Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 63

Thread: Basic Principles of Libertarian Ethics

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Rights are inalienable; an individual may choose to waive his right(s).
    How if they're inalienable? How do they become choosably waivable? Can you unchoose unwaivable?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    How if they're inalienable? How do they become choosably waivable? Can you unchoose unwaivable?
    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=waive+
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Thanks I know what 'waive' means.

    Let's try it this way. Who owns you?

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Thanks I know what 'waive' means.

    Let's try it this way. Who owns you?
    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=who+owns+you
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  7. #35
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    And are 'The Golden Rule' too, as it turns out.

    Try this also (please).

    The Philosophy of Liberty (video)
    Thanks, yes, great video. One of my two favorites. In reviewing, I think I have it covered.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Thanks, yes, great video. One of my two favorites. In reviewing, I think I have it covered.
    +Rep!

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Rights are inalienable; an individual may choose to waive his right(s).
    All rights are property rights, in one form or another.

    All property rights are alienable.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm working on a concise statement of basic libertarian ethical principles, for eventual inclusion in the Foundational Knowledgebase.

    Take a look at my current draft and let me know what you think.

    (The parts in parentheses are eventually going to contain links to side-articles on controversial topics)

    Basic Principles of Libertarianism

    What Is Ownership:

    1. To own something is to have the exclusive right to use it.
    Needs FAR deeper definition. What does it mean to "use"?

    2. To use something is to physically change or move it.
    And if my Van Gogh sits idle in its display for 30 years, have I ceased owning it?

    3. Only physical things can be owned (link – intellectual property).
    Are you sure of that?

    If I come up with a new idea, tell people ABOUT it, but do not tell them what it is, if Theye decided it was of monumental import to the human race, would they then have authority to wrest it from me though, for example, waterboarding?

    Words are important and endlessly tricky. You need to be WAY more rigorous in your formulations. Were I a devious bastard... oh wait... anyhow... I could have you tied in knots and sliced into lunch-meat in my sleep over things like this. So imagine what a sack of scum like Hillbillary Clinton could do.

    How Things Come To Be Owned Originally:
    4. The first person to use something, which no one has used before, becomes its first owner.
    5. Every person becomes the owner of his own body at birth (link – abortion).

    How the Ownership of Things is Transferred From One Person To Another:
    6. The ownership of something is transferred if and only if all parties agree (link – voluntary slavery)
    7. An agreement is void if made under threat of aggression.

    What is Aggression:
    8. Aggression is the use of something (including a human body) without the permission of its owner.

    Defending Oneself From Aggressors:
    9. One may employ whatever force is minimally necessary to eliminate a threat of imminent aggression.

    Punishing Aggressors:
    10. An aggressor is liable to compensate his victim, in an amount proportional to the value of the property of which he deprived the victim (link – capital punishment)
    I applaud the spirit of this and acknowledge its importance. However, there is no apparent philosophical basis for it and no proof of the validity of any of the assertions. Furthermore, there is insufficient semantic framing. Many of your assertions are open to wildly varying interpretation. Meaning needs to be closely and precisely constrained.

    Point 9 is, however, catastrophically failed with your use of "minimally". That stands to see many righteous people sent to prison for long stays. Any violation of another's rights can be met with deadly force. That is one of the less-pretty aspects of true and proper human freedom. One man holds NO right to violate his fellows in the least degree. ANY such violation may be met with lethal force with all moral certitude. This does NOT mean that it OUGHT to be. Someone takes a stick of chewing gum from another without asking. Can the "victim" kill in response? IMO yes, though there MAY be some qualifier attached relating to known aspects of relations between two people. If Jane regularly take Johnny's gum and it is understood to be OK, Johnny has no defense for killing Jane under that scenario. But if a stranger does the same, Johnny's position is greatly altered in what he MAY do. As for what he OUGHT to do in such a circumstance, that is most likely to be very different. For one thing, loss of a stick of gum is likely not an issue over which Johnny may want to have to defend his own life after having attacked the thief for violating his property rights. Is a stick of gum worth dying for? But at the end of the day the choice is his. If he manages to kill the thief, does he then want to have to deal with the friends and family of the deceased?

    The practical reality would show very few people killing others over sticks of gum and other such trivialities, though it would by no means be nonexistent. It is nonexistent today - people kill others over such things even now, sometimes.

    To qualify the meter of one's exercise of a fundamental right is to render it a mere privilege.
    Last edited by osan; 04-29-2016 at 10:03 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Needs FAR deeper definition. What does it mean to "use"?
    Consult point #2.

    You know, the very next one.

    ...which you would have seen had you read the entire post before responding.

    And if my Van Gogh sits idle in its display for 30 years, have I ceased owning it?
    You misunderstood.

    Point #2 is a definition of use; that's all.

    No where is it stated that one must use a thing with a certain frequency in order to retain ownership of it.

    Read more carefully next time.

    Are you sure of that?

    If I come up with a new idea, tell people ABOUT it, but do not tell them what it is, if Theye decided it was of monumental import to the human race, would they then have authority to wrest it from me th[r]ough, for example, waterboarding?

    Words are important and endlessly tricky. You need to be WAY more rigorous in your formulations. Were I a devious bastard... oh wait... anyhow... I could have you tied in knots and sliced into lunch-meat in my sleep over things like this. So imagine what a sack of scum like Hillbillary Clinton could do.
    What on Earth are you talking about?

    If intellectual property were illegitimate, it would in no way follow that someone could torture you to extract your ideas.

    And, in any event, as I noted, whether or not intellectual property is legitimate is debated amongst libertarians.

    I applaud the spirit of this and acknowledge its importance. However, there is no apparent philosophical basis for it and no proof of the validity of any of the assertions.
    First, this isn't intended to be a proof of libertarian ethics. It's intended to be a statement of libertarian ethics.

    Second, if you think a proof of libertarian (or any other) ethics is even possible, you have a very poor understanding of what ethics are.

    Furthermore, there is insufficient semantic framing. Many of your assertions are open to wildly varying interpretation. Meaning needs to be closely and precisely constrained.
    Provide an example, some ethical problem for the solving of which these principles are insufficient.

    Point 9 is, however, catastrophically failed with your use of "minimally". That stands to see many righteous people sent to prison for long stays. Any violation of another's rights can be met with deadly force. That is one of the less-pretty aspects of true and proper human freedom. One man holds NO right to violate his fellows in the least degree. ANY such violation may be met with lethal force with all moral certitude. This does NOT mean that it OUGHT to be. Someone takes a stick of chewing gum from another without asking. Can the "victim" kill in response? IMO yes, though there MAY be some qualifier attached relating to known aspects of relations between two people. If Jane regularly take Johnny's gum and it is understood to be OK, Johnny has no defense for killing Jane under that scenario. But if a stranger does the same, Johnny's position is greatly altered in what he MAY do. As for what he OUGHT to do in such a circumstance, that is most likely to be very different. For one thing, loss of a stick of gum is likely not an issue over which Johnny may want to have to defend his own life after having attacked the thief for violating his property rights. Is a stick of gum worth dying for? But at the end of the day the choice is his. If he manages to kill the thief, does he then want to have to deal with the friends and family of the deceased?
    What you're arguing isn't at all clear.

    In any event, the libertarian position is that it's just to use whatever force is minimally necessary to defend property rights.

    For instance:

    If pushing the cookie selling girl scout off your lawn is sufficient, then blowing her head off with a shotgun would be excessive and therefore criminal.

    ....pretty simple.

    The practical reality would show very few people killing others over sticks of gum and other such trivialities, though it would by no means be nonexistent. It is nonexistent today - people kill others over such things even now, sometimes.

    To qualify the meter of one's exercise of a fundamental right is to render it a mere privilege.
    ...okay?

    As usual, you aren't being very clear.

  12. #40
    You can't create a libertarian ethical system that ignores utilitarian Libertarians and populist Libertarians.
    Carthago Delenda Est



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    You can't create a libertarian ethical system that ignores utilitarian Libertarians and populist Libertarians.
    Sure you can. It's called the "Non Aggression Principle". That's really all there is to it.

    "The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    Originally Posted by osanNeeds FAR deeper definition. What does it mean to "use"?



    Consult point #2.

    You know, the very next one.

    ...which you would have seen had you read the entire post before responding.


    I did read it, and it was still incomplete, which is why I placed the question where I did.


    And if my Van Gogh sits idle in its display for 30 years, have I ceased owning it?


    You misunderstood.

    Point #2 is a definition of use; that's all.

    No where is it stated that one must use a thing with a certain frequency in order to retain ownership of it.

    You wrote:
    What Is OWNERSHIP:
    1. To OWN something is to have the exclusive right to use it.


    Your words, not mine, which is why I wrote what I wrote. The greater context, the more relevant, is that of ownership, which you have equated with use. I am sure you probably did not mean to do it, but that is the semantic result your sentence construction produced, which is one reason I pointed out that you have some additional work ahead of you. I'm not trying to beat you up, but am pointing out that there are men in the world who'd have you hanging by the berries in no time for all their wickedly clever ways of subverting language. Do you think you can go causally head to head with the likes of a Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid? They may be evil as all get-out, but they are not amateur punks where linguistic subversion is concerned. THOSE are the sorts of men against whom I warn you and all others. ANY weakness in your linguistic constructs will be used as a toehold into which they will drive wedges, eventually taking down your walls. We are on the same side here, methinks, and I am trying to help you, not hinder... as if I had nothing better to do with my time.
    Read more carefully next time.


    Write more carefully next time.




    Are you sure of that?

    If I come up with a new idea, tell people ABOUT it, but do not tell them what it is, if Theye decided it was of monumental import to the human race, would they then have authority to wrest it from me th[r]ough, for example, waterboarding?

    Words are important and endlessly tricky. You need to be WAY more rigorous in your formulations. Were I a devious bastard... oh wait... anyhow... I could have you tied in knots and sliced into lunch-meat in my sleep over things like this. So imagine what a sack of scum like Hillbillary Clinton could do.

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    If intellectual property were illegitimate, it would in no way follow that someone could torture you to extract your ideas.
    To clarify: you stated that ownership turns at least in part upon the right to "use" that which is owned, when you may have meant that WHEN you own something, you also have the right to use that which is owned. Perhaps I was being too subtle... but once again I point to poor syntactical structure, which leads to successful semantic attack and subversion.

    But to clarify my stated example, if to "own" is based upon "use" and I am not making "use" of the idea, it COULD be inferred by evil men that I do not in fact own the idea to which I claim possession, but refuse to reveal. E.g., imagine I claim to have discovered a source of literally endless material power that would solve all our energy needs forever while carrying no ill and unintended side-effects. Imagine Theye took me as credible. By virtue of your weakly stated definition of "ownership", Theye would have plenty of latitude for apprehending and torturing me for the goods on any of a large number of phony baloney pretexts, but also on the one that says "he isn't USING IT, therefore he doesn't OWN it, and therefore we are empowered to take it because it is so valuable.... mankind has the right... and so on down the usual litany of reasons Theye violate whom they please.


    And, in any event, as I noted, whether or not intellectual property is legitimate is debated amongst libertarians.
    Note that my example is not affected in any way on the presence or absence of IP as legal fact. It intentionally turns on "use".


    I applaud the spirit of this and acknowledge its importance. However, there is no apparent philosophical basis for it and no proof of the validity of any of the assertions.
    First, this isn't intended to be a proof of libertarian ethics. It's intended to be a statement of libertarian ethics.

    Second, if you think a proof of libertarian (or any other) ethics is even possible, you have a very poor understanding of what ethics are.
    And once again you miss the deeper point, which is perhaps my fault. If you are going to make such a statement of "libertarian ethics", it would follow that in order to be taken as more deeply credible, especially in the face of attack by those whose agendas might be less than honest and friendly, you would be able to demonstrate the validity of the claims. What would you do if a nominally bright sixth-grader asked for your demonstration that such an ethic is valid and not just some arbitrary nonsense you yanked out of your left nostril? Your ethics may be fine, but if you cannot demonstrate their stout foundation under attack, you quickly find yourself deep in the kimchee.

    As for your contention of my "poor understanding" of ethics, the claim hints of butthurt that I must assume comes from your assumption that I am in some way trying to piss in your cornflakes, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I am attempting to help you by pointing out apparent weaknesses, that you may close your loopholes and come forth with something bullet-proof. As I wrote above, we are all on the same side here, presumably.



    Furthermore, there is insufficient semantic framing. Many of your assertions are open to wildly varying interpretation. Meaning needs to be closely and precisely constrained.


    Provide an example, some ethical problem for the solving of which these principles are insufficient.
    I have already done so.



    Point 9 is, however, catastrophically failed with your use of "minimally". That stands to see many righteous people sent to prison for long stays. Any violation of another's rights can be met with deadly force. That is one of the less-pretty aspects of true and proper human freedom. One man holds NO right to violate his fellows in the least degree. ANY such violation may be met with lethal force with all moral certitude. This does NOT mean that it OUGHT to be. Someone takes a stick of chewing gum from another without asking. Can the "victim" kill in response? IMO yes, though there MAY be some qualifier attached relating to known aspects of relations between two people. If Jane regularly take Johnny's gum and it is understood to be OK, Johnny has no defense for killing Jane under that scenario. But if a stranger does the same, Johnny's position is greatly altered in what he MAY do. As for what he OUGHT to do in such a circumstance, that is most likely to be very different. For one thing, loss of a stick of gum is likely not an issue over which Johnny may want to have to defend his own life after having attacked the thief for violating his property rights. Is a stick of gum worth dying for? But at the end of the day the choice is his. If he manages to kill the thief, does he then want to have to deal with the friends and family of the deceased?


    What you're arguing isn't at all clear.
    How so?
    In any event, the libertarian position is that it's just to use whatever force is minimally necessary to defend property rights.
    No, that is the current LEGAL position in all of these 50 United States. If you are going to contend this is THE "libertarian" position, you must provide proof of it. But no need because my libertarian position on the matter differs, providing disproof by contradiction. This may me YOUR libertarian position, and that is valid by all means, but to lay claim as the universal, defining "libertarian"position on the matter does not float.

    For instance:

    If pushing the cookie selling girl scout off your lawn is sufficient, then blowing her head off with a shotgun would be excessive and therefore criminal.

    ....pretty simple.
    A trivial and almost strawman-ish example in that few of us are going to shoot someone under such conditions for the practical reasons I have already outlined in the other post.

    Furthermore, it speaks nothing to the inherent right, but only of one man's opinion on proportionality, which is by all means demonstrably arbitrary. There are those who could and almost certainly would contend with equal validity that pushing her off also constitutes excessive force and is, therefore, criminal in nature. They might view proportionality as demanding you first ask her to vacate, then demand, then push, then shoot. Or they might claim that nothing beyond asking is validly applied. There is a great sea of opinions on such matters and they are all valid for those who hold them, but not necessarily for others.

    More importantly, I reiterate that the moment one places such restrictions upon the exercise of a right, it becomes privilege, owned in whole and doled out and taken away by someone else, never really being securely in one's own possession. Freedom is not all bunnies and light. It is fraught with hazards, which is why the average man, out to two sigmas to either side of the mean, want nothing at all to do with it. It frightens them endlessly, setting them all ashiver.



    The practical reality would show very few people killing others over sticks of gum and other such trivialities, though it would by no means be nonexistent. It is nonexistent today - people kill others over such things even now, sometimes.

    To qualify the meter of one's exercise of a fundamental right is to render it a mere privilege.

    ...okay?

    As usual, you aren't being very clear.
    Oops, my bad - I meant to write that it is NOT nonexistent today. Please pardon my error.

    From this point on, if you take anything I have said as an attack upon you personally, you do so without cause as I believe I have made my base intentions clear that my purpose is to help you tune your seemingly good ideas against successful attack.

    Are we clear on that point? I hope we are.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Sure you can. It's called the "Non Aggression Principle". That's really all there is to it.

    "The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein
    It must be so cozy with all those slogans and presuppositions, no need to think too hard
    Carthago Delenda Est

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    It must be so cozy with all those slogans and presuppositions, no need to think too hard
    “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -- Albert Einstein

    "Work smarter, not harder."

    Libertarianism in one sentence: "Other people are NOT your property."


    How many words are required (by you) for "Basic Principles"?

    BTW, aren't you usually paid by the word, Counselor?
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 04-30-2016 at 11:17 AM.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    You can't create a libertarian ethical system that ignores utilitarian Libertarians and populist Libertarians.
    Would you elaborate?

    Remember that the OP is just a statement of libertarian ethics, not a justification of them.

    Having an utilitarian justification of these principles is crucial, indeed, but that's just not what I was trying to do in this particular thread.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -- Albert Einstein

    "Work smarter, not harder."

    Libertarianism in one sentence: "Other people are NOT your property"


    The problem is that there are all kinds of implicit assumptions built into that statement (like what property is, how it is acquired, etc).

    The goal here is to make those assumptions explicit.

    If you had the opportunity to play God with another species on another planet, and write a set of rules for them to follow to achieve a libertarian society, when they've never heard of libertarianism before, "other people are not your property" would be pretty much useless; it's far too vague. It's clear only to those who already understand libertarianism.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 04-30-2016 at 11:18 AM.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post


    The problem is that there are all kinds of implicit assumptions built into that statement (like what property is, how it is acquired, etc).

    The goal here is to make those assumptions explicit.

    If you had the opportunity to play God with another species on another planet, and write a set of rules for them to follow to achieve a libertarian society, when they've never heard of libertarianism before, "other people are not your property" would be pretty much useless; it's far too vague. It's clear only to those who already understand libertarianism.
    I don't usually play "hypotheticals" because:

    A) They are most usually very boring.

    B) I'm not very good at it.


    https://mises.org/library/philosophy-ownership

    and/or perhaps,

    The Philosophy of Liberty (video)


  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    2. To use something is to physically change or move it.
    And if my Van Gogh sits idle in its display for 30 years, have I ceased owning it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

    You misunderstood.

    Point #2 is a definition of use; that's all.

    No where is it stated that one must use a thing with a certain frequency in order to retain ownership of it.
    You wrote: "To own something is to have the exclusive right to use it."

    Your words, not mine, which is why I wrote what I wrote. The greater context, the more relevant, is that of ownership, which you have equated with use. I am sure you probably did not mean to do it, but that is the semantic result your sentence construction produced, which is one reason I pointed out that you have some additional work ahead of you. I'm not trying to beat you up, but am pointing out that there are men in the world who'd have you hanging by the berries in no time for all their wickedly clever ways of subverting language. Do you think you can go causally head to head with the likes of a Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid? They may be evil as all get-out, but they are not amateur punks where linguistic subversion is concerned. THOSE are the sorts of men against whom I warn you and all others. ANY weakness in your linguistic constructs will be used as a toehold into which they will drive wedges, eventually taking down your walls. We are on the same side here, methinks, and I am trying to help you, not hinder... as if I had nothing better to do with my time.
    (EDIT: apologies for the screwed up format above, something wrong with the post editor, keeps randomly inserting new html)

    From my statement "to own something is to have the exclusive right to use it," it does not logically follow that one must use a thing with a certain frequency in order to maintain ownership of it.

    Also, I haven't equated ownership with use. I've equated ownership with an exclusive right of use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    3. Only physical things can be owned (link – intellectual property).
    Are you sure of that?

    If I come up with a new idea, tell people ABOUT it, but do not tell them what it is, if Theye decided it was of monumental import to the human race, would they then have authority to wrest it from me though, for example, waterboarding?
    What on Earth are you talking about?

    If intellectual property were illegitimate, it would in no way follow that someone could torture you to extract your ideas.
    To clarify: you stated that ownership turns at least in part upon the right to "use" that which is owned, when you may have meant that WHEN you own something, you also have the right to use that which is owned. Perhaps I was being too subtle... but once again I point to poor syntactical structure, which leads to successful semantic attack and subversion.
    I meant exactly what I said: to own something is to have the exclusive right to use it.

    E.G. If I own a apple, I have an exclusive right to use that apple.

    What's unclear?

    But to clarify my stated example, if to "own" is based upon "use" and I am not making "use" of the idea, it COULD be inferred by evil men that I do not in fact own the idea to which I claim possession, but refuse to reveal. E.g., imagine I claim to have discovered a source of literally endless material power that would solve all our energy needs forever while carrying no ill and unintended side-effects. Imagine Theye took me as credible. By virtue of your weakly stated definition of "ownership", Theye would have plenty of latitude for apprehending and torturing me for the goods on any of a large number of phony baloney pretexts, but also on the one that says "he isn't USING IT, therefore he doesn't OWN it, and therefore we are empowered to take it because it is so valuable.... mankind has the right... and so on down the usual litany of reasons Theye violate whom they please.
    Only if those evil men are bad logicians.

    From none of the principles stated in the OP does it logically follow that one loses ownership of something if one doesn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution
    Quote Originally Posted by Osan
    I applaud the spirit of this and acknowledge its importance. However, there is no apparent philosophical basis for it and no proof of the validity of any of the assertions.
    First, this isn't intended to be a proof of libertarian ethics. It's intended to be a statement of libertarian ethics.

    Second, if you think a proof of libertarian (or any other) ethics is even possible, you have a very poor understanding of what ethics are.
    And once again you miss the deeper point, which is perhaps my fault. If you are going to make such a statement of "libertarian ethics", it would follow that in order to be taken as more deeply credible, especially in the face of attack by those whose agendas might be less than honest and friendly, you would be able to demonstrate the validity of the claims. What would you do if a nominally bright sixth-grader asked for your demonstration that such an ethic is valid and not just some arbitrary nonsense you yanked out of your left nostril?
    I would make an argument to persuade the person of the justice and practical benefits of these principles.

    But, I say again, that's not what this thread is about.

    This thread is about defining libertarian ethics, not justifying it.

    In any event, the libertarian position is that it's just to use whatever force is minimally necessary to defend property rights. No, that is the current LEGAL position in all of these 50 United States. If you are going to contend this is THE "libertarian" position, you must provide proof of it. But no need because my libertarian position on the matter differs, providing disproof by contradiction. This may me YOUR libertarian position, and that is valid by all means, but to lay claim as the universal, defining "libertarian"position on the matter does not float.
    It's my position and the position of every other self-ascribed libertarian, AFAIK, with the exception of RPF's own P3tar Griffin.

    Does that make it "the" libertarian position? Well, if "the libertarian position" means the consensus view, then yes.

    You understand that the alternative to my construction is that any amount of force is justified in response to aggression?

    Hence my example of the girl scout; it's a reductio ad absurdum of that position.

    Furthermore, it speaks nothing to the inherent right, but only of one man's opinion on proportionality, which is by all means demonstrably arbitrary. There are those who could and almost certainly would contend with equal validity that pushing her off also constitutes excessive force and is, therefore, criminal in nature. They might view proportionality as demanding you first ask her to vacate, then demand, then push, then shoot. Or they might claim that nothing beyond asking is validly applied. There is a great sea of opinions on such matters and they are all valid for those who hold them, but not necessarily for others.
    Of course, interpretations of what constitutes minimally necessary force will vary.

    Note that the principle in question in the OP does not offer a definition of minimally necessary force; i.e. it allows for differences of interpretation

    The only purpose of the principle is to make clear that not just any force is always justified; that there are limits (which remain TBD).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 04-30-2016 at 12:30 PM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    From my statement "to own something is to have the exclusive right to use it," it does not logically follow that one must use a thing with a certain frequency in order to maintain ownership of it.
    I didn't write that it logically followed, but that it could be taken to mean what I asserted because the statement is sufficiently vague that men of ignorance and/or unpublished intentions can twist the meanings. This is particularly problematic when the general population is awash in their own ignorance of basic linguistics. A fine example of this is the 2A, whose semantics are clear, yet those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms continually make all manner of fallacious arguments about militias and collective rights and what have you, with a great plurality of Americans accepting their "interpretations" as valid and "obviously true".

    You do what you want. I have pointed out the real-world weaknesses in your sentence structures. If you feel what you have is sound, then use it.


    Only if those evil men are bad logicians.
    Or dishonest and able to get large numbers of people to agree with them.

    I'm done here. Have a good one.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I didn't write that it logically followed, but that it could be taken to mean what I asserted...
    Only mistakenly, through a logical error.

    Likewise, "all goats have four legs" could be taken by someone to mean that "all things with four legs are goats."

    That doesn't mean there's a problem with the original statement.

    It means there's a problem with the logical reasoning abilities of the person reading it.

    Nothing I can do about that.

    However you formulate libertarian ethical principles (or any other kinds of statements), it's always possible for someone to misunderstand them.

    I have pointed out the real-world weaknesses in your sentence structures.
    No, you've made a series of logical errors in interpreting the OP, and then blamed this on some non-existent ambiguity in it.

    No doubt there are weaknesses in my formulations, which I hope will be found and corrected, but you haven't identified any.

    Or dishonest and able to get large numbers of people to agree with them.
    Which in no way points to any weakness or ambiguity in the principles outlined in the OP.

    If I'm a good enough liar, maybe I can convince people the world is flat.

    So what?

    It doesn't follow that there's something weak or ambiguous about the statement "the world is round."
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 04-30-2016 at 08:15 PM.

  25. #51
    Thought of another obvious one, "Self Ownership".

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Thought of another obvious one, "Self Ownership".
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    5. Every person becomes the owner of his own body at birth

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...
    What's magic about birth, a 6 inch trip? Why not at conception? <shrug!>
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 05-01-2016 at 12:06 PM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post

    A trivial and almost strawman-ish example in that few of us are going to shoot someone under such conditions for the practical reasons I have already outlined in the other post.

    Furthermore, it speaks nothing to the inherent right, but only of one man's opinion on proportionality, which is by all means demonstrably arbitrary. There are those who could and almost certainly would contend with equal validity that pushing her off also constitutes excessive force and is, therefore, criminal in nature. They might view proportionality as demanding you first ask her to vacate, then demand, then push, then shoot. Or they might claim that nothing beyond asking is validly applied. There is a great sea of opinions on such matters and they are all valid for those who hold them, but not necessarily for others.

    More importantly, I reiterate that the moment one places such restrictions upon the exercise of a right, it becomes privilege, owned in whole and doled out and taken away by someone else, never really being securely in one's own possession. Freedom is not all bunnies and light. It is fraught with hazards, which is why the average man, out to two sigmas to either side of the mean, want nothing at all to do with it. It frightens them endlessly, setting them all ashiver.
    It’s a misuse of the word defense to put in its category the killing a kid for stealing a stick of chewing gum (or apple from an apple tree), or a girl selling cookies on one’s lawn. Rather it’s a symptom of a psychological disorder.

    Further, without proof or good evidence, the property owner’s claim of a transgression on his property can always be a lie to justify severe aggression on his/her part.
    Last edited by robert68; 05-01-2016 at 11:52 AM.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    It’s a misuse of the word defense to put in its category the killing a kid for stealing a stick of chewing gum (or apple from an apple tree), or a girl selling cookies on one’s lawn. Rather it’s a symptom of a psychological disorder.
    In point of pure theory, it really is not. I suspect you are hinting at the "degree" argument, which is invalid in pure theory.

    Let us grant for argument's sake your assumption that stealing a stick of gum is in no way a basis for taking the thief's life. If, then, instead of taking gum he decides to steal your wallet, are you then justified in killing him? How about if he is stealing your life savings in gold coins? Your automobile? You fishing boat? He is tearing your Kohler sink from its kitchen foundation, faucet and all?

    Is there any act of theft where it is justifiable in theory to take life from the thief as caught in the act? If not, then we must conclude that there is no such thing as property rights, in which case we come to a paradox of sorts because the absence of such rights in the context of there being no right to kill thieves in defense of property leads to one being obliged to surrender that which they possess on demand to anyone so demanding, including one's life. Killing is and is not permissible all at once. Ouch.

    But if there IS some point at which one is justified in taking life in defense of property theft or destruction, and you maintain that a stick of gum does not qualify for such action, then somebody would have to demonstrate the location of the bright line in the sand that demarcates the region of validity from the non-valid. Such demarcation must be provably objective and non-arbitrary. Very good luck with that one.

    Up to this point, we speak in terms of pure theory and it is my contention that in that realm, ANY act of theft or other violation of the rights of one by another is punishable by death. Why? Because we are speaking of an inherent RIGHT. Any qualification placed upon exercise of a right perforce reduces it to the status of a privilege, is necessarily arbitrary, and once accepted as valid, sets the precedent for the theft of all rights from all men, no exceptions at any time or for any reason precisely because that which must be held sacrosanct in order to be properly respected and to have actual meaning between men loses that meaning the moment we profane it, regardless of the apparent insignificance of the degree in question.

    Further, without proof or good evidence, the property owner’s claim of a transgression on his property can always be a lie to justify severe aggression on his/her part.
    True, but this is one of the risks we assume when we decide we are going to be free men. There is no way around it while maintaining that freedom. Freedom is a three-sided coin. On the one face we see liberty and all the promise is holds out to us. On the second face we find responsibility; we are are each accountable for our actions. On the third face lies risk. Freedom implies the assumption of many risks. For example, we as free men are OBLIGED to accept the risk of allowing our fellows to go about armed. Anyone, myself included, could go fuzzy in the head and start shooting others randomly. The moment we decide to disarm anyone because of that which they MIGHT do, we have fallen from a state of freedom into one of servitude of one man to the will and caprice of another. We demote ourselves from the status of free men to that of serf, no matter how seemingly expansive and generously gilt our new cages may seem.

    Once you concede the most vanishingly small epsilon of principle, you have ceded your rights in toto. There is absolutely nothing between the state of servitude and that of objectively proper human freedom. The space between is a cavernous region of perfect vacuum, separating the two states in irrevocably mutual exclusion of each other.

    That all established, speaking now in terms of real world practice, the old adage arises: "just because you MAY do something, it does not follow that you OUGHT to do it."

    As I wrote previously, practicality would prevent virtually all occurrences of such overblown response. Why? Because people are not typically murderous in that sort of a casual way. Some are, even today. That would likely never completely disappear, but when the consequences for having violated the rights of another are potentially devastating and quick in coming, I daresay that people would rapidly catch on to the good clue that it is a very good idea to be mindful of the rights of others. Under such conditions, enlightened self-interest would become very fashionable very quickly, along with the attendant "common sense". True respect would be "in" and virtually all men would benefit from the change from the childishly retarded standards of comportment under which people stench up the air today.

    People, especially Americans, tend to be far kinder than you seem to give credit. I have very little fear of people running generally amok, murdering one another because they took some small liberty with someone's rights. But they might learn even better to make whole those they diminish, no matter how slightly, which is one of the tenets of English Common Law: make whole those whom you damage.

    I would be willing to bet money I do not have that in an America unleashed under the rules of proper freedom, people would profit far more than they would suffer.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    What's magic about birth, a 6 inch trip? Why not at conception? <shrug!>
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    (The parts in parentheses are eventually going to contain links to side-articles on controversial topics)

    ...

    5. Every person becomes the owner of his own body at birth (link – abortion).
    Libertarians are split on the question of when personhood begins.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm working on a concise statement of basic libertarian ethical principles, for eventual inclusion in the Foundational Knowledgebase.

    Take a look at my current draft and let me know what you think.

    (The parts in parentheses are eventually going to contain links to side-articles on controversial topics)

    Basic Principles of Libertarianism

    What Is Ownership:

    1. To own something is to have the exclusive right to use it.
    2. To use something is to physically change or move it.
    3. Only physical things can be owned (link – intellectual property).

    How Things Come To Be Owned Originally:
    4. The first person to use something, which no one has used before, becomes its first owner.
    5. Every person becomes the owner of his own body at birth (link – abortion).

    How the Ownership of Things is Transferred From One Person To Another:
    6. The ownership of something is transferred if and only if all parties agree (link – voluntary slavery)
    7. An agreement is void if made under threat of aggression.

    What is Aggression:
    8. Aggression is the use of something (including a human body) without the permission of its owner.

    Defending Oneself From Aggressors:
    9. One may employ whatever force is minimally necessary to eliminate a threat of imminent aggression.

    Punishing Aggressors:
    10. An aggressor is liable to compensate his victim, in an amount proportional to the value of the property of which he deprived the victim (link – capital punishment)

    Why'd you throw ethical in there, r3volution 3.0? I'm just curious. No intent to debate you or anything. I get the fundamental principles of Individual liberty. But why did you put that word in there?

  33. #58
    Re #3: intangible property isn't limited to IP. In fact, most intangible property doesn't involve IP at all -- for example, an interest in a business entity is certainly capable of being owned. It may be evidenced by a stock certificate or similar document, but the document itself isn't the underlying property. An interest in a decedent's estate is property that can be owned, even though the executor may have the right to administer the estate's property before making a final distribution to the beneficiaries (this implicates #1 as well.)
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    Why'd you throw ethical in there, r3volution 3.0? I'm just curious. No intent to debate you or anything. I get the fundamental principles of Individual liberty. But why did you put that word in there?
    ...not sure I follow.

    These are ethical principles.

    What else would you call them?

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Re #3: intangible property isn't limited to IP. In fact, most intangible property doesn't involve IP at all -- for example, an interest in a business entity is certainly capable of being owned. It may be evidenced by a stock certificate or similar document, but the document itself isn't the underlying property.
    Yes, the piece of paper (or digital entry) is just a record of ownership.

    The property owned are the physical assets of the business (or a share of them).

    That's not intangible property.

    An interest in a decedent's estate is property that can be owned, even though the executor may have the right to administer the estate's property before making a final distribution to the beneficiaries (this implicates #1 as well.)
    Same as above; the thing owned is tangible property (the decedent's house, car, etc).

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •