Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[PROPAIN]

That's only if they have the same interests that you do. Not everyone cares about long-term material well-being. Some people just want to hurt people and break stuff, and damn the consequences to everyone including themselves. And that's not limited to just psychotics, either. Look at political ideologies such as the neocons'. You can convince them that protectionism is harmful and invading other countries will wreck the economy AND make us less secure, and they will still promote both of those things because they value the idea of "national greatness" more than actual prosperity and security.

It's not that they do not see a harmony between morality and economic prosperity. It's that they just don't care. So how do you tell someone that they should replace their own values system with yours, since they clearly do not share your values? Unless you can say something along the lines of "no matter what you think, it's in your best interest to do x, y, and z because well the Creator of everything, including you, says so", isn't moralizing sort of pretentious?

I suppose I'm only left with the question of why you are trying to reason with the unreasonable.

 

[MacFall]

I don't. That's my point. Arguments from reason for morality only work on the rational and moral. It's pointless to try to convince someone who doesn't think logically or who doesn't believe in morality.

 

[MacFall]

Double post all across the board
So intense

 

[Nilloc]

The way I see it is, once force enters the picture then the application of force for the prevention of harm is permissible under the Golden Rule, if reason and persuasion fail to work, or if you don't have the ability to try.

But do you derive that from the Golden Rule alone?

Especially when there are third parties at stake, at which time you must choose whose interest to look out for.

That I get. I would help protect a third party against aggression because I would want a third party to protect me, thus I would treat them the way I want to be treated. But could the same logic be used when actually using force? Like I use defensive force against someone, because I would want force used against me if I was being aggressive? Not sure if that would make sense . . .

I have heard that Hoppe's argumentative ethics may have overcome the is-ought problem. Since I have found that their are so few moral nihilists out there - coupled with my pervasive lack of motivation - I have not spent enough time looking into Hoppe's work. Hopefully I will remedy this soon as I am making rather slow progress through The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. I know Rothbard was a huge fan of argumentative ethics.

Maybe take a quick gander over this post discussing Hoppean ethics: "Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics: A User Friendly, Neighborly Introduction"

Thanks for the resources (zoink always has his legion library of libertarian links!).

Every sane person has a negative reaction to aggression against them.

But who’s to say what sanity is? Like someone once joked, maybe Tommy Wiseau is in fact a genius film director and we’re all the crazy ones.

I posted this video earlier were this problem is discussed (the sanity thing, not Tommy Wiseau ).

The Reason for the Molyneux Problem - YouTube

 

[MacFall]

But do you derive that from the Golden Rule alone?

Well, no. I think that the Golden Rule does allow for a very limited range of overriding people's own temporal and carnal desires in favor of their eternal and spiritual interests. But I believe that force is never permissible in that regard except for when force has already been brought into the situation by someone else. That I get by combining the logic of the non-aggression principle with the Golden Rule.

Look at it this way: if a person is involved in some self-destructive behavior, it may be proper for someone else to try to convince him to cease in that behavior even if he (the first person) doesn't want to be convinced. The Golden Rule dictates that we must be gentle and respectful in doing so, but it doesn't rule out intervention, even though it strictly limits the way in which intervention should be carried out. The person may thank you later even if he objects at first. In fact, I've had occasion myself to thank people for intervening in my life against my immediate wishes.

The same idea applies to criminals. Most criminals are young men, and few - generally only pathological cases - do not live to regret their past behavior. Once someone initiates force, reason and gentle persuasion may be off the table, though not necessarily. Consistently with the Golden Rule, we can bring force to bear in those cases, so long as the goal is to put a stop to the harmful action, and the means is consistent with that.

I would never try to kill someone in self-defense. I would try to STOP them from committing an act that would be harmful to others, and themselves in spiritual terms. If they die by my hand in the process, so be it. I'll let God judge whether I should be blamed for it.

 

[Nilloc]

I’m about to finish re-listening through The Ethics of Liberty. Two things that it’s gotten me thinking about relate to our recent discussion.

One is Rothbard and Rand’s justification for the NAP; namely I don’t get it. Neither in the The Virtue of Selfishness nor The Ethics of Liberty do they actually try and prove NAP (unless I just completely blanked over it). They really just assert it and that’s it. Can someone help me with this?

The other is the death penalty. Rothbard seems pretty adamant about it and views it as an extension of self-defense. I don’t think anyone can dispute that the death penalty follows logically from the libertarian concept of justice, though my personal beliefs make me question ever employing it. What do you guys think? It’s interesting as well that I think one can make a very good biblical case for the death penalty.

 

[Nilloc]

I’m about to finish re-listening through The Ethics of Liberty. Two things that it’s gotten me thinking about relate to our recent discussion.

One is Rothbard and Rand’s justification for the NAP; namely I don’t get it. Neither in the The Virtue of Selfishness nor The Ethics of Liberty do they actually try and prove NAP (unless I just completely blanked over it). They really just assert it and that’s it. Can someone help me with this?

The other is the death penalty. Rothbard seems pretty adamant about it and views it as an extension of self-defense. I don’t think anyone can dispute that the death penalty follows logically from the libertarian concept of justice, though my personal beliefs make me question ever employing it. What do you guys think? It’s interesting as well that I think one can make a very good biblical case for the death penalty.

Any-pony wanna take a stab at this?

 

[MacFall]

Rothbard only attempted to prove that the NAP was logically consistent with human nature, which is to say, "true". I think he did a pretty good job of that, but as I mentioned before I don't think that proving its logical consistency will ever be any good in convincing someone that they should follow it if they don't want to.

As for the death penalty - I would disagree with Rothbard that it can be seen as an extension of self-defense. As I see it, force against a non-threat is aggression, and a neutralized threat is no threat. A threat consists of both the means and the intent to do harm. If someone has been deprived of the means, their intent doesn't matter; they're still a non-threat. So I don't believe that it is accurate to say that execution is retroactive self-defense or anything like that.

However, per the NAP, it could be considered just to take the life of someone who has actually succeeded in committing murder. The principle of justice that is "an eye for an eye" is still a principle of justice. Eye taken; eye owed. Tooth taken; tooth owed. Life taken; life owed. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but it is just. Keep in mind that Rothbard admits that justice and morality are not equal to each other, though they may overlap.

 

[Nilloc]

Rothbard only attempted to prove that the NAP was logically consistent with human nature, which is to say, "true".

Both he and Rand keep saying that, but I have no idea what they mean.

As for the death penalty - I would disagree with Rothbard that it can be seen as an extension of self-defense. As I see it, force against a non-threat is aggression, and a neutralized threat is no threat. A threat consists of both the means and the intent to do harm. If someone has been deprived of the means, their intent doesn't matter; they're still a non-threat. So I don't believe that it is accurate to say that execution is retroactive self-defense or anything like that.

I agree. I think Jesus would have been againist the death penalty (though admittedly the passages are not rock solid), but I' think it's pretty clear that Paul supported it. That's why I find it weird that liberals will always use what Paul says in Romans 13 as a justification for taxation, when he endorses the death penalty like two verses before it.

However, per the NAP, it could be considered just to take the life of someone who has actually succeeded in committing murder. The principle of justice that is "an eye for an eye" is still a principle of justice. Eye taken; eye owed. Tooth taken; tooth owed. Life taken; life owed. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but it is just. Keep in mind that Rothbard admits that justice and morality are not equal to each other, though they may overlap.

I may start a discussion about this issue on the Christian libertarian FB page. I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not Jesus's discussion in Matt. 5 about and eye for an eye would rule out the death penalty. I've heard good interpretations both ways.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Personally, I think the death penalty is consistent with libertarian principles, but many things are that may not be wise, prudent or moral. And where we are right now in the US? I don't think the death penalty is a good idea. We've had way too many false convictions to take away the possibility of exonerating and releasing an innocent person when that's discovered.

There's a Christian Libertarian FB page? I didn't know that. I'll go look for it.

 

[Nilloc]

There's a Christian Libertarian FB page? I didn't know that. I'll go look for it.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/

 

[zoink]

I just encountered a new one. Adjectives can be property...

It's logically impossible for you to use reputation without assigning/recognizing ownership to an individual.

reputation requires ownership. Whether someone makes the claim of ownership or someone else pushes ownership upon them, either way it's ownership

I pointed out this then meant that if you say someone is beautiful or intelegent that would the mean they own that.

Did you think reputation was a number and not an adjective?

He's using reputation as a justification for owning non-physical things and hence IP. Reputation is owned, liable reduces the value of one's reputation, violence is then legitimized. The unfortunate thing is he didn't believe violence was legitimized at the start of the conversation. I hoped by arguing that if reputation was property violence was justified and he'd think that was silly. Nope, instead he changed his mind and agreed that cutting out someones tongue out to get them to stop saying liable was legitimate. I've made an error.

 

[Nilloc]

I just encountered a new one. Adjectives can be property...

So can we buy and sell adjectives too? Is there a word market? I'd like to buy a vowel, Pat . . .

The lengths some people will go to.

I do have one argument for IP, which came after my re-listening through The Ethics of Liberty, that I can't refute. Rothbard argues that, say, when a writer sells a book, they're doing so with the condition that you don't copy it. By copying it, you're breaking the contract you have with the creator. I've been trying to think through other property rights implications this makes.

 

[zoink]

I do have one argument for IP, which came after my re-listening through The Ethics of Liberty, that I can't refute. Rothbard argues that, say, when a writer sells a book, they're doing so with the condition that you don't copy it. By copying it, you're breaking the contract you have with the creator. I've been trying to think through other property rights implications this makes.

The thing is, that's not IP. That's just a standard contractual relationship. Whether it's IP or standard physical property.

If I recall correctly Rothbard made this weird leap where he applied that contract to third, forth, fifth, etc. parties. Once IP makes it out into the world then the contract no longer applies. The only person one could hold liable for damages would be the original person.

Also one has to keep in mind exactly what IP is. IP is largely claiming ownership of patterns. The things - weather it be 1s and 0s, letters, or matter - that make up IP already exist. It's the assembling those things a certain way that a person is trying to make a property claim over.

If we apply homesteading principles to IP (which I think pro-IP libertarian should do) I feel that uniqueness is an important aspect of IP. One needs to "discovery" the IP. If it is not unique then the IP has already been homesteaded.

If I buy a book with a contractual stipulation that I will not make copies of it and redistribute the book, the actually stipulation is that I will not recreated the pattern in the book and distribute that pattern.

If one changes the minutest of aspects of a piece of IP one has created something unique. Adding a single space creates a new pattern much more so if you just change the name of a character in a piece of literature.

With a song one can change the pitch or tone in a part of a song song. With images just scaling diferently or alter the color or the angle of a line is a new unique pattern. The person claiming IP is left claiming smaller and smaller portions of patterns and/or larger and larger perimeters of patterns. At some point they are claiming single letters, a second of a sound, and all the angles that lines intersect each other. So the question I have never had answered by proponents of IP is what level of uniqueness is required to gain an IP claim and at the same time free another person from an IP claim?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/

Ok, I'm there, and it's pretty cool that it exists. However, I am a little miffed/disappoiinted that all the Christians there seem to be of conservative evangelical to fundamentalist stripe, even if libertarian in their politics.

 

[MacFall]

Most of them aren't, actually. I've been there for quite a while and I can tell you that for sure. I doubt even half. Any conversation about gay marriage is going to bring the fundies out of the woodwork though, because let's face it - they're the only ones who care that much. It's not a big deal to most people. There are also a few theonomists there who will argue along the same lines as the fundies. I'm really not sure what they're doing in a libertarian group. For the most part, where fundamentalists annoy me, theonomists scare the hell out of me.

 

[Nilloc]

Ok, I'm there, and it's pretty cool that it exists. However, I am a little miffed/disappoiinted that all the Christians there seem to be of conservative evangelical to fundamentalist stripe, even if libertarian in their politics.

I thought I saw you, so I sent you a message.

I have the same impression as you do about them being evangelical/conservative. Unfortunately, most moderate-to-liberal Christians theologically/religiously tend to be political liberals. But since MacFall's been there longer, I'll just take his word on it.

I'm really not sure what they're doing in a libertarian group.

Probably the same thing Gary North is doing at the Mises Institute. There are some AnCap theonomists though (North isn't one of them). They wanna set up a voluntary government based on their butchered understanding of the Mosaic Law.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Ok, cool. Thanks guys, that's a little bit reassuring.

And I agree that theonomists are scary.

 

[Nilloc]

Almost forgot. Thanks for that explanation zoink, that makes sense.

Another thing about theomomy: some actually wanna take over the government to do this, but the more reasonable ones think that most of the world will be converted to (fundamentalist) Christianity and the laws will be consensual by the majority. So be careful when dialoguing with them.

As to them and libertarianism: because they can't conceive of reality without their understanding of God, they tend to reject natural law and Thomas Aquinas. And with the exception of Gary North, they try to say that the intellectual movement behind the American Revolution was based on Reformed Christianity (or to be more accurate, Puritan Christianity) rather than Enlightenment rationalism. They even try to turn the founding fathers into theonomists, or at least theonomy-friendly. They hang out with libertarians, because for whatever reason they're laissez-faire capitalists and anti-war (because ancient Israel was so anti-war, right?), which is why they often call themselves libertarian.

One last tidbit: one time I read a discussion between two theomonist arguing whether credo-baptists should be stoned to death under theonomy, or simply jailed. :o

 

[Nilloc]

Has anyone hear read any of the Uncle Eric books by Richard Maybury? I never heard a lot of people talk about them. I finished Whatever Happened to Penny Candy last night and really enjoyed it. It was all about inflation, recession, and the boom-bust cycle, written for home schooled kids, so it was very understandable. I can see why Robert Murphy likes business cycle theory so much; it's a helluva thing.