Re: POLITICS - money and health - morality

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:27:30 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>****. The

>alternative is to believe they are no worse than a society that does not have

>cannibalism, human sacrifice, or does not burn alive women for premarital

>sex. ***

>

>Chris:

>

>Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

>of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

>and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

>societies that maximize those indexes can then be

>considered " better " .

<snip>

>

>But the problem with " moral " is that EVERYONE believes

>that what they do is moral. The folks that burn women

>alive do so out of a sense of morality. The Nazis killed

>the Jews because that seemed like the moral thing to do.

>The pro-life and pro-choice factions both claim moral high

>ground. Ditto for the pro and anti gay marriage camps.

>Al Queda is very concerned with " moral " , and so

>is Bush. So when you say you want a " moral " society,

>whose version are you using?

Heidi,

You have in no way advanced the argument here, all you have done is

define your morality (the index of health, happiness and individual

freedom) as over and opposed to another morality (Al Qaeda, Nazism, etc.)

and have assumed that everyone would be better off with your " objective "

standard, which is hardly objective at all.

You have the changed the name but as Shakespeare said a rose by any

other name.... You don't want to call your approach morality but in

effect that is what it is. Morality is simply inescapable no matter what

your worldview is or what you choose to call it.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>You have in no way advanced the argument here, all you have done is

>define your morality (the index of health, happiness and individual

>freedom) as over and opposed to another morality (Al Qaeda, Nazism, etc.)

>and have assumed that everyone would be better off with your " objective "

>standard, which is hardly objective at all.

What I'm trying to say is that before you decide how to change society,

you need some " basis " for defining what you want. That

basis will, by it's nature, NOT be objective. We have no *objective*

reasons for wanting anything ... just that we want it. So I defined

the " goals " we *want* society to have as just that: goals.

My " basis " has no more rationale to it than " morality " does ... but the word

" morality " is poorly defined. In fact " morality " is so poorly defined

as to be meaningless. THAT is my objection to using it as a basis

for " what society should be " .

Question: What should society be?

Answer: Moral.

Shoot. Like you say, Nazis and Al Qaeda will both agree with that.

So, instead of using the word " moral " -- how about defining

what " moral " YOU mean and then we can see if that is something

most people actually want. Then we can see if it actually is

workable in real life.

>You have the changed the name but as Shakespeare said a rose by any

>other name.... You don't want to call your approach morality but in

>effect that is what it is. Morality is simply inescapable no matter what

>your worldview is or what you choose to call it.

I agree with most of that. The other problem with the word

" morality " (besides the fact that no one agrees on what it means)

is that most people who use it believe they have a right

given by some higher power or law of the universe such that

*their* version of morality is superior or more basic to anyone

else's. I don't claim that for my set of goals at all -- it's just what

I think would be a good society, meaning one I'd like to live in.

I absolutely and wholly admit it is subjective measure, though

it is similar to the one in the Bill of Rights, so maybe other folk

agree as to it's desirability.

However, from the realms of psychology, sociology etc.

one COULD come up with a set of goals for society based

on " what works " for humans ... without relying too much

on subjectivity. Problem is you still have to define " what works " ...

== Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>You have in no way advanced the argument here, all you have done is

>define your morality (the index of health, happiness and individual

>freedom) as over and opposed to another morality (Al Qaeda, Nazism, etc.)

>and have assumed that everyone would be better off with your " objective "

>standard, which is hardly objective at all.

Actually, to clarify, I have a better example: My kid is in school.

Most parents want their kid to " do good " in school, and the school

wants him to " do good " too. But, " doing good " is a vague thing, and

not measurable, and is defined differently by different people.

So, instead, I get a report card of very specific measurable things

that he has accomplished. Like " Recognizing the letters from A-Z " .

" Being able to read the words on the 100 Common Words List " .

Those things are arbitrary. Who says that learning the letters

from A-Z is " good " ???? It is a consensus of sorts, no doubt.

In other societies literacy might not be considered a good thing --

indeed in some times and places it was outlawed or considered witchcraft.

There is nothing good or evil about letters, AFAIK, but most parents here

feel learning them is a good thing.

BUT -- those things are explicit. If I don't like the concept of

him learning the letters from A-Z, I can complain specifically.

I don't have to talk about the school not being " good " in some

vague sense, I can say " I don't like him learning the letters " .

Saying we should make changes in society because is is

" moral " is similarly vague. If you say " I want a society

that has less violence " or " I want a society that allows me

to have a trial by jury " -- those are measurable things.

But to say " I want a society that allows me trial by jury

because that is moral " -- you haven't defined moral in the

first place. You are defining " moral " as meaning

" including a trial by jury " which is circular logic.

If you define " moral " as " what is written in xxx book " then

we all have to define that we agree on xxx book and moreover

on the INTERPRETATION of xxx book. So it becomes meaningless

in discourse, unless you are all members of one congregation.

Soooo ... if you want to use " moral " as the basis for designing

a new world order ... first define what YOU mean as " moral "

as a basis for discussion in this context.

(I already defined what I mean as a basis for discussion, the health,

freedom of choice, and happiness of the populace is maximized --

and yeah, that is a fairly arbitrary choice on my part).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:02:16 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>Heidi,

>>

>>You have in no way advanced the argument here, all you have done is

>>define your morality (the index of health, happiness and individual

>>freedom) as over and opposed to another morality (Al Qaeda, Nazism, etc.)

>>and have assumed that everyone would be better off with your " objective "

>>standard, which is hardly objective at all.

>

>What I'm trying to say is that before you decide how to change society,

>you need some " basis " for defining what you want. That

>basis will, by it's nature, NOT be objective. We have no *objective*

>reasons for wanting anything ... just that we want it. So I defined

>the " goals " we *want* society to have as just that: goals.

Okay lets take this in stages so hopefully neither one of us

misunderstands what the other is saying. First off this is what you

originally said:

" Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

societies that maximize those indexes can then be

considered " better "

So unless I'm attributing to you something you did not say then it

appears to me you are contradicting yourself.

Second, and we really are getting off into territory I just can't

follow up on, but there is no known link that can be shown to

scientifically connect the supposedly autonomous and totally subjective

value scale of the individual decision maker to the hypothetical aggregate

known as social welfare or social utility (your index in this example).

To make such comparisons, there must be a common value scale among all

actors. No common value scale has ever been identified. So your

(unspoken) utilitarian assumption of each person's equal capacity for

happiness is merely that: an assumption.

So your index of happiness is just whistling in the dark and has no real

meaning because there is no way to OBJECTIVELY measure such a thing.

Third, you have the word _better_ in quotes which really illustrates the

dilemma here. In order to decide what is " better " we have to bring our

values into play. And when we bring our values into play we bring our

morality into play. Which begs the question, why should we abide by your

" better. "

>

>My " basis " has no more rationale to it than " morality " does ...

Then why are we talking about it? Why should I or anyone else abide by

your arbitrary and unmeasurable distinctions? But the point is that your

" basis " is the functional equivalent of a " morality " , so your basis is

just one more specific approach thrown into the mix of other moralities.

In other words, it is not very helpful at all.

>but the word

> " morality " is poorly defined. In fact " morality " is so poorly defined

>as to be meaningless. THAT is my objection to using it as a basis

>for " what society should be " .

I think I know what you are trying to say, but the problem is not that

morality is poorly defined:

*moral*

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :

ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of

right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right

behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical

judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a

moral agent>

*morality*

2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral

principles or rules of conduct

3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

By definition every society will have a morality or a moral basis

because every society will have an understanding of what is right and

wrong. The question is what particular understanding of right and wrong

governs that society.

So it is not that morality is poorly defined, after all we know what

Nazism and others were all about, but rather the question is what is

the substance of a particular moral system.

So I am not sure what you mean when you say it is so poorly defined as

to be meaningless. America's morality? Western morality? The morality of

a particular hunter gatherer tribe? I don't think any of these things

are poorly defined. I think what you are saying is that you want a

*different* morality, although you don't want to call it that since then it

would fall prey to your own criticism.

So while your objection above is noted, you are just turning around and

doing the same thing, albeit using a different word.

>

>Question: What should society be?

>Answer: Moral.

Of course no one talks like this. In a given context we usually know

what someone means. If we don't we tend to ask.

>

>Shoot. Like you say, Nazis and Al Qaeda will both agree with that.

Yes but we know specifically what their morality is and it provides a

basis by which differing moral systems can disagree and critique. But

this also raises a problem with your own basis or index which I noted

above, people define happiness very differently. I'm sure Hitler was

" happy " as was Nero and Idi Amin. Your critique of the arbitrariness of

morality as a reason not to use it equally applies to using your indices.

>So, instead of using the word " moral " -- how about defining

>what " moral " YOU mean and then we can see if that is something

>most people actually want. Then we can see if it actually is

>workable in real life.

You must have missed it in this thread because all the libertarians at

one time or another have defined our position, but I will repeat it

again. In fact I will expand it by giving you a fuller definition via

Murray Rothbard.

But for the record, we (at least I'm not) aren't interested in what most

people *want*. Maybe most people *want* slavery, but that doesn't make

it right. Slavery was apparently *workable* for most of human history,

but that doesn't make it right. The standard you have laid out Heidi is

not a good one and is simply *unworkable*.

Now you might retort, " but my other cite on the index would argue

against slavery (individual freedom). " Perhaps, unless you define one

group of people as non humans or less than humans, in which case it

would not be a violation of your " index. "

Beyond that you have already conceded that your index is arbitrary, so

one might easily redefine it to allow for slavery. The only way you get

around this problem is to have something which stands outside your index and

is transcendent for all time, and not just relevent to a given society

at a given point in time. Anyway, on with the definition.

" THE LIBERTARIAN CREED rests upon one central axiom: that no man

or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone

else. This may be called the " nonaggression axiom. " " Aggression " is

defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence

against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore

synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the

absolute right to be " free " from aggression, then this at once implies

that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as

" civil liberties " : the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to

engage in such " victimless crimes " as pornography, sexual deviation, and

prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as " crimes " at all,

since he defines a " crime " as violent invasion of someone else's person

or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a

massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass

slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass

murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

All of these positions are now considered " leftist " on the contemporary

ideological scale. On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes

invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just

as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or

with the free-market economy through controls, regulations, subsidies,

or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own

property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also

has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to

exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free

market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right

to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of

" laissez-faire capitalism. "

In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and

economics would be called " extreme right wing. " But the libertarian sees

no inconsistency in being " leftist " on some issues and " rightist " on

others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only

consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual.

For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and

conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation

and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to

private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war,

conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices

that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market

while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and

unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights

of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and

into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and

overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to

all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses

to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost

everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by

any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on

applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special

exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked,

as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged,

to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are

reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it

calls " war, " or sometimes " suppression of subversion " ; the State engages

in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls " conscription " ;

and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which

it calls " taxation. " The libertarian insists that whether or not such

practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane

to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass

Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The

libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable,

pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes. "

Okay now you know.

>

>

>>You have the changed the name but as Shakespeare said a rose by any

>>other name.... You don't want to call your approach morality but in

>>effect that is what it is. Morality is simply inescapable no matter what

>>your worldview is or what you choose to call it.

>

>I agree with most of that. The other problem with the word

> " morality " (besides the fact that no one agrees on what it means)

Again, just to be clear. I don't think there is a confusion over what

morality means, but a difference as to what specific moralities apply.

And even that is not entirely true. Most of us believe Nero, Idi Amin,

Stalin and Hitler were evil men. We do so because we share at heart some

common morality, i.e. that murder and theft are evil activities.

>is that most people who use it believe they have a right

>given by some higher power or law of the universe such that

>*their* version of morality is superior or more basic to anyone

>else's. I don't claim that for my set of goals at all -- it's just what

>I think would be a good society, meaning one I'd like to live in.

>I absolutely and wholly admit it is subjective measure, though

>it is similar to the one in the Bill of Rights, so maybe other folk

>agree as to it's desirability.

Yes most people want to place morality in the realm of the transcendent,

so it is not subject to the arbitrariness of the whims of people. Your

approach would essentially make you a non-player and in reality is

impossible. When it is taken seriously people die,and often in large

numbers.

By my way of thinking some things are always wrong and not subject to

the vagaries of societal whims:

Theft

Adultery

Rape

Kidnapping

Murder

etc.

I don't want to be living in a society where these things are up for

grabs. And the bill of rights comes out of a milieu where people held to

some absolutes that transcended " what works "

>However, from the realms of psychology, sociology etc.

>one COULD come up with a set of goals for society based

>on " what works " for humans ... without relying too much

>on subjectivity. Problem is you still have to define " what works " ...

No you couldn't. All the prior objections remain. Even so, such a task

is impossible given that those disciplines themselves are rooted in

" subjective " commitments.

And once you define " what works " by whatever standard, you now have a

morality.

I apologize for such a long response.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

>Okay lets take this in stages so hopefully neither one of us

>misunderstands what the other is saying. First off this is what you

>originally said:

>

> " Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

>of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

>and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

>societies that maximize those indexes can then be

>considered " better "

>

>So unless I'm attributing to you something you did not say then it

>appears to me you are contradicting yourself.

I'm not sure why it is self contradictory -- I'm simply suggesting

an objective measure. was making statements based

on 'this is moral' -- and I rejected the ideal of 'moral' as a starting

ground, basically because it is undefinable and not measurable.

>Second, and we really are getting off into territory I just can't

>follow up on, but there is no known link that can be shown to

>scientifically connect the supposedly autonomous and totally subjective

>value scale of the individual decision maker to the hypothetical aggregate

>known as social welfare or social utility (your index in this example).

>

>To make such comparisons, there must be a common value scale among all

>actors. No common value scale has ever been identified. So your

>(unspoken) utilitarian assumption of each person's equal capacity for

>happiness is merely that: an assumption.

>

>So your index of happiness is just whistling in the dark and has no real

>meaning because there is no way to OBJECTIVELY measure such a thing.

Well, actually it was based on something I had just read (which has

been awhile ... if you'd answered SOONER I'd remember better). Basically

they did a survey to measure 'how happy' people felt. The US fared badly.

But yeah, in psychology, subjective measures of happiness are commonly used.

And yes, they are subjective. But it says something ... if most of a society

says they are " happy " then they likely are, whatever that means.

People who SAY they are " happy " tend not to do things like start riots

and topple governments, so it is a useful measure.

However, NOW they have a test, an MRI, that can tell if the " happiness "

centers of the brain are activated, or the " unhappiness " centers. THAT

is very objective. Interestingly, the Buddist monks who SEEM happy

also register as the most happy individuals on this test.

>Third, you have the word _better_ in quotes which really illustrates the

>dilemma here. In order to decide what is " better " we have to bring our

>values into play. And when we bring our values into play we bring our

>morality into play. Which begs the question, why should we abide by your

> " better. "

You don't have to abide by my values, that is the point. I don't want

to abide by Chris's values either. At some point, you have to decide

on a common ground of values ... which I highly doubt we share.

I defined my values, as subjective as they may be. Chris's values,

as near as I can figure them, are, " a society is good if it leaves me

alone and does no violence " -- but I'm guessing, they are not defined,

except as " society should be moral " -- and " moral " is not defined.

>>

>>My " basis " has no more rationale to it than " morality " does ...

>

>Then why are we talking about it? Why should I or anyone else abide by

>your arbitrary and unmeasurable distinctions? But the point is that your

> " basis " is the functional equivalent of a " morality " , so your basis is

>just one more specific approach thrown into the mix of other moralities.

>In other words, it is not very helpful at all.

Because I'm trying to define the basis. " morality " isn't any more

of a basis than mine is ... except I'm trying to be more explicit.

>>but the word

>> " morality " is poorly defined. In fact " morality " is so poorly defined

>>as to be meaningless. THAT is my objection to using it as a basis

>>for " what society should be " .

>

>I think I know what you are trying to say, but the problem is not that

>morality is poorly defined:

>

>*moral*

>

>1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :

>ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of

>right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right

>behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical

>judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a

>moral agent>

>

>*morality*

>

>2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral

>principles or rules of conduct

>3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

>

>By definition every society will have a morality or a moral basis

>because every society will have an understanding of what is right and

>wrong. The question is what particular understanding of right and wrong

>governs that society.

Ok, ... but " right " and " wrong " merely pushes the issue back to another

level. " right " and " wrong " are typically defined by the traditions and

values of a society. Ours is a pluralistic society. Some believe homosexuality

to be wrong, others think otherwise. Ditto with a lot of other issues -- is

pot smoking " right " or " wrong " ? is violence " right " or " wrong " ? Since we

REALLY don't agree about those issues, discussions of stuff like

" Libertarianism " is pointless, IF the only basis is " it is morally right " .

>

>So I am not sure what you mean when you say it is so poorly defined as

>to be meaningless. America's morality? Western morality? The morality of

>a particular hunter gatherer tribe? I don't think any of these things

>are poorly defined. I think what you are saying is that you want a

>*different* morality, although you don't want to call it that since then it

>would fall prey to your own criticism.

>

>So while your objection above is noted, you are just turning around and

>doing the same thing, albeit using a different word.

I'm saying, the word " moral " is defined differently by every culture, because

" right " and " wrong " are defined differently. Therefore, since you and I

live in different cultures, if you want to define " morality " -- you need

to say what that MEANS. Does in mean gay right? sex before marriage?

women's right? Equal opportunity?

I basically just don't like it when folks throw around words like " love "

" morality " and " rights " to substantiate an argument, but don't say

what they mean in context. It's like starting a war for " patriotic "

reasons ... you wave the flag and say how noble the war is ...

which avoids all the real issues (how many guys will get killed,

whether the war will make any real difference, how much it will

cost, details like that). Who cares, if it is " patriotic " .

>>Question: What should society be?

>>Answer: Moral.

>

>Of course no one talks like this. In a given context we usually know

>what someone means. If we don't we tend to ask.

True. It is my summary of the argument as it exists to date ...

governments should not exercise violence because it is immoral.

So what is " immoral " ? Define it.

>>Shoot. Like you say, Nazis and Al Qaeda will both agree with that.

>

>Yes but we know specifically what their morality is and it provides a

>basis by which differing moral systems can disagree and critique. But

>this also raises a problem with your own basis or index which I noted

>above, people define happiness very differently. I'm sure Hitler was

> " happy " as was Nero and Idi Amin. Your critique of the arbitrariness of

>morality as a reason not to use it equally applies to using your indices.

The people living under Hitler were NOT happy, nor was the rest of

the world. Louis XIV was happy, but not his peasants. But I also said

those 3 indexes were arbitary .. I don't really care what indexes are used

as long as they are definable and measureable.

>You must have missed it in this thread because all the libertarians at

>one time or another have defined our position, but I will repeat it

>again. In fact I will expand it by giving you a fuller definition via

>Murray Rothbard.

>

>But for the record, we (at least I'm not) aren't interested in what most

>people *want*. Maybe most people *want* slavery, but that doesn't make

>it right. Slavery was apparently *workable* for most of human history,

>but that doesn't make it right. The standard you have laid out Heidi is

>not a good one and is simply *unworkable*.

>

>Now you might retort, " but my other cite on the index would argue

>against slavery (individual freedom). " Perhaps, unless you define one

>group of people as non humans or less than humans, in which case it

>would not be a violation of your " index. "

Again, my index was arbitrary, I was merely arguing for AN index. But in

the case of slavery, and, say, the Spartans .. there were more slaves

than Spartans, and the slaves were unhappy (as evidenced by the fact

they rebelled and eventually brought down the civilization). So yeah,

slavery would fail my test.

I suppose in some scifi scenario you could have " happy slaves " but

I don't think it has existed in real life.

>Beyond that you have already conceded that your index is arbitrary, so

>one might easily redefine it to allow for slavery. The only way you get

>around this problem is to have something which stands outside your index and

>is transcendent for all time, and not just relevent to a given society

>at a given point in time. Anyway, on with the definition.

>

> " THE LIBERTARIAN CREED rests upon one central axiom: that no man

>or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone

>else. This may be called the " nonaggression axiom. " " Aggression " is

>defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence

>against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore

>synonymous with invasion.

>

>If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the

>absolute right to be " free " from aggression, then this at once implies

>that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as

> " civil liberties " : the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to

>engage in such " victimless crimes " as pornography, sexual deviation, and

>prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as " crimes " at all,

>since he defines a " crime " as violent invasion of someone else's person

>or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a

>massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass

>slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass

>murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

It IS a definition and so is better. And it is a sort of " rule " -- I do think

you

need rules, and at base most rules are arbitary. I don't think that is a

complete

enough rule to run a society, which is basically what I am saying ... it is ONE

rule

and you'd need about 10 more to handle the basic issues.

>All of these positions are now considered " leftist " on the contemporary

>ideological scale.

But the libertarians now seem to be defined as on the Right, because

they oppose taxes.

>On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes

>invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just

>as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or

>with the free-market economy through controls, regulations, subsidies,

>or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own

>property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also

>has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to

>exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free

>market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right

>to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of

> " laissez-faire capitalism. "

Which totally ignores the issues of big corporations etc etc. Probably was

a legit argument in the 1800's.

>In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and

>economics would be called " extreme right wing. " But the libertarian sees

>no inconsistency in being " leftist " on some issues and " rightist " on

>others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only

>consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual.

>For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and

>conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation

>and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to

>private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war,

>conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices

>that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market

>while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and

>unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

OK, now you got me very confused. Basically this is a " government

by ideology " which NEVER in history has worked. But the person

who wrote this was not familiar with systems analysis.

>While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights

>of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and

>into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and

>overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State.

Only the State? And only Aggression? Shoot, there are a lot of other

factors going on at this point in time. Probably more powerful ones.

>In contrast to

>all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses

>to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost

>everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by

>any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on

>applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special

>exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked,

>as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged,

>to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are

>reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it

>calls " war, " or sometimes " suppression of subversion " ; the State engages

>in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls " conscription " ;

>and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which

>it calls " taxation. " The libertarian insists that whether or not such

>practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane

>to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass

>Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The

>libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable,

>pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes. "

>

>Okay now you know.

Thanks for the definition. Now I know. I'll devote my energies

to stuff that might make a difference.

-

>Again, just to be clear. I don't think there is a confusion over what

>morality means, but a difference as to what specific moralities apply.

>And even that is not entirely true. Most of us believe Nero, Idi Amin,

>Stalin and Hitler were evil men. We do so because we share at heart some

>common morality, i.e. that murder and theft are evil activities.

But most of those guys, and their followers TRULY BELIEVED they

were being " moral " . They did not commit " murder " and " theft " -- they

got rid of " evildoers " . If you really believe that your teenage

kid, by having sex, has let " evil " into the house, then killing

her is the humane and moral thing to do. " Most of us " do NOT

share a common ground of what morality means.

>Yes most people want to place morality in the realm of the transcendent,

>so it is not subject to the arbitrariness of the whims of people. Your

>approach would essentially make you a non-player and in reality is

>impossible. When it is taken seriously people die,and often in large

>numbers.

No one ever has taken my approach seriously! Most of the moral

wars have been fought by folks fighting hard for their version of

morality. I would only fight a war if it really was NEEDED by some

objective standard.

>By my way of thinking some things are always wrong and not subject to

>the vagaries of societal whims:

>

>Theft

>Adultery

>Rape

>Kidnapping

>Murder

>etc.

>

>I don't want to be living in a society where these things are up for

>grabs. And the bill of rights comes out of a milieu where people held to

>some absolutes that transcended " what works "

OK, that is a beginning of a definition. I'd agree all those things

are bad. Dumping nitrates into the ecosystem might actually

kill more people though, where does that come in? How about

PCBs?

Those items also fit my definition of " what works " abeit they

are a tiny subset. Theft does NOT work in a society, nor

do the others, because they disrupt the fabric of the society.

There are many others though, that disrupt society but are

OK within the limited Libertarian ideal.

>>However, from the realms of psychology, sociology etc.

>>one COULD come up with a set of goals for society based

>>on " what works " for humans ... without relying too much

>>on subjectivity. Problem is you still have to define " what works " ...

>

>No you couldn't. All the prior objections remain. Even so, such a task

>is impossible given that those disciplines themselves are rooted in

> " subjective " commitments.

>

>And once you define " what works " by whatever standard, you now have a

>morality.

I basically agree ... " morality " is kind of a shorthand for " what works " .

Just less defined.

I went to a Potlatch of sorts tonight, and the speaker talked about Cultures,

in

general. He made a point that, what is ok in one culture might earn you death

in another ... but the point is that tradition is still important within one

culture.

So he had the kids (my kid, in this case) follow Indian rules, which my kid

hated

and did not understand. But it had moral authority within the system he

was defining, and the whole system worked (i.e. it kept the tribe alive).

Since you and I are NOT in the same tribe, " what is moral " needs more

definition. Within one tribe, " moral " means " following the rules of

the tribe " . You and I (and Chris) follow different rules.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Okay lets take this in stages so hopefully neither one of us

>misunderstands what the other is saying. First off this is what you

>originally said:

>

> " Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

>of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

>and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

>societies that maximize those indexes can then be

>considered " better "

>

>So unless I'm attributing to you something you did not say then it

>appears to me you are contradicting yourself.

Ok, I'll try one last time, more succinctly:

There are two ways one can look at issues:

1. Belief: " I believe ABC, and want to implement it

in reality. If I implement it, I believe XYZ will happen " .

2. Goals: " I want to do XYZ, and want to find out

how to accomplish it. I will measure my success using

DEF " .

Now EVERYONE uses both systems, but some systems

use one over the other. Both systems involve values

and subjective measures, and both are " philosophies "

of sorts.

An example of a belief system is, say, the Catholic church,

or Mormonism, or Nazism, or lots of other -isms. In a belief,

the goal and the belief are the same, more or less. If

Muslims could convert everyone to Islam, that would accomplish

their goal.

The second is a technique used in science and business in an attempt to

find the BEST solution without too many preconceived ideas

(all humans have preconceived ideas, it is hard to avoid them).

But the choice of the " best " solution is necessarily subjective ...

obviously it uses sets of values like humaneness, aesthetics,

economy, etc. The statement " I believe " and " I want " are BOTH

subjective, though a lot of the " I believers " believe that what

they believe is a universal truth, and " I wanters " usually

aren't dealing with universal truth. (Though, as you point out,

behind the " I want " lurks some value system, because all

people have value systems.)

Now, for most of my life I used only system #1. It didn't

work very well, and now I try to use system #2. The problem with

#1 is that I very often would get on board with some " solution

that just didn't work, and could not see how to get around

the problem, because I was stuck with sticking to one " belief "

as the starting point. For instance, if I was a die-hard Atkins

follower, and the diet didn't work, I'd be unable to choose

another system. But if my goal was " lose weight " I might try

a series of diets and then maybe end up with Atkins ... but

be willing to still look at other systems if needed.

The discussion of " Liberalism " has made me decide it falls

into camp #1 -- it is based on a value system, not on a set

of goals (except that the goal is to fulfill the value system,

mainly letting every do what they want as much as possible,

to broadly paraphrase). The set of values stated in your summary

are rather distasteful ones to me personally, and the system

lacks a feedback loop to determine if it is successful in

any other sense.

So, I've learned as much as I need to about the philosophy --

mainly that it IS a philosophy, not science. So I basically

dropped the subject until you brought it up again. There is

no way to reconcile systems #1 and #2 -- it's like reconciling

emotion with rationality, or guy-thinking with gal-thinking, or Atkins

with Ornish. You have your preference, I have mine ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:40:04 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>>

>> " Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

>>of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

>>and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

>>societies that maximize those indexes can then be

>>considered " better "

>>

>>So unless I'm attributing to you something you did not say then it

>>appears to me you are contradicting yourself.

>

>I'm not sure why it is self contradictory -- I'm simply suggesting

>an objective measure. was making statements based

>on 'this is moral' -- and I rejected the ideal of 'moral' as a starting

>ground, basically because it is undefinable and not measurable.

This is not something we need to get bogged down on. I read one post

that I thought you said the standards are subjective. Then I read the

above where you are saying the opposite. I may have misread the original

post, which is why I said I may be attributing something to you that you

didn't say. No matter. I will take what you say above as your actual

position.

My point then is that your measure is no more objective than Chris's

measure even though you want to think it is, it is not. But is certainly

a fair question to have him fill in the specifics of what he thinks is

moral.

>>Second, and we really are getting off into territory I just can't

>>follow up on, but there is no known link that can be shown to

>>scientifically connect the supposedly autonomous and totally subjective

>>value scale of the individual decision maker to the hypothetical aggregate

>>known as social welfare or social utility (your index in this example).

>>

>>To make such comparisons, there must be a common value scale among all

>>actors. No common value scale has ever been identified. So your

>>(unspoken) utilitarian assumption of each person's equal capacity for

>>happiness is merely that: an assumption.

>>

>>So your index of happiness is just whistling in the dark and has no real

>>meaning because there is no way to OBJECTIVELY measure such a thing.

>

>Well, actually it was based on something I had just read (which has

>been awhile ... if you'd answered SOONER I'd remember better). Basically

>they did a survey to measure 'how happy' people felt. The US fared badly.

>But yeah, in psychology, subjective measures of happiness are commonly used.

>And yes, they are subjective. But it says something ... if most of a society

>says they are " happy " then they likely are, whatever that means.

Whatever it means it is NOT objective and wholly beside the point. There

are no objective interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility. So

whatever it says, and whatever it means by what it says, is the result

of something which is *not* objective, which puts you in the exact same

position as any so called " moralist "

The implication of course is that it moves the debate to a whole

different arena, an implication that economists and other utilitarians

have been fighting for decades. But they are losing, thank goodness.

>

>People who SAY they are " happy " tend not to do things like start riots

>and topple governments, so it is a useful measure.

Useful to whom? And by what *objective* standard. Hey maybe the gov't

needs toppling whether or not the " people " are " happy. "

>However, NOW they have a test, an MRI, that can tell if the " happiness "

>centers of the brain are activated, or the " unhappiness " centers. THAT

>is very objective. Interestingly, the Buddist monks who SEEM happy

>also register as the most happy individuals on this test.

Heidi, there is nothing objective about such a test. Assuming it is

accurate, the only thing it is measuring is what makes that particular

person happy. Who knows, maybe that person gets a kick out of

visualizing the raping and pillaging of women, or destroying the

environment, or what have you.

It is impossible to make scientific comparisons of interpersonal

subjective utility. Once you begin to compare, you move outside of the

realm of objectivity and into a world that is neither value free or

morally neutral, your attempt to cover up such stuff under the guise of

scientific objectivity notwithstanding.

>>Third, you have the word _better_ in quotes which really illustrates the

>>dilemma here. In order to decide what is " better " we have to bring our

>>values into play. And when we bring our values into play we bring our

>>morality into play. Which begs the question, why should we abide by your

>> " better. "

>

>You don't have to abide by my values, that is the point. I don't want

>to abide by Chris's values either. At some point, you have to decide

>on a common ground of values ... which I highly doubt we share.

I would imagine we do not. I am opposed to the initiation of violence in

all its forms, be it murder (war), theft (taxation), slavery

(conscription), and a plethora of other sins/crimes. You, from what I

have gathered from these posts, are not opposed to such. They have their

place and time. Which is why you are not a libertarian

>I defined my values, as subjective as they may be. Chris's values,

>as near as I can figure them, are, " a society is good if it leaves me

>alone and does no violence " -- but I'm guessing, they are not defined,

>except as " society should be moral " -- and " moral " is not defined.

You will have to ask him, and I believe you are guessing wrong, but

from a libertarian perspective they are clearly defined.

>>>My " basis " has no more rationale to it than " morality " does ...

>>

>>Then why are we talking about it? Why should I or anyone else abide by

>>your arbitrary and unmeasurable distinctions? But the point is that your

>> " basis " is the functional equivalent of a " morality " , so your basis is

>>just one more specific approach thrown into the mix of other moralities.

>>In other words, it is not very helpful at all.

>

>Because I'm trying to define the basis. " morality " isn't any more

>of a basis than mine is ... except I'm trying to be more explicit.

But that is my point, we have been very explicit and our definition

politically speaking covers the *whole* territory.

<snip>

>>

>>By definition every society will have a morality or a moral basis

>>because every society will have an understanding of what is right and

>>wrong. The question is what particular understanding of right and wrong

>>governs that society.

>

>Ok, ... but " right " and " wrong " merely pushes the issue back to another

>level. " right " and " wrong " are typically defined by the traditions and

>values of a society. Ours is a pluralistic society. Some believe homosexuality

>to be wrong, others think otherwise. Ditto with a lot of other issues -- is

>pot smoking " right " or " wrong " ? is violence " right " or " wrong " ? Since we

>REALLY don't agree about those issues, discussions of stuff like

> " Libertarianism " is pointless, IF the only basis is " it is morally right " .

No they are not, libertarianism gives a definite political

morality/philosophy, and if you want to impose any other specific

morality/philosophy you do so by persuasion NOT by force or coercion.

And this approach has a HUGE bearing on the subject of health, food and

nutrition. Why else do you think this subject matter keeps rearing its

head?

>>So I am not sure what you mean when you say it is so poorly defined as

>>to be meaningless. America's morality? Western morality? The morality of

>>a particular hunter gatherer tribe? I don't think any of these things

>>are poorly defined. I think what you are saying is that you want a

>>*different* morality, although you don't want to call it that since then it

>>would fall prey to your own criticism.

>>

>>So while your objection above is noted, you are just turning around and

>>doing the same thing, albeit using a different word.

>

>I'm saying, the word " moral " is defined differently by every culture, because

> " right " and " wrong " are defined differently. Therefore, since you and I

>live in different cultures, if you want to define " morality " -- you need

>to say what that MEANS. Does in mean gay right? sex before marriage?

>women's right? Equal opportunity?

Again from a libertarian perspective, we have said what this means on

many occasions, as it relates to nutrition and many other areas. We have

laid out our foundational principles. And we have also acknowledged (at

least I have) that there is no one blueprint for freedom. There is room

for many different kinds of societies under the libertarian umbrella,

and one should only expect, given the organic nature of human

development, that various societies will develop different cultures.

>I basically just don't like it when folks throw around words like " love "

> " morality " and " rights " to substantiate an argument, but don't say

>what they mean in context.

I don't either. It equally perturbs me when people talk about " fairness "

" justice " and " equality " without defining what they mean by such

language, or worse, because you might have a different idea of what

those words mean, you are therefore ipso facto " unfair " " unjust " and

" bigoted " . This was a favorite tactic of my Marxist teachers in college.

It's like starting a war for " patriotic "

>reasons ... you wave the flag and say how noble the war is ...

>which avoids all the real issues (how many guys will get killed,

>whether the war will make any real difference, how much it will

>cost, details like that). Who cares, if it is " patriotic " .

Well given that offensive war violates the basis tenant of

libertarianism, we wouldn't need a definition of patriotism. We would

simply say its wrong, no matter how you tried to define the word.

>>>Question: What should society be?

>>>Answer: Moral.

>>

>>Of course no one talks like this. In a given context we usually know

>>what someone means. If we don't we tend to ask.

>

>True. It is my summary of the argument as it exists to date ...

>governments should not exercise violence because it is immoral.

>So what is " immoral " ? Define it.

I did. Later in this post. And in many other posts.

January 19:

/message/39722

January 25:

/message/40351

The above link gave details on how certain things would work.

You might disagree and obviously you do, but it has not gone undefined.

>>>Shoot. Like you say, Nazis and Al Qaeda will both agree with that.

>>

>>Yes but we know specifically what their morality is and it provides a

>>basis by which differing moral systems can disagree and critique. But

>>this also raises a problem with your own basis or index which I noted

>>above, people define happiness very differently. I'm sure Hitler was

>> " happy " as was Nero and Idi Amin. Your critique of the arbitrariness of

>>morality as a reason not to use it equally applies to using your indices.

>

>The people living under Hitler were NOT happy, nor was the rest of

>the world.

Sure they were initially. They peacefully elected him to office. And

Hitler had numerous defenders up until the very end who were quite happy

with what he was doing.

Besides you are dodging the thrust of my point; which is that your

critique of the arbitrariness of differing moralities is equally

applicable to your " morality " which is equally arbitrary (which you note

below), what you have referred too as your " objective " index.

>Louis XIV was happy, but not his peasants. But I also said

>those 3 indexes were arbitary .. I don't really care what indexes are used

>as long as they are definable and measureable.

Hmmm... You don't really care what the indices are? As long as they are

definable and measurable? This makes no sense to me at all.

>>You must have missed it in this thread because all the libertarians at

>>one time or another have defined our position, but I will repeat it

>>again. In fact I will expand it by giving you a fuller definition via

>>Murray Rothbard.

>>

>>But for the record, we (at least I'm not) aren't interested in what most

>>people *want*. Maybe most people *want* slavery, but that doesn't make

>>it right. Slavery was apparently *workable* for most of human history,

>>but that doesn't make it right. The standard you have laid out Heidi is

>>not a good one and is simply *unworkable*.

>>

>>Now you might retort, " but my other cite on the index would argue

>>against slavery (individual freedom). " Perhaps, unless you define one

>>group of people as non humans or less than humans, in which case it

>>would not be a violation of your " index. "

>

>Again, my index was arbitrary, I was merely arguing for AN index. But in

>the case of slavery, and, say, the Spartans .. there were more slaves

>than Spartans, and the slaves were unhappy (as evidenced by the fact

>they rebelled and eventually brought down the civilization). So yeah,

>slavery would fail my test.

No it wouldn't. I specifically said if you define some people as non

human then it would pass your test. It wouldn't matter what the

non-humans thought. So what if they rebelled. The human owners of the

non-humans were " happy "

>

>I suppose in some scifi scenario you could have " happy slaves " but

>I don't think it has existed in real life.

I didn't draw that scenario. See above

>>Beyond that you have already conceded that your index is arbitrary, so

>>one might easily redefine it to allow for slavery. The only way you get

>>around this problem is to have something which stands outside your index and

>>is transcendent for all time, and not just relevent to a given society

>>at a given point in time. Anyway, on with the definition.

>>

>> " THE LIBERTARIAN CREED rests upon one central axiom: that no man

>>or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone

>>else. This may be called the " nonaggression axiom. " " Aggression " is

>>defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence

>>against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore

>>synonymous with invasion.

>>

>>If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the

>>absolute right to be " free " from aggression, then this at once implies

>>that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as

>> " civil liberties " : the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to

>>engage in such " victimless crimes " as pornography, sexual deviation, and

>>prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as " crimes " at all,

>>since he defines a " crime " as violent invasion of someone else's person

>>or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a

>>massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass

>>slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass

>>murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

>

>It IS a definition and so is better. And it is a sort of " rule " -- I do think

you

>need rules, and at base most rules are arbitary. I don't think that is a

complete

>enough rule to run a society, which is basically what I am saying ... it is ONE

rule

>and you'd need about 10 more to handle the basic issues.

Clearly we disagree. That " rule " is extremely comprehensive and would

touch on nearly every aspect of civil society.

>>All of these positions are now considered " leftist " on the contemporary

>>ideological scale.

>

>But the libertarians now seem to be defined as on the Right, because

>they oppose taxes.

But what you read above wasn't dealing with taxes but rather what is

commonly known as civil liberties. His point was in relation to " civil "

liberties libertarians would be defined as being on the left. Your point

has no bearing on what he actually said and is more related to what he

said below.

>>On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes

>>invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just

>>as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or

>>with the free-market economy through controls, regulations, subsidies,

>>or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own

>>property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also

>>has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to

>>exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free

>>market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right

>>to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of

>> " laissez-faire capitalism. "

>

>Which totally ignores the issues of big corporations etc etc. Probably was

>a legit argument in the 1800's.

Hmmm..well Murray wrote right up until his death in the 1990's. I think

rather than libertarians ignoring the issue of big corporations, you

simply are unaware of the libertarian position on these matters.

Murray also wrote a great deal of history. Some of it covering the

1800's yet he didn't seem to think his definition was inadequate for

today.

>>In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and

>>economics would be called " extreme right wing. " But the libertarian sees

>>no inconsistency in being " leftist " on some issues and " rightist " on

>>others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only

>>consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual.

>>For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and

>>conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation

>>and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to

>>private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war,

>>conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices

>>that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market

>>while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and

>>unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

>

>OK, now you got me very confused. Basically this is a " government

>by ideology " which NEVER in history has worked. But the person

>who wrote this was not familiar with systems analysis.

>

I don't follow you here. Murray is simply applying the NAP position

across the board, his morality if you will which is clearly defined.

Every government is a gov't of ideology. These kinds of either/or

arguments are philosophy bogus and thus not very helpful at all.. All

governments are governed by some code, some ideology, even if its the

Heidi ideology of " what works. "

It isn't that one group has an ideology and the other group doesn't.

They both do and to say otherwise is just an attempt to obfuscate the

argument.

I think this is where we really have an issue. From reading your posts

you appear to be bound and determined to not recognize your own

subjective commitments and how they influence your view of the world. I

can understand why you are doing so because to acknowledge such would

put you in the exact same camp as the folks you continually criticize.

Unfortunately you are warring with reality as I have tried to point out

in several different ways. Your " what works " approach is no more

" objective " than any other approach.

By the way, ancaps don't believe in a civil government, so I'm not sure

what " ideology " you are making reference too.

>

>>While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights

>>of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and

>>into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and

>>overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State.

>

>Only the State? And only Aggression? Shoot, there are a lot of other

>factors going on at this point in time. Probably more powerful ones.

Let me repeat what he said, " there has been one *central* *dominant*

and *overriding* aggressor..the State. No other group or factor even

comes close. He never said only - *you* added that.

And notice how *he* is *defining* aggression. You can't equivocate by

filling it with your less comprehensive understanding of the term. By

the libertarian understanding of the term, i.e war as murder,

conscription as slavery, and taxation as theft, there is no entity even

close to the aggression of the state.

Now maybe in your mind such matters aren't important, which is another

reason why I wouldn't want you arbitrarily defining the index.

>>In contrast to

>>all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses

>>to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost

>>everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by

>>any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on

>>applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special

>>exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked,

>>as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged,

>>to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are

>>reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it

>>calls " war, " or sometimes " suppression of subversion " ; the State engages

>>in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls " conscription " ;

>>and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which

>>it calls " taxation. " The libertarian insists that whether or not such

>>practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane

>>to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass

>>Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The

>>libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable,

>>pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes. "

>>

>>Okay now you know.

>

>Thanks for the definition. Now I know. I'll devote my energies

>to stuff that might make a difference.

>

see previous paragraph

>-

>>Again, just to be clear. I don't think there is a confusion over what

>>morality means, but a difference as to what specific moralities apply.

>>And even that is not entirely true. Most of us believe Nero, Idi Amin,

>>Stalin and Hitler were evil men. We do so because we share at heart some

>>common morality, i.e. that murder and theft are evil activities.

>

>But most of those guys, and their followers TRULY BELIEVED they

>were being " moral " .

And you don't TRULY BELIEVE that we ought to adopt your " what works "

approach?

As I have said before, while you attempt to couch it in different

language you are doing the exact same thing as those whom you

characterize as TRUE BELIEVERS. The either/or stuff is illegitimate but

it normally goes like this:

" The other side is diehards. They are the ideologues. They are the

absolutists. Therefore we can safely ignore them. Their irrationality

should have no part in this debate. "

Nonsense. Your position is just as strongly believed, and just as

ideological and just as dogmatic. The difference is not that only one

side is operating that way. No the difference is that what you TRULY

BELIEVE is different from what the other side TRULY BELIEVES. Not that

they are true believers in something and you are not. That is another

argumentative facade.

Absolutes and faith commitments underscore *every* system of thought

*without* exception. It is beyond the scope of this list to point that

out in more than a general way. But even the common saying you hear

quite frequently, " there are no absolutes " is itself an absolute, and

thus utterly self-refuting.

Your own philosophy, as stated on January 13, clearly informs everything

else you talk about in this thread.

" I don't believe in the concept of " rights " in any universal

sense ... the world doesn't really give me a " right " to

exist, even, and without the community of people

around me I couldn't live from day to day. Drop me

in the woods and maybe I'd live a week, maybe a year. "

/message/38860

This is clearly a belief system, and it certainly illuminates much of

what you write in a political vein on this list.

They did not commit " murder " and " theft " -- they

>got rid of " evildoers " . If you really believe that your teenage

>kid, by having sex, has let " evil " into the house, then killing

>her is the humane and moral thing to do. " Most of us " do NOT

>share a common ground of what morality means.

This is extreme to a fault and thus logically fallacious. I 'm not

going to even answer it. But you must have some examples in mind so it

would be interesting to hear them.

Besides, the fact you have murder and theft in parentheses illustrates

just how far apart we are when it comes to understanding and applying

morality.

>>Yes most people want to place morality in the realm of the transcendent,

>>so it is not subject to the arbitrariness of the whims of people. Your

>>approach would essentially make you a non-player and in reality is

>>impossible. When it is taken seriously people die,and often in large

>>numbers.

>

>No one ever has taken my approach seriously!

Well to be honest I would be glad if it were true but sadly it is not so.

There is and has been a whole school of thought based on your approach.

Most of the moral

>wars have been fought by folks fighting hard for their version of

>morality. I would only fight a war if it really was NEEDED by some

>objective standard.

But this is the point. If *you* thought it was NEEDED. And the only

reason *you* would think war is NEEDED is because it is line with *your

morality.* So you would just be one more folk fighting a war for her

version of morality. All you have done is switched whose morality will

be operative in determining whether a particular war is legit.

In other words, despite your determined attempt to say otherwise, you

are in the same boat as everyone else. Your approach is no different.

<snip>

I'd agree all those things

>are bad. Dumping nitrates into the ecosystem might actually

>kill more people though, where does that come in? How about

>PCBs?

You give me some *objective* evidence that this is so and I will listen.

Otherwise this is nonsensical.

>

>Those items also fit my definition of " what works " abeit they

>are a tiny subset. Theft does NOT work in a society, nor

>do the others, because they disrupt the fabric of the society.

>There are many others though, that disrupt society but are

>OK within the limited Libertarian ideal.

First of all you do believe in theft as many of your posts attest too.

Now you wouldn't let me come and rob you directly, you would call the

police. But you have no problem joining a mass of people to vote and

take away my property. Its the American way, " thou shalt not steal, " except

by majority vote.

Violence and aggression, whether by an individual or a group, disrupts

society and libertarians oppose it in all its forms.

<snip>

>Since you and I are NOT in the same tribe, " what is moral " needs more

>definition. Within one tribe, " moral " means " following the rules of

>the tribe " . You and I (and Chris) follow different rules.

Clearly we do, at a political level, since you are not a libertarian.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 5:25:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> This was a favorite tactic of my Marxist teachers in college.

Isn't using " Marxist " and " teachers in college " redundant? <g>

Chris