Political Crossfire Forums

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

Why do you think that? Is murder only wrong because of the interest's of the rich and powerful? Is murder only wrong because of societally estabilished norms? Does right and wrong end with man's perceptions, or is right and wrong as sure there is the right and wrong process for star formulation? Rather than there being no universal values, could it not just be that they're hard to discover. Like how Neton's theory of gravity was more true than that which came before it, but wasn't actually 100% correct. In other words just because it's hard to find universal values it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy enterprise.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

Why do you think that? Is murder only wrong because of the interest's of the rich and powerful? Is murder only wrong because of societally estabilished norms? Does right and wrong end with man's perceptions, or is right and wrong as sure there is the right and wrong process for star formulation? Rather than there being no universal values, could it not just be that they're hard to discover. Like how Neton's theory of gravity was more true than that which came before it, but wasn't actually 100% correct. In other words just because it's hard to find universal values it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy enterprise.

Trying to find universal laws and values within the sphere of ethics is a complete waste of time. There aren't any. Trying to say that the laws governing "right and wrong" are just as sure as those governing "star formation" is just silly. There will always be exceptions. We have to be pragmatic.

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
Trying to find universal laws and values within the sphere of ethics is a complete waste of time. There aren't any. Trying to say that the laws governing "right and wrong" are just as sure as those governing "star formation" is just silly. There will always be exceptions. We have to be pragmatic.

There are exceptions to our theory of gravity but it still provides a better basis for spaceshuttle laucnhes than one lacking any reason at all.

[One and Only...]

Society may never be static, but the social metastructure always has been.

That said, it has always struck me as odd that so many political philosophers fail to consider the conditions of society in their models. Ideal economic systems only make sense when referenced to other social factors.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote:
Trying to find universal laws and values within the sphere of ethics is a complete waste of time. There aren't any. Trying to say that the laws governing "right and wrong" are just as sure as those governing "star formation" is just silly. There will always be exceptions. We have to be pragmatic.

There are exceptions to our theory of gravity but it still provides a better basis for spaceshuttle laucnhes than one lacking any reason at all.

The causal factors that result in things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. do not have equivalents in the realm of social interaction. I'm not saying that concepts like "rights" are a bad thing (they aren't), I'm just saying that they can't be taken as absolutes.

[EugenicHegemony]

Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?

No

[Kindred]

Reason wrote: Quote: Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

Why do you think that? Is murder only wrong because of the interest's of the rich and powerful? Is murder only wrong because of societally estabilished norms? Does right and wrong end with man's perceptions, or is right and wrong as sure there is the right and wrong process for star formulation? Rather than there being no universal values, could it not just be that they're hard to discover. Like how Neton's theory of gravity was more true than that which came before it, but wasn't actually 100% correct. In other words just because it's hard to find universal values it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy enterprise.

I think killing a person is wrong in almost every imaginable circumstance. But they are rule of society- they are created by society, and not by the laws of nature. More to the point, however, are less convincing 'rights' which libertarians refer to, such as the inalienable right to property. First of all, as Rue, Roy and others have shown you [quite consistently], there is no absolute rules governing property and/or more generally, ‘ownership’. Ownership is one so called ‘right’ which I would contend is solely and socially contractual, and hence needs to be balanced with other wants and needs. In other words, it is a value; a very strong value, but not an absolute value for all cultures, across all continents, all the time. Not something with divine origins, but a construct.

[Kindred]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?



Of course it can. In the golden age of America's history which libertarians often refer, imperial activity was already a consistent policy theme. Just ask those in the Philopenes, or native Americans.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: The causal factors that result in things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. do not have equivalents in the realm of social interaction. I'm not saying that concepts like "rights" are a bad thing (they aren't), I'm just saying that they can't be taken as absolutes.

One reason derived principle should be (if correctly reasoned) as effective as any other. Obviously some are very well thought out - they're the ones we use to build computers and the like - a process made easier in the true sciences by easy empricism.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I think killing a person is wrong in almost every imaginable circumstance. But they are rule of society- they are created by society, and not by the laws of nature. More to the point, however, are less convincing 'rights' which libertarians refer to, such as the inalienable right to property. First of all, as Rue, Roy and others have shown you [quite consistently], there is no absolute rules governing property and/or more generally, ‘ownership’. Ownership is one so called ‘right’ which I would contend is solely and socially contractual, and hence needs to be balanced with other wants and needs. In other words, it is a value; a very strong value, but not an absolute value for all cultures, across all continents, all the time. Not something with divine origins, but a construct.

The choice is not simply between a divine justification and the quantity of an opinion. It's the quality, as defined by it's depth in reason/reality that counts. As it does for contsructing a computer. There are laws that are right, though they need not necessarily be followed, and whilst I'd ignore them if they led to misery it wouldn't make sense if they did. When trying to build a computer one must follow reason (and experiment) when trying to build a society the same must surely be argued. There is a right and wrong way of doing it.

If you follow the conclusions of reason when building a computer, you'll get a working product - the same can be said about a country. The reults are not made good simply by their consequences but their beenficial consequences stem from their good reasoning.

[Kindred]

Reason wrote: Quote: I think killing a person is wrong in almost every imaginable circumstance. But they are rule of society- they are created by society, and not by the laws of nature. More to the point, however, are less convincing 'rights' which libertarians refer to, such as the inalienable right to property. First of all, as Rue, Roy and others have shown you [quite consistently], there is no absolute rules governing property and/or more generally, ‘ownership’. Ownership is one so called ‘right’ which I would contend is solely and socially contractual, and hence needs to be balanced with other wants and needs. In other words, it is a value; a very strong value, but not an absolute value for all cultures, across all continents, all the time. Not something with divine origins, but a construct.

The choice is not simply between a divine justification and the quantity of an opinion. It's the quality, as defined by it's depth in reason/reality that counts. As it does for contsructing a computer. There are laws that are right, though they need not necessarily be followed, and whilst I'd ignore them if they led to misery it wouldn't make sense if they did. When trying to build a computer one must follow reason (and experiment) when trying to build a society the same must surely be argued. There is a right and wrong way of doing it.

If you follow the conclusions of reason when building a computer, you'll get a working product - the same can be said about a country. The reults are not made good simply by their consequences but their beenficial consequences stem from their good reasoning.

Unfortunately, though your side of politics has seemed to attempt to patent the meaning of the word ‘reason’, many people will wilfully ignore it even when it is thrown in their face.

For example, anyone who has followed the debates between yourself and Rue will see that you are constantly being defeated because Rue presents logically consistent arguments, which you either fail to understand, or avoid, I’m not sure which. I hence believe you are operated on entirely unreasonable premises; premises which have been shown to fail in the face of close analytical scrutiny, yet you hold onto them with the fervour only a true ideologue can possess. And these basic premises make up the entire foundation of your propetarian belief system (which is probably why you cling so tight to them). So, whilst you may believe certain things can be ascertained via pure reason- things which are unchanging and absolute, I believe that the values you hold, regardless of my belief in absolute laws of ethics, are certainly not those particular things (if they do indeed exist, and I am more than doubtful they do).

[Kindred]

Reason wrote: Quote: The causal factors that result in things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. do not have equivalents in the realm of social interaction. I'm not saying that concepts like "rights" are a bad thing (they aren't), I'm just saying that they can't be taken as absolutes.

One reason derived principle should be (if correctly reasoned) as effective as any other. Obviously some are very well thought out - they're the ones we use to build computers and the like - a process made easier in the true sciences by easy empricism.

Another point. Who ever said people 'reason' the same. What seems 'reasonable' is influenced by culture etc. among other things. A man from the Babonga tribe of east Africa may be astounded at the idea of individual property rights; it may seem entirely absurd to have a system based on such a notion- he may, as I do, think it philosophically impossible to own (in an absolute sense) a piece of land which he did nothing to create. Does that make him wrong, or you wrong?

[RueTheDay]

A.D wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

Why do you think that? Is murder only wrong because of the interest's of the rich and powerful? Is murder only wrong because of societally estabilished norms? Does right and wrong end with man's perceptions, or is right and wrong as sure there is the right and wrong process for star formulation? Rather than there being no universal values, could it not just be that they're hard to discover. Like how Neton's theory of gravity was more true than that which came before it, but wasn't actually 100% correct. In other words just because it's hard to find universal values it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy enterprise.

I think killing a person is wrong in almost every imaginable circumstance. But they are rule of society- they are created by society, and not by the laws of nature. More to the point, however, are less convincing 'rights' which libertarians refer to, such as the inalienable right to property. First of all, as Rue, Roy and others have shown you [quite consistently], there is no absolute rules governing property and/or more generally, ‘ownership’. Ownership is one so called ‘right’ which I would contend is solely and socially contractual, and hence needs to be balanced with other wants and needs. In other words, it is a value; a very strong value, but not an absolute value for all cultures, across all continents, all the time. Not something with divine origins, but a construct.

:tu: That sums it up perfectly.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: The causal factors that result in things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. do not have equivalents in the realm of social interaction. I'm not saying that concepts like "rights" are a bad thing (they aren't), I'm just saying that they can't be taken as absolutes.

One reason derived principle should be (if correctly reasoned) as effective as any other. Obviously some are very well thought out - they're the ones we use to build computers and the like - a process made easier in the true sciences by easy empricism.

Axiomatic deductive systems work well in certain branches of mathematics like geometry and set theory where you can control your starting point exactly and precisely define and control all of your variables. They fare poorly in both the natural sciences and the social sciences where you cannot do the above, which is why empiricism is required.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: I think killing a person is wrong in almost every imaginable circumstance. But they are rule of society- they are created by society, and not by the laws of nature. More to the point, however, are less convincing 'rights' which libertarians refer to, such as the inalienable right to property. First of all, as Rue, Roy and others have shown you [quite consistently], there is no absolute rules governing property and/or more generally, ‘ownership’. Ownership is one so called ‘right’ which I would contend is solely and socially contractual, and hence needs to be balanced with other wants and needs. In other words, it is a value; a very strong value, but not an absolute value for all cultures, across all continents, all the time. Not something with divine origins, but a construct.

The choice is not simply between a divine justification and the quantity of an opinion. It's the quality, as defined by it's depth in reason/reality that counts. As it does for contsructing a computer. There are laws that are right, though they need not necessarily be followed, and whilst I'd ignore them if they led to misery it wouldn't make sense if they did. When trying to build a computer one must follow reason (and experiment) when trying to build a society the same must surely be argued. There is a right and wrong way of doing it.

If you follow the conclusions of reason when building a computer, you'll get a working product - the same can be said about a country. The reults are not made good simply by their consequences but their beenficial consequences stem from their good reasoning.

You're living on another planet if you think that the "design" of a computer is accomplished solely via deductive processes with no empirical testing.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Another point. Who ever said people 'reason' the same. What seems 'reasonable' is influenced by culture etc. among other things. A man from the Babonga tribe of east Africa may be astounded at the idea of individual property rights; it may seem entirely absurd to have a system based on such a notion- he may, as I do, think it philosophically impossible to own (in an absolute sense) a piece of land which he did nothing to create. Does that make him wrong, or you wrong?

It certainly makes one of us wrong, which person I think that is is obvious. Reaosn itself is not reliant on culture though a culture may push a person into making a mistake or being correct despite applying the wrong reasoning.

Quote: You're living on another planet if you think that the "design" of a computer is accomplished solely via deductive processes with no empirical testing.

I never said that it was solely desinged through reason. So I suppose I'm not living on another planet.

Quote: For example, anyone who has followed the debates between yourself and Rue will see that you are constantly being defeated because Rue presents logically consistent arguments,

Of course I disagree.....is I were mistaken I'd happily admit to it.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: You're living on another planet if you think that the "design" of a computer is accomplished solely via deductive processes with no empirical testing.

I never said that it was solely desinged through reason. So I suppose I'm not living on another planet.


You said:

Quote: If you follow the conclusions of reason when building a computer, you'll get a working product - the same can be said about a country. The reults are not made good simply by their consequences but their beenficial consequences stem from their good reasoning.

You do not seem to fully understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Also, what makes a computer "good" is the RESULT of the design process, not the process itself. A good computer is one that satisfies a need, regardless of the design process.

[EugenicHegemony]

A.D wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?



Of course it can. In the golden age of America's history which libertarians often refer, imperial activity was already a consistent policy theme. Just ask those in the Philopenes, or native Americans.

How so? Which Libertarians are you referring to, the American statist's pretending to be libertarians? Badnarik libertarians? The same ones who gravitate toward the onerous USC, claim it as sacred and unique? I don't know any real classical liberals who will say: an Empire can coexist in a purely libertarian country. You can't have an Empire without imperialism, and I see no authentic classical liberals anywhere looking to (aggressively war torn) colonize. Do you? I certainly don't know any who'd put the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian" together in the same sentence, and think that's remotely libertarian. It sounds absolutely absurd to me, because it is.

Side note: That Hayek book I posted in the RHQ, will give you more than enough reading recommendations to last a lifetime. At the bottom of every page is a synopsis of sorts (footnotes). A list of the material discussed, and the names of every book/source. I couldn't read it all if in this lifetime. Hayek certainly did split from Mises.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: You do not seem to fully understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Reason and empiricism shoudl produce the same result, they are simply different methods of attempting to reach the truth.

Quote: Also, what makes a computer "good" is the RESULT of the design process, not the process itself. A good computer is one that satisfies a need, regardless of the design process.

Making a sandwhich (which would satisfy need) is not making a good conputer.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: You do not seem to fully understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Reason and empiricism shoudl produce the same result, they are simply different methods of attempting to reach the truth.

They are both required - e.g., rational empiricism is responsible for pretty much all of the advances we have made in science over the past few hundred years. You seem to want reason without empiricism.

Quote:
Quote: Also, what makes a computer "good" is the RESULT of the design process, not the process itself. A good computer is one that satisfies a need, regardless of the design process.

Making a sandwhich (which would satisfy need) is not making a good conputer.

Are you trying to be obtuse? By "need", I meant a computing need, not just any old need.