chosen by election with universal adult suffrage. This makes leaders more accountable to the people in most cases. The best model for government is that of a social compact. Unpopular views and minority rights must be protected, regardless of the will of the majority. However, I am open to different systems, and I think benevolent liberal dictatorship is probably better than a conservative/majoritarian democracy.

I do not believe any system of economics is inherently moral or immoral; I care about the alleviation of suffering. In practice, I think a market economy with social welfare is best because it allows for freedom of innovation and the efficiency of the market (thus alleviating suffering now and for future generations), but allows everyone a basic standard of living that prevents anyone from having to live in wretched conditions.

I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[WorldIsMine]

I have always been a strongly logic-and-science oriented person, an individualist and a moral nihilist. My view of politics have gone from authoritarian dictatorship to anti-state, as I discovered that the government is not in fact what people believe it to be but is quite the opposite.

 

[Im_A]

I have always been a strongly logic-and-science oriented person, an individualist and a moral nihilist. My view of politics have gone from authoritarian dictatorship to anti-state, as I discovered that the government is not in fact what people believe it to be but is quite the opposite.

i've never met one person that has a good thought about authoritarian dicatorship. maybe your around a different type of crownd than i.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Authoritarian dictatorships are the logical conclusion of government. If one accepts the logic of any state interference with private property, it can be extrapolated ad infinitum into totalitarian/authoritarian statism. This is why I have more respect for Nazi ideas than I do for the mixed-economy democrats (in a non-partisan sense, IE most parties in the West). Nazis, at least, are consistent and honest.

 

[platzapS]

Authoritarian dictatorships are the logical conclusion of government. If one accepts the logic of any state interference with private property, it can be extrapolated ad infinitum into totalitarian/authoritarian statism. This is why I have more respect for Nazi ideas than I do for the mixed-economy democrats (in a non-partisan sense, IE most parties in the West). Nazis, at least, are consistent and honest.

I don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing deal.

 

[WorldIsMine]

I don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing deal.

Most people don't. But the fact is that voluntarism works or it doesn't. You can not logically divide things like 'drugs' and 'welfare', nor 'electricity' and 'Pepsi' in terms of their economic relationships. Their economic status is derived entirely from the subjective, personal value that people attach to them. Yet this is precisely what laws on oil, tariffs on motorcycles, prohibition of private protection etc. are. You can't rationally say that control of one industry or activity within a person's life will be beneficial and it will not be in another area. In fact, you can not even define an 'industry' in economic-legal terms in any meaningful way.

 

[acropolis]

I am NOT a libertarian. I am an anarchist in the sense that I reject all authority (and thus the authority of the State), but I do not advocate anything as particular to justice or morality - I reject both of these concepts.

there is no human existance compatible with total anarchy. even the most basic hunter/gatherer communities still require a social power structure to function. the human being is a pretty weak animal all by itself; it is only through mutual cooperation that we have thrived as a species. unless by rejecting all authority you simply mean you'd prefer to be in charge.

 

[Vigilante]

I may be able to help...

I don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing deal.

Though I have my differences with his metaethics, I'll quote Murray Rothbard:

By virtue of being a man, he [any human being] must use his mind to adopt ends and means; if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function. In short, an aggressor interposes violence to thwart the natural course of a man's freely adopted ideas and values, and to thwart his actions based upon such values.

and

[...] there are only two paths for man to acquire property and wealth: production or coercive expropriation. Or, as the great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer perceptively put it, there are only two means to the acquisition of wealth. One is the method of production, generally followed by voluntary exchange of such products: this is what Oppenheimer called the economic means. The other method is the unilateral seizure of the products of another: the expropriation of another man's property by violence. This predatory method of getting wealth Oppenheimer aptly termed the political means.

Now the man who seizes another's property is living in basic contradiction to his own nature as a man. For we have seen that man can only live and prosper by his own production and exchange of products. The aggressor, on the other hand, is not a producer at all but a predator; he lives parasitically off the labor and product of others. Hence, instead of living in accordance with the nature of man, the aggressor is a parasite who feeds unilaterally by exploiting the labor and energy of other men. Here is clearly a complete violation of any kind of universal ethic, for man clearly cannot live as a parasite; parasites must have non-parasites, producers, to feed upon. The parasite not only fails to add to the social total of goods and services, he depends completely on the production of the host body. And yet, any increase in coercive parasitism decreases ipso facto the quantity and the output of the producers, until finally, if the producers die out, the parasites will quickly follow suit.

It doesn't have to be an "all-or-nothing" thing. Obviously, there's no sense in equivocating the limited government of our original Constitutional Republic with our current Big Brother mess. They are different.

On the other hand, we must be clear: both are possible because of the prevailing public belief that some people (Rothbard calls them "parasites") may rightfully initiate unprovoked force upon others and seize their goods. Once this general principle is accepted, only the provisos differ. And, of course, the provisos are always amendable.

The plausibility of the "all-or-nothing" remark may be obtained in one of two ways. First is the recognition that initial, 'sensible' provisos of restraint on the principle of Rightful Initiations of Force nearly always morph, in due time, to facilitators of de facto Super States. This is the nifty amendment process that led the American Revolution, some 220-odd years later, to the Patriot Act.

Limited government --> Time + Amended Provisos --> Big Brother (or revolution).

And second, "all-or-nothing" may be understood as the ethical alternatives of an ascent to Rightful Initiations of Force on principle (whatever its proposed provisos) or the denial thereof. A or not-A. RIF or not-RIF.

Or, as Rothbard would have put it, Parasites or not-Parasites.

The choice is yours.

even the most basic hunter/gatherer communities still require a social power structure to function.

[...] it is only through mutual cooperation that we have thrived as a species.

The individualist anarchist would say that these two proposals are in fact describing opposite directions. Mutual cooperation is impossible for X and Y in every instance where Z thwarts it with force. Thus, by abolishing the State--which is our social power structure, or 'Z'--we have rid ourselves of the individuals (Rothbard: "parasites") who would seek to sabotage our mutual cooperation via force or the standing threats thereof.

For example, if you and I wish to exchange (1) basket of peaches for $2.99 and the State claims we can't due to their imposition of a price floor, doing so anyway invites the State's subsequent act of fining or imprisoning you or me (or both), therefore thwarting our mutual cooperation.

The Great Depression may be pulled from myriad examples of this principle. The State, at this time, wanting to 'save' the jobs of farmers from--in their estimation--'too-low' prices imposed some price floors on agricultural goods. The result? Well, the farmers couldn't sell their own goods to their satisfaction. The artificial price was too high for their goods to clear the market. And given that farmers must either sell, throw away, or pay continuing storage costs for their wares, many farmers elected, quite rationally, to simply throw them away. Some were even seen in New York City tossing produce into trash cans and pouring fresh milk down sewer drains while families scrounging for crumbs lived just the next neighborhood down.

But why not toss the milk? The farmers would rather have lowered their own prices to sell at a partial loss, of course, but the State, having prevented that mutual cooperation via the price floor, more or less condemned their options to trashing their goods, paying the search-related costs of finding people to give them to, or committing the 'crime' of selling milk at a price--mutually agreed upon!--that was lower than what the State thought was reasonable at that time. I remember reading this story either in Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy or Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson. I can't remember which. A sad story, though.

I'm a big fan of mutual cooperation. :]

 

[acropolis]

The individualist anarchist would say that these two proposals are in fact describing opposite directions. Mutual cooperation is impossible for X and Y in every instance where Z thwarts it with force. Thus, by abolishing the State--which is our social power structure, or 'Z'--we have rid ourselves of the individuals (Rothbard: "parasites") who would seek to sabotage our mutual cooperation via force or the standing threats thereof.

The 'parasites' that Rothbard decries are the basis for all of civilization. Every factory needs a boss, and that boss needs authority in order for the factory to function. Rothbard also seems to have no idea how humans behave when they don't have to worry about being punished by the 'parasites' of the State. If you'd like a modern example of what happens in the absence of political authority, see the recent state of Somalia, it is truly an anarcho-capitalist paradise. Not to imply that the State is never a negative social and economic force, but they are necessary for society to function at anything more organized than tribalism.

For example, if you and I wish to exchange (1) basket of peaches for $2.99 and the State claims we can't due to their imposition of a price floor, doing so anyway invites the State's subsequent act of fining or imprisoning you or me (or both), therefore thwarting our mutual cooperation.

The Great Depression may be pulled from myriad examples of this principle. The State, at this time, wanting to 'save' the jobs of farmers from--in their estimation--'too-low' prices imposed some price floors on agricultural goods. The result? Well, the farmers couldn't sell their own goods to their satisfaction. The artificial price was too high for their goods to clear the market. And given that farmers must either sell, throw away, or pay continuing storage costs for their wares, many farmers elected, quite rationally, to simply throw them away. Some were even seen in New York City tossing produce into trash cans and pouring fresh milk down sewer drains while families scrounging for crumbs lived just the next neighborhood down.

But why not toss the milk? The farmers would rather have lowered their own prices to sell at a partial loss, of course, but the State, having prevented that mutual cooperation via the price floor, more or less condemned their options to trashing their goods, paying the search-related costs of finding people to give them to, or committing the 'crime' of selling milk at a price--mutually agreed upon!--that was lower than what the State thought was reasonable at that time. I remember reading this story either in Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy or Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson. I can't remember which. A sad story, though.

I'm a big fan of mutual cooperation. :]

Yes, price controls are ineffective at protecting the weak, but that does not mean the State is nothing but a detriment to society. It's also a bit odd to use Sowell to buttress an argument for individualist anarchism, since he rejects ideological dogma in favor of a pragmatic, evidentiary approach to economics. The vast difference between what anarchists claim will happen when the State is dismantled, and what actually happens (See: Somalia), would make anarchism an unconstrained vision of humanity, to use Sowell's categorization. He is not a fan of unconstrained visions of humanity, and with good reason, given the disparity between dogma and actual results.

There isn't anything new or revolutionary about the basic tenet of individualist anarchism that states that everyone should be able to do whatever they want without anyone else getting in the way. That amounts to looking out for number one, which is what everyone does anyway. Individualist anarchism makes the jump from merely banal to outright absurd, however, when it states that it is possible for everyone in society to function without ever doing a single thing for or because of anyone else. 100% self determination only happens when a person is 100% alone, which is 100% impossible to maintain, what with humans being social creatures.

 

[Vigilante]

Acropolis:



I should mention right off the bat that I seriously botched my last post. I spoke of mutual cooperation in the context of anarcho-capitalism, claimed myself a big fan of mutual cooperation--the implication-by-relation being that I support anarcho-capitalism--and on top of that there was that big, fat user bar in my signature that said "anarcho-capitalist."

I hope you'll believe me when I say that I actually haven't considered myself an anarcho-capitalist or, more broadly, an individualist anarchist, for a long time! The userbar that was in my signature was really old, and you’ve given me the motivation to change it. Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, I agreed with almost everything you said (and I see you read Sowell's A Conflict of Visions, too). :]

I will mention a couple of small points, though, to be fair to the an-caps, as I have quite a bit of personal experience with them (as I'm sure you do).

The 'parasites' that Rothbard decries are the basis for all of civilization. Every factory needs a boss, and that boss needs authority in order for the factory to function.

I doubt any an-cap has referred to their boss as a parasite. The Friedmanite minority notwithstanding, virtually all an-caps are Rothbardians, and virtually all Rothbardians (perhaps by definition?) are Austrian economists. AE'ers would claim that corporate bosses represent the entrepreneur function of an economy, and not only are these entrepreneurs not parasites, but they are fundamentally essential to the functioning of modern economies. I agree with them here.


The employer-employee relationship, for the Rothbardian, is a voluntary one, and refers to the absence of physical coercion (the E-E relationship being, basically by definition, contractual). Rothbard’s 'parasites' are those who take from others via coercion, and are defined by non-contractual exchanges or seizures. So the bosses aren't included. ("Voluntary" can be debated, but I won't step in that mud pile right now.)


Again, though, I agree that without the mass public acceptance of these 'parasites,' modern civilization as we know it would disappear practically overnight. I harbor no politico-revolutionary motives or cocktail bombs. :]

If you'd like a modern example of what happens in the absence of political authority, see the recent state of Somalia, it is truly an anarcho-capitalist paradise.

Here the anarcho-capitalist might invoke some very controversial (certainly incomplete) data:


http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060423_lynn.htm


Assuming this theory is correct, it should be relatively understandable why anarcho-capitalism would fail in Somalia. An anarcho-capitalist society would undoubtedly be even more complex than current European constitutional democracies on account of its competing private law firms, competing arbitration firms for the appeals of those law firms, a necessary understanding by the public-at-large of the principles of homesteading and negative externalities, etc.


I do not advocate any 'usefulness' or even any correctness of that data. However, given that it has been presented as a possibility, the Western an-cap has the option of an argument-from-societal-complexity, or something similar.

Now that being said, even if we assume that the data presented correlates strongly with reality, I still think so-called, would-be 'genetically ideal' Japanese or British an-cap societies would sink faster than their current, actual forms. Like you and Sowell, I doubt any large human society could function without a Head.


Again, I want to emphasize that I do not advocate any correctness of that data. Grains of salt, gentlemen.