The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society » The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society

The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society
Libertarians are selfish b******s

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/13/08 - 09:18 PM:	#101
ugx2000 wrote: The word opportunist begs the following questions: What is the opportunity? Is it positive, or negative? Is it creative and productive, or is it about taking advantage of someone? I left the word as you first used it. Without qualification. This is certainly a question you could ask about an opportunity. If your complaint is merely that some opportunities take advantage of somebody, I would not disagree with that. (Your statement implied that you believed that all opportunities took advantage of somebody.) Hence: cortes wrote: An opportunist is someone who takes advantage of opportunities without regard for "fairness". ugx2000 wrote: I prefer the word skill to gift. Gift is often used in a way that suggests no effort or though. Thought always proceeds action. So there is always thought behind a person that demonstrates skill. You'll need to review the earlier discussion in the thread to understand why I chose the world "gift". Suffice it to say that we were considering the different starting points that each of us have. In the case of Bill Gates, he was born with several advantages not least of which was wealthy parents.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/14/08 - 02:12 AM:	#102
cortes wrote: But is it instinctive? It seems not. And if it were instinctive, would it be valued? I doubt that as well. It is instinctive in the sense that a person will act in such a way that we can make useful judgements to their circumstances, and their society. So, if we see someone making "valuable" acts in their community, then it tells us as much about the society as it does the Individual - of course we would need to know more Information; it could be we are dealing with the Hitler Youth. Oaff... The claim that we are indebted to "society" is simply without logical foundation of any kind. Some might wish it were so, but it is not. I agree with this, I don't think there is any such thing as a 'debt' to society -unless someone has actually signed a contract, and without coercion, and understands what they are signing- even then there are grey areas. Given that there is no debt all this talk about what we get from "society" is irrelevant and academic. At best it tells us something about where we came from, not where we are going, and surely not where we ought to go. The underpinning of a successful society is co-operation, co-operation of positive people - working to something useful, or at least all working with the similar positive goals and ideas - this could be something simple as "creativity" (a very grey area indeed)..
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:57 AM:	#103
Glypt wrote: Fried Egg wrote: Incidentally, a quotation I found from Hayek in 1979 shows clearly that he did not tacitly retract his views on methodological individualism: the whole of the so-called welfare economics, which pretends to base its arguments on interpersonal comparisons of ascertainable utilities, lacks all scientific foundation. The fact that most of us believe that they can judge which of the several needs of two or more persons are more important, does not prove either that there is any objective basis for this, nor that we can form such a conceptions about people whom we do not know individually. The idea of basing coercive actions by government on such fantasies is clearly an absurdity. Unfortunately the quote does not do the extensive work the that you intend for it. It is a statement affirming his belief in methodological subjectivism, yes, but clearly indicates his belief also in methodological individualism too. By the way, I don't know if your point is merely that MI is completely wrong or only that it should be only one of our "tools" in the study of social phenomena. If it is the latter then I don't think there is much disagreement between us. It is probably only a question of the degree of emphasis that one should place on that methodology. Do you think that libertarians completely reject all other methodologies or merely that they place too much emphasis on it?

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/14/08 - 07:38 AM:	#104
Fried Egg wrote: It is a statement affirming his belief in methodological subjectivism, yes, but clearly indicates his belief also in methodological individualism too. Your notion of clarity and mine do not coincide, on this occasion. It is generally accepted that, while Hayek is associated with MI for its explicative utility, as a young writer, he appeared to distance himself from it later. In fact he also took to using more holistic methods to make various points of economic reality. "I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should satisfy" Hayek, 1978."New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas" Routledge, p. 111 Fried Egg wrote: By the way, I don't know if your point is merely that MI is completely wrong or only that it should be only one of our "tools" in the study of social phenomena. If it is the latter then I don't think there is much disagreement between us. It is probably only a question of the degree of emphasis that one should place on that methodology. Do you think that libertarians completely reject all other methodologies or merely that they place too much emphasis on it? Put it this way 'why use the term libertarian if one really means liberal?

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/14/08 - 07:57 AM:	#105
Glypt I do not see that the quotation you supply supports your claim that Hayek moved away from MI in later life. He always believed that there were some things that the government was needed for. But anyway, this is all besides the point really. I don't think there's much point in trying to ascertain what Hayek did or did not believe in his later life when he had largely moved away from economic concerns. Put it this way 'why use the term libertarian if one really means liberal? Well, the term "liberal" has had it's meaning distorted since it's original inception. Indeed, I would say hijacked. Classical Liberalism used to coincide with economic (as well as social) libery. Now, those that wave the banner of "liberal" tend to be opposed to free market policies. Since this is the meaning that the public at large now attaches to the term, it would be vein for libertarians to attempts to reclaim it. I do concede that most libertarians go well beyond what most classical liberals believed (mainly in terms of how much government is necessary), but if anyone could be said to be carrying the flag of classical liberalism in the modern age, it would be libertarians in my opinion.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/14/08 - 09:48 AM:	#106
Fried Egg wrote: Glypt... if anyone could be said to be carrying the flag of classical liberalism in the modern age, it would be libertarians in my opinion. (1) Given what we know about... the embedded nature of being a person, the extended notions of how 'the self' is constituted, and the imperative to seek reconcilliation of both private and public autonomies attributable to the individual... in what sense can we describe the market as being free? (2) A classical component of liberalism going back to Mill, is the notion of tolerance, therefore in what sense are libertarians tolerant of non-libertarians?

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:24 AM:	#107
litkey wrote: It is instinctive in the sense that a person will act in such a way that we can make useful judgements to their circumstances, and their society. So, if we see someone making "valuable" acts in their community, then it tells us as much about the society as it does the Individual - of course we would need to know more Information; it could be we are dealing with the Hitler Youth. Oaff... This is really a question about predicting behavior. What % of behavior can be predicted from knowing the society from which a person comes? (If social circumstances is predictive then we can also look at the reverse, what does the individual's behavior tell us about society.) We can similarly ask what % of behavior is a function of genetic disposition. litkey wrote: I agree with this, I don't think there is any such thing as a 'debt' to society -unless someone has actually signed a contract, and without coercion, and understands what they are signing- even then there are grey areas. The whole concept is just frought with problems. litkey wrote: The underpinning of a successful society is co-operation, co-operation of positive people - working to something useful, or at least all working with the similar positive goals and ideas - this could be something simple as "creativity" (a very grey area indeed).. This really is a subject that deserves a thread of its own. But suffice it to say that there can be too much co-operation as well as too little. Creativity flourishes not from concensus but from conflict. Every great idea overturns older ideas. Nothing more effectively destroys creativity than to drill into people that they must not rock the boat.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:27 AM:	#108
Glypt wrote: ...in what sense are libertarians tolerant of non-libertarians? For all (X), in what sense is X tolerant of anti-X? Tolerance has to be one of the most abused concepts of the modern age.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 134

Posted 04/14/08 - 06:17 PM:	#109
I'm back, with more time. cortes wrote: Not a valid question, in regards to the topic. It does however demonstrate a part of your position. What can be done will be done - amoral. On the contrary, it is to the pont of the original question. Your beef is with the fact that Europeans (like all peoples) took slaves but you overlook the point of the question, why it went one way and not the other. (Muslims, for example, took European slaves during Europe's dark ages.) My beef? It is an observation of human behavior. cortes wrote: This is quite obviously false but the claim does serve nicely as a litmus test of socialist beliefs. All great things have been accomplished by those who took advantage of the opportunities afforded them. Even atheletes seek advantage within the rules. For the most part, entrepreneurs operate within the law, those are the rules of our game. The rules of our game? Where do these rules / laws come from? Who decides? Most important of all - based on what? cortes wrote: Here is a short list of other great men: http://www.conquistador.org/index?name=honor I am not sure what this has to do with anything. cortes wrote: His gifts? I am afraid I disagree with your assessment. He is, indeed, a ruthless business man. Indeed, he is. That is one of his many gifts. This has gotten off topic. cortes wrote: ugx2000 wrote: The word opportunist begs the following questions: What is the opportunity? Is it positive, or negative? Is it creative and productive, or is it about taking advantage of someone? I left the word as you first used it. Without qualification. This is certainly a question you could ask about an opportunity. If your complaint is merely that some opportunities take advantage of somebody, I would not disagree with that. (Your statement implied that you believed that all opportunities took advantage of somebody.) My complaint? Why the word games (presumption). It is just a factual observation. cortes wrote: You'll need to review the earlier discussion in the thread to understand why I chose the world "gift". Suffice it to say that we were considering the different starting points that each of us have. In the case of Bill Gates, he was born with several advantages not least of which was wealthy parents. My bad. Not enough time to read it all.
_____________________ An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/14/08 - 06:47 PM:	#110
ugx2000 wrote: The rules of our game? Where do these rules / laws come from? Who decides? Most important of all - based on what? I was wondering when somebody would ask this. Early on in this or another thread (I can't tell them apart anymore) I pointed to the reality of political processes of one form or another. In some cases a king conquers and then declares the law. In other cases sports franchise owners vote on the rules. This is actually one of the most interesting, but largely ignored, issues. It is also one of the most important reasons not to take Glypts' approach of treating "society" as a homogeneous mass across space and time. It really makes sense to look at the real, actual human history of political and social associations from the nuclear family to the nation state and everything in between from the boy scouts to the bowling league to the beta zeta fraternity to the episcopal church.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/15/08 - 12:44 AM:	#111
Glypt (1) Given what we know about... the embedded nature of being a person, the extended notions of how 'the self' is constituted, and the imperative to seek reconcilliation of both private and public autonomies attributable to the individual... in what sense can we describe the market as being free? A free market is one unhampered by coercive interference into the voluntary interactions of which the market comprises. It does not detract from the "freedom" of a market the fact that people influence each other and that our decision making is not made autonymously. (2) A classical component of liberalism going back to Mill, is the notion of tolerance, therefore in what sense are libertarians tolerant of non-libertarians? Libertarians are tolerant to all social structures that are non-coercive. If those guys down the road want to live in a collective, so be it. They are not tolerant to those who want to make slaves of others. No truly liberal society should be.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/15/08 - 03:26 AM:	#112
Fried Egg wrote: *A free* market is one unhampered by coercive interference into the voluntary interactions of which the market comprises. It does not detract from the "freedom" of a market the fact that people influence each other and that our decision making is not made autonymously**. This is a confused and internally contradictory statement. Is the market free or not? Are agents influenced or not? If so in what sense is there voluntaryaction? In what sense unemcumbered by the autonomous cooriginality of personhood? What comprises the market? Fried Egg wrote: Libertarians are tolerant to all social structures that are non-coercive. If those guys down the road want to live in a collective, so be it. They are not tolerant to those who want to make slaves of others. No truly liberal society should be. Merely stating an assertion does not qualify as a philosophical argument...In what rational or reasonable sense could interdepencies be 'styled' as slavery? All our actions have consequences...I say to libertarian extremists attempt to live up to your responsibilities and stop insulting the predicaments of others by calling it charity. If you need the market you need the society that sustains it, if your actions limit the positive freedom of others you have a responsibility to clear up your mess. The extreme libertarian might look and sound like an adult but in many respects they think like a teenager who objects to putting out the household garbage. That more moderate libertarian belief rest upon such juvenile thinking is not to their credit either. You don't just own your property you own the impact of generating that property and protecting that property. It is about time libertarians grew up and shook off their adolescent mind set...IMHO!It is right that liberalism looks both ways to the private and public aspect of personal identity and the moral implication that comprehensive vision entails ...by contrast the myopia of libertarians that mascerade as liberals astounds me.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/15/08 - 03:42 AM:	#113
Glypt This is a confused and internally contradictory statement. Is the market free or not? Are agents influenced or not? If so in what sense is there voluntaryaction? In what sense unemcumbered by the autonomous cooriginality of personhood? What comprises the market? What are you on about? I don't see the contradiction. What sort of question is "Is the market free or not"? Which market? Certainly I know of no market around the world that is entirely unhampered. What has being influenced got to do with voluntary action? Voluntary does not mean free of influence. It means free of coercion. All our actions have consequences...I say to libertarian extremists attempt to live up to your responsibilities and stop insulting the predicaments of others by calling it charity. If you need the market you need the society that sustains it, if your actions limit the positive freedom of others you have a responsibility to clear up your mess. And I have already asked you to how we go about defining the extent of our responsibilities to society? Why is it that the contributions we make to society whilst going about pursuing our own interests do not sufficiently compensate for the benefit we have derived from society? You have not addressed these questions. Can you expain what you mean exactly by one's actions limiting the positive freedoms of another? Examples? The extreme libertarian might look and sound like an adult but in many respects they think like a teenager who objects to putting out the household garbage. That more moderate libertarian belief rest upon such juvenile thinking is not to their credit either. You don't just own your property you own the impact of generating that property and protecting that property. It is about time libertarians grew up and shook off their adolescent mind set...IMHO!It is right that liberalism looks both ways to the private and public aspect of personal identity and the moral implication that comprehensive vision entails ...by contrast the myopia of libertarians that mascerade as liberals astounds me. Again I would ask you to flesh this out with one or two examples that contrast the liberal and libertarian stances on partcular issues. What do you really mean by looking to the "public aspect of personal identity"?

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/15/08 - 05:59 AM:	#114
[quote: Fried Egg] Voluntary does not mean free of influence. It means free of coercion.[/quote] Are you absolutely sure? Or are you trying to coerce me into accepting society's definition of voluntary action? Which will be master…who decides…the individual or agreements between individuals that thereby constitute the social conventions and norms underwriting language and meaning itself? The absurdity of libertarianism rages within the very words they select. They pluck out 'coercion' from the air to describe something that doesn't actually obtain in the context they place it yet cry foul when another individual perceives the immanent connections behind words and their implication that in turn reveals inconsistency. 'Voluntary' has its root in 'voluntas' or 'will'…are you saying our will is not shaped and influenced by systems over which we either have no control or are unable bring to account?…are you saying that those susceptable to subliminal advertising, marketing techniques etc engage with the market voluntarily? Are you saying such duping of market users is legitimate and that societal norms that object and monitor and regulate the selfish amoral appetites of some individuals need no sustaining? Coercion, fraudulent persuasions, self-seeking patterns of influence from corporate marketing methods right down to targeting the power of the pleading and persistent offspring toward their parent to buy the latest toy… all these and more coexist along a semantic continuity that is born out of the activities of the marketplace that in only a very limited interpretation engages freedom. The notion of a 'free market' is thereby an oxymoron. That a small minority might increase their freedoms at the expense of others is no doubt possible but that this in some sense or other promotes autonomy in the person is dubious. Other such linear tracts of hermeneutic expediency can be observed in the pitiable use of the word slavery by libertarians … this must be an insult to anyone who has been actually enslaved…such as a child subcontractor in a developing country for some morally unaccountable or disinterested conglomerate. If we choose to misuse words like slavery the term must be democratically distributable…slavery of the wealthy individual stands in no comparison with the slavery he/she imposes when shirking their obligation to the entire marketplace. The hypothesis of the exploitative enterprise of an unregulated or unconstrained self-seeker who thinks he/she alone may decide if/when to distribute a few crumbs to the populated infrastructure off which they profit...may be a characture of real life libertarians but it shares some of the same precepts. Minimal governance is another way of saying individuals prioritising their interests alone need not be regulated. Market forces will sort out distribution. What nonsense, if left to private charity we all know what would happen to vulnerable people, to those with psychological/physical disabilities, to children and the elderly...they would fall off the scale of human interest as dog continues to eat dog until the top dog left is ultimately left gnawing at its own leg. If you are not familiar with the term personal identity in a philosophical discourse and are interested I would respectfully suggest you do some research. In the meantime there are some key aspects to it in the context of this discussion. Identity is characterised numerically and qualitatively. The latter constitutes the entity we regard as our personality and personhood along with historical, familial, public and private self-perceptions that constitutes the attributes of the person. John Smith at 5 years old has a different qualitative personal identity than John Smith at 15 or at 50; although numerically they constitute a single centre of a biological life. We are not the same person, not identical, with the same person we were last year or last week even. Our physiological self…our cells... will regularly renew…memories are won and lost and shared and edited to suit vanity or protect self-confidence…sometimes memories of our past identity is lost altogether through amnesia or the onset of senile dimentia… So how do we retain our sense of personal identity? Our identity is confirmed by the normative systems of civilisation. The notion of being a particular individual disappears when society itself turns its back on your existence as a human being. Ask any historian of genocidal events how quickly personal identity is effectively lost. Libertarians may think that they are guardians of individual liberty but their lack of attention or incompetence at looking at the autonomous interests of the full extent of the complete person both private and public, does more to categorise libertarians as a threat to civilisation.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/15/08 - 07:12 AM:	#115
Glypt 'Voluntary' has its root in 'voluntas' or 'will'…are you saying our will is not shaped and influenced by systems over which we either have no control or are unable bring to account? In order to be free of systems that might influence or shape our will we would have to be free of environmental concerns altogether. Of course the actions of others, the configuration of nature around us, our internal state, in short the circumstances we find ourselves, undoutedly influences our will. In order to be free of all influences we would have to be free of everything that makes us human. There would be no reason for acting because we would have no need not already met. We would have no one to interact with. There would be nothing around us that could be interacted with. So what point is there to talk about freedom and voluntary actions as being free of influence? Subliminal advertising is a special case. It's effectiveness is still widely disputed but it may well be that such methods should be considered fraudulent and therefore not permissable even in a liberatrian society. Coercion, fraudulent persuasions, self-seeking patterns of influence from corporate marketing methods right down to targeting the power of the pleading and persistent offspring toward their parent to buy the latest toy… all these and more coexist along a semantic continuity that is born out of the activities of the marketplace that in only a very limited interpretation engages freedom. The notion of a 'free market' is thereby an oxymoron. That a small minority might increase their freedoms at the expense of others is no doubt possible but that this in some sense or other promotes autonomy in the person is dubious. What about the vast majority of market interactions? Those that are mutually beneficial because of the asymmetry of exchange? The whole point, from the individualist agenda, is to set up a social framework so that each individual going about furthering their own ends can be made to serve the ends of others? Such a system needs to be tweaked to eliminate those ways in which people can profit at the expense of others. Other such linear tracts of hermeneutic expediency can be observed in the pitiable use of the word slavery by libertarians … this must be an insult to anyone who has been actually enslaved…such as a child subcontractor in a developing country for some morally unaccountable or disinterested conglomerate. If we choose to misuse words like slavery the term must be democratically distributable…slavery of the wealthy individual stands in no comparison with the slavery he/she imposes when shirking their obligation to the entire marketplace. The hypothesis of the exploitative enterprise of an unregulated or unconstrained self-seeker who thinks he/she alone may decide if/when to distribute a few crumbs to the populated infrastructure off which they profit...may be a characture of real life libertarians but it shares some of the same precepts. Minimal governance is another way of saying individuals prioritising their interests alone need not be regulated. Market forces will sort out distribution. What nonsense, if left to private charity we all know what would happen to vulnerable people, to those with psychological/physical disabilities, to children and the elderly...they would fall off the scale of human interest as dog continues to eat dog until the top dog left is ultimately left gnawing at its own leg. It is not merely through charitable acts that individuals give back to society. It is (or should be) through the very process of interacting with others in society. A company that makes a profit, in theory at least, does so because it has helped satisfy the ends of various consumers. It has employed people furthering their ends as well. All this self-interested action has benefited society without any notion of charity taking place. Of course, the mutualality of benefit that is achieved in the markets depends on a proper system of property rights in place, delimiting individual realms of responsbility. Such a system is only partially implemented throughout the world and in some areas, not implemented attall. So it is not difficult to point to incidents of exploitation and abuse but it is wrong to use these to refute the idea of free markets. You claim that libertarians use words like "coercion" and "slavery" in distortive and contradictory ways but you haven't substantiated this. What exactly is wrong with the way they use those terms? You keep banging on about the shirking of responsibility to soicety and the marketplace but you don't define and delimit this concept clearly. Are they nothing more than nebulous notions which can be used to justify any level of social engineering to achieve the aims of the majority? If you don't think that it should be left to the individual to decide when to donate their time or wealth towards helping others, you must be defacto supporting a social system that forces people whenever and to whatever extent it deems appropriate. You seem to believe that a system that doesn't impose a system of welfare support will lead to a collapse in morals but all this is just unsubstantiated opinion and we are certainly not oblidged to accept it as fact merely because you say it is so.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/15/08 - 07:39 AM:	#116
cortes wrote: I was wondering when somebody would ask this. Early on in this or another thread (I can't tell them apart anymore) I pointed to the reality of political processes of one form or another. In some cases a king conquers and then declares the law. In other cases sports franchise owners vote on the rules. This is actually one of the most interesting, but largely ignored, issues. It is also one of the most important reasons not to take Glypts' approach of treating "society" as a homogeneous mass across space and time. It really makes sense to look at the real, actual human history of political and social associations from the nuclear family to the nation state and everything in between from the boy scouts to the bowling league to the beta zeta fraternity to the episcopal church. And then argue to change the existing rules on the basis of what when you disagree? Divine law? Natural law? Tradition? Legal positivism? etc. etc. It only informs you of what laws or agreements have been, exist now and how they came about. It says rather little about the justice or good of those laws. You said earlier that you teach your children to take care of themselves first and then there loved ones. Any societal rules, regardless of their source, that would infringe on people's ability to take care of themselves and others (if they would so wish) therefore would be wrong in your eyes. Is that based on tradition? Assumptions on the inviolability of the human will? Or just because you're passing on something your dad taught you? Although it is interesting to see where laws come from, that is ultimately uninformative as to what a good law ought to be.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:04 AM:	#117
Fried Egg wrote: Glypt, You claim that libertarians use words like "coercion" and "slavery" in distortive and contradictory ways but you haven't substantiated this. What exactly is wrong with the way they use those terms? I was about to give your response serious attention, until this comment of yours met my gaze. It so exasperates me that after the effort of explaining matters to you, you would sink so low as to write such nonsense...I have done more than substantiate my points it is merely that you do not recognise or choose not to recognise the fact. I've gone to a sufficient trouble in explaining every part of the point of view I'm presenting, short of writing a dissertation for you. I then looked in more detail at other requests for spoon feeding and I've come to the conclusion that it is possible that the same dodgy thinking that allows you to defend a clearly defunked and out of date proposition as libertarianism will probably corrupt every response I give. You are either merely playing some puerile game or you lack the ability to comprehend the arguments as they are set out before you. Either way I see no end to this discussion and would rather leave others to pick at it. If you later decide to actually think about these issues objectively then may be you will get a better response than this at a future time.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:52 AM:	#118
Glypt To be honest, I find your post couched in cryptic words and phrasology and that is making it extremely difficult for me to understand what you are tryng to say. It is not a dissertation I require from you, but rather some clarity. Perhaps it is true that I lack the ability to comprehend the arguments as they are set before me but perhaps it is the way they are set before me that is the problem? Anyway, your presumption that only dodgy thinking could lead someone to defend libertarianism/individualism hardly allows you to have an objective debate on the matter, does it? Is libertarianism clearly defunked and out of date? I would say the jury is still out on that one. As with all prominent moral and political theories, the overall assessment of libertarianism is a matter of on-going debate. - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edited by Fried Egg on 04/15/08 - 08:59 AM

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/16/08 - 02:14 AM:	#119
Fried Egg wrote: Glypt Is libertarianism clearly defunked and out of date? I would say the jury is still out on that one. As with all prominent moral and political theories, the overall assessment of libertarianism is a matter of on-going debate. - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The jury is still out on a number of cranky ideas that generate "on-going debate" from the flat earth society, creation theories, and to the notion that humans were originally inseminated by aliens. The bottom line is that idealised or 'perfecting' positions are in the same camp as the 'final solutions' that have caused so must political damage in the past. Either extremes of libertarianism or communitarianism are important discursive devises, but like most comprehensive ideologies they are not intended by serious theorists to stand alone as contenders for a way of life that could ever become politically relevant. This is because they cannot reconcile or universalise the necessary conditions to sustain disparate beliefs and desires that is crucial to modern political theory. If you use a quotation, may I suggest, it is a usual philosophical convention that it balances the argument and reveals the context. This is not a criticism, we all may make that 'error' most of the time...human nature being what it is. However, you will also be aware that the full sense of the concluding paragraph from which you quote entails the following significant points... "Libertarianism is attractive because (1) it provides significant moral liberty of action, (2) it provides significant moral protection against interference from others and because it is sensitive to what the past was like (e.g., what agreements were made and what rights violations took place). It faces, however, the serious objection that it gives too much protection from interference and not enough attention to making the future better (e.g., by meeting people's basic needs, making people's lives go better, or promoting equality). - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/16/08 - 08:38 AM:	#120
Benkei wrote: And then argue to change the existing rules on the basis of what when you disagree? Divine law? Natural law? Tradition? Legal positivism? etc. etc. That rather depends on my morality, see the "Moral Freedom" thread. Me personaly, I favor those laws which advance a just world, one that recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Benkei wrote: You said earlier that you teach your children to take care of themselves first and then there loved ones. Any societal rules, regardless of their source, that would infringe on people's ability to take care of themselves and others (if they would so wish) therefore would be wrong in your eyes. Is that based on tradition? Assumptions on the inviolability of the human will? Or just because you're passing on something your dad taught you? That's a bit of a logical leap there. However, I would hazard this universalization: I would recommend to all my friends that they teach their children similarly. However, I also teach my children not to expect to be treated well by others but to deal with people as they are. I do not teach them to assume themselves to be inviolable in any sense. Benkei wrote: Although it is interesting to see where laws come from, that is ultimately uninformative as to what a good law ought to be. Absolutely correct. However, it can help us to understand the processes of societies (note the plural) and the non-universality of laws.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

funky
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/19/08 - 03:23 PM:	#121
Glypt wrote: When we are born we do not earn our innate talents or deserve our short comings. The circumstances of our birth is a matter of happenstance. Some of us get a flying start by being born into wealthy families or rich countries others are born into a world where insecurity, pain and suffering is the norm. With this in mind can someone explain to me why there are still people struggling to gain the basic needs of life while so many of us feel justified in buying a second or third car, a second home, private education for our children, etc... There are times when the libertarian right wing view truly disgust me. When the consumer waste appals me. Am I being too extreme in this feeling? When do you draw the line and say "O.K, I have given enough" when there's still so much thats needs giving. Do you, yourself, simply have the basics in life and use only what you need to survive? Or is it because the vast majority of humans are selfish, and as much as I agree with you in the fact that we waste so much when so many have so little; and we even tell our kids at the dinner table, "Theres a child in Africa that has no food, so eat your vegetables", yet we finish our dinner on our nice plates and go and put on our nice TV and relax and feel good about our day or whatever, we have our nice hot bath. When does generosity become sacrifice? And as guilty as I do feel and pity for those less fortunate, I will not give up these simple pleasures that I have, for I do not want to go to sleep in the streets tonight, I know I would survive... I myself used to be a Home Carer and I loved my job. I felt I was making a difference to someone's life. I would come home very pleased at the end of the day, but at the same time, I needed to get paid for the job to feed me and my family. Most people give a little and think they have done their bit, but we all know in reality that we could all give more, but we don't and even in our own society we could do more, clean all the rubbish up, stop the graffiti,use energy efficient light bulbs, recycle everything. Many say they don't have time, but 1 hour less sleep would not kill you and if it does you work too hard. Each person has their own justifications for where they draw the line, we are all thankful for those that do go the extra mile and even envy them to a point yet are are glad it is not us who is the child in Africa who has no food. Edited by Landlady on 04/19/08 - 07:28 PM. Reason: Capitalization, spelling

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/21/08 - 04:59 AM:	#122
funky wrote: When do you draw the line and say "O.K, I have given enough" when there's still so much thats needs giving. Do you, yourself, simply have the basics in life and use only what you need to survive? Or is it because the vast majority of humans are selfish, and as much as I agree with you in the fact that we waste so much when so many have so little; and we even tell our kids at the dinner table, "Theres a child in Africa that has no food, so eat your vegetables", yet we finish our dinner on our nice plates and go and put on our nice TV and relax and feel good about our day or whatever, we have our nice hot bath. When does generosity become sacrifice? And as guilty as I do feel and pity for those less fortunate, I will not give up these simple pleasures that I have, for I do not want to go to sleep in the streets tonight, I know I would survive... I myself used to be a Home Carer and I loved my job. I felt I was making a difference to someone's life. I would come home very pleased at the end of the day, but at the same time, I needed to get paid for the job to feed me and my family. Most people give a little and think they have done their bit, but we all know in reality that we could all give more, but we don't and even in our own society we could do more, clean all the rubbish up, stop the graffiti,use energy efficient light bulbs, recycle everything. Many say they don't have time, but 1 hour less sleep would not kill you and if it does you work too hard. Each person has their own justifications for where they draw the line, we are all thankful for those that do go the extra mile and even envy them to a point yet are are glad it is not us who is the child in Africa who has no food. Thank you for your message, Funky. I appreciate the points you make about your life. The self-interests you describe certainly do not characterise libertarianism. The fact that you recognise that there is any kind of line to be drawn merely marks your respect for individual interests, yours and others, which is perfectly in keeping with mainstream liberal opinion. From what you say I doubt whether you would object to paying your taxes (any more than your utility bills), so that the liberties you enjoy do not detract, to an unreasonable extent, from the liberties of others. Having climbed the ladder I sense that you would find it reprehensible to take the ladder out of the reach of those that find it more difficult to make the climb. I also sense that you will intuitively recognise that terms 'individuality', 'family', 'community', 'citizenry', etc pertain to shaping the personal interests we have. Some of these are self-interests others are associational in some way or other... and all of which demand our attention in order to fulfil the concept of our humanity.

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:59 AM:	#123
Glypt wrote: The jury is still out on a number of cranky ideas that generate "on-going debate" from the flat earth society, creation theories, and to the notion that humans were originally inseminated by aliens. The bottom line is that idealised or 'perfecting' positions are in the same camp as the 'final solutions' that have caused so must political damage in the past. In what way is libertarianism a "final solution"? You talk of libertarianism as if it were a naiive position. Why do you think this? Either extremes of libertarianism or communitarianism are important discursive devises, but like most comprehensive ideologies they are not intended by serious theorists to stand alone as contenders for a way of life that could ever become politically relevant. This is because they cannot reconcile or universalise the necessary conditions to sustain disparate beliefs and desires that is crucial to modern political theory. Wrong. Libertarianism is the only political theory that allows for individuals of different "beliefs and desires" to live together, help each other, and benefit from one another through free choice. It doesn't promise a lack of coercion, but the goal is to be as close to that as possible. The State is there to help ensure that lack of coercion. "It faces, however, the serious objection that it gives too much protection from interference and not enough attention to making the future better (e.g., by meeting people's basic needs, making people's lives go better, or promoting equality). - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" Meeting people's basics needs? Individuals are responsible for meeting their own needs. Specialisation, or the division of labor, allows one person's needs to be met by other people through voluntary exchanges; but Robin Hood type coercion is not necessary. In fact, socialism has done more damage to poor people then capitalism ever could. Just look at the effects of globalisation.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 04/26/08 - 07:29 PM:	#124
JAC wrote: In what way is libertarianism a "final solution"? You talk of libertarianism as if it were a naiive position. Why do you think this? Wrong. Libertarianism is the only political theory that allows for individuals of different "beliefs and desires" to live together, help each other, and benefit from one another through free choice. It doesn't promise a lack of coercion, but the goal is to be as close to that as possible. The State is there to help ensure that lack of coercion. Meeting people's basics needs? Individuals are responsible for meeting their own needs. Specialisation, or the division of labor, allows one person's needs to be met by other people through voluntary exchanges; but Robin Hood type coercion is not necessary. In fact, socialism has done more damage to poor people then capitalism ever could. Just look at the effects of globalisation. Socialism was a direct result of capitalism, social blowback. Capitalism created socialism. Socialisms reining in of capitalism is what created the dynamic society we have today. How far would globalization be proceeding without the support of socialist endeavors like public infrastucture, directed investment, and universal education?

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/26/08 - 08:41 PM:	#125
unrealist42 wrote: Socialism was a direct result of capitalism, social blowback. Capitalism created socialism. I don't quite see how. Socialism in America was catapulted by people who believed that the Great Depression was the fault of capitalism. Socialism was instituted by people who thought capitalism needed to be restrained and kept in check. It was not an evolution of capitalism, but more of a reaction against it. Socialisms reining in of capitalism is what created the dynamic society we have today. How far would globalization be proceeding without the support of socialist endeavors like public infrastucture, directed investment, and universal education? The globalization we have today is not free market globalization, it is socialist globalization backed by international banking and government organizations who want to undermine the national sovereignty of every country on earth and place them all into economic slavery by demanding they accept our worthless debt money. And why are public infrastructure and education necessary? Why is universal education necessary? No one has a right to education.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.