There’s an episode of “I Dream of Jeannie” from years ago when Jeannie blinks into existence tomorrow’s newspaper. Everyone is amazed and riveted by the implications of knowing tomorrow’s headlines today. Many possibilities here!
In the case of the war on terror, we could have known tomorrow’s headlines five years ago. In particular, this headline, which is supposed to be shocking and apparently has people in Washington going nuts, seemed positively ho hum: “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: U.S. Intelligence Assessment Is Said to Find a Rise in Global Islamic Radicalism.” FULL ARTICLE
{ 91 comments }
← Previous Comments
Jim,
“David W – What makes libertarians believe libertarianism to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society? By what standard?â€
Since you ask the question, I will presume you will take whatever time you require to grasp the answer. We claim libertarianism to be the only morally justifiable ethic. The standard we us is the consistent application of human reason to the question of what allows human conflict to be avoided and by observing the necessary implications of the act of putting forth an argumentation and a justification. We apply the logic and axioms presupposed in the very act of argumentation to show that no ethic other than the libertarian ethic can be justified. All other ethics which are in contradiction to this libertarian ethic cause their advocates to fall into a dialectical contradiction the moment they attempt to propose such ethics. That is, they are self refuting and therefore false. If you propose to justify a non-libertarian ethic, you refute this ethic the instant you begin to utter the first word towards it. For more, read Hoppe’s argumentation ethics (AE), or Kinsella’s defense of it, or Frank van Dun’s critique of a critique of Hoppe’s AE.
“Trade: Selling guns to terrorists? Crack Cocaine? I don’t think it’s reasonable to make the argument “trade” is a social net positive without context – morality stipulates trade can be net negative to other individuals in society yet still beneficial from a transaction standpoint to the participants. Are the trading individuals always right? How to tell?â€
The libertarian ethic precludes aggression. That means it rules out of court the initiation of violence such as murder. You cannot deny this is correct because the very act of denial would be a contradiction to the presupposition of an argument. Similarly, one cannot argue against the validity of one’s right to self control and voluntary trade because, once again, it is presupposed in argumentation. Why? Because to deny one’s right to control one’s self and to participate in voluntary trade would result either in non-universilizable norms, which is a contradiction to the purpose of argumentation in the first place, or would result in the extinction of all arguers. The latter situation would rule out the existence of an arguer, and hence also reflects a dialectical contradiction. Therefore, one cannot justify any aggression that prevents voluntary trade that itself is not aggression.
On the other hand, since the libertarian ethic states that aggression is ruled out, it also inherently implies that proportional violence to protect against and prevent aggression is necessarily justified. Hence murder and terrorism would be ruled out of court. One could sell and buy guns, but would be subject to death sentences for being found guilty of murder, or attempted murder, or perhaps even threatening to murder.
“Now you’ve read these arguments as a “case for an aggressive state” but I think I’ve been primarily (if not exclusively) argued against libertarianism, not for action by the state.
“I quote myself “A limited state (or even a stateless society) can be achieved – but only by means which are contradictory to what libertarianism currently asserts, and probably then only from a new or unknown circumstance, not from where we are today.”â€
You should quote someone who better understands the essence of libertarianism. If you read what I have said above, or what any libertarian has to say about the topic, you would realize your statements are completely false.
“Some men are aware of power, and are standing ready to possess it should there be any possibility to take it (similar to the ring of power in Lord of the Rings – Tolkien was a Christian, a friend of C.S. Lewis who wrote the Chronicles of Narnia, who was led to Christianity by G.K. Chesterton, a great thinker himself).â€
I do not understand what it is about the awareness of the fact that men crave power and lust to use it over others that endears the state to anyone so apprised of these facts. It is the state, and only the state that is capable of putting corrupting political power in the hands of such men. The free market in anarchy puts all power in the hands of the individual consumer, and keeps it there. Only by satisfying the consumer, can the wealthy remain wealthy. Only state capitalism can keep a wealthy man wealthy and powerful even when he ceases to satisfy the desires of the consumer. The fear of the corrupted and oppressive rich and powerful men is only valid so long has he has the state to collude with to oppress the people with legislated monopolies and cartels and market hamstringing legislation.
“Christianity, of course, is not to be confused with support or non-support for the state (render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s): it could be consonant with complete non-violence (the Beatitudes) and thus a libertarian society, or not. I believe it right to hold the non-violent position sometimes (like Christians did in ancient Rome), but not always because it would render many innocent people harmed by neglecting their just defense.â€
Radically incorrect. Libertarianism completely endorses violent defense against violent aggressors. It is not a philosophy of passivism. If you persist in characterizing it this way after this response, I will tend to think you are remaining intentionally ignorant of libertarianism.
“Making an argument that a state will exist, does not primae fascie make one an aggressor, even support for the state does not.â€
Well, if you are merely pointing out that you believe the state will persist despite the fact that it cannot be justified, just as the existence of murderers will persist, then that is indeed one thing. To argue that it must persist because it is a necessary evil (which I think you are inclined to do) is to support the state, which is aggressive and the act of supporting aggression is very close to aggression.
â€Here is the “pro-state argument” which is reasonable if the assumptions are true: There are certain essential moral traditions to sustainable society (like traditional marriage) and significant damage would occur if the institution were destroyed, thus the moral tradition should continue to be promoted, institutionalized and defended.â€
There is no need to use aggression to “defend†something like marriage. When aggression is required to promote marriage, no amount of statist legislation or libertarian law can save us.
“In other words, what makes libertarianism believe itself in similar matters to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society? And by what standard?
See above.
Vince – That would be straying from the secondary theme – whether libertarians have a correct view of natural moral law (and thus perhaps are incorrect about the reasons why we should not be in Iraq, despite what I believe to be the correct conclusion) so I’ll keep it brief.
The positive law regime cannot prevent corruption – it is only a vigilant majority (with a decent moral code) that can, but it makes no claims that it will while libertarian theory ends withs the extraordinary claim that the non-violence ethic is possible. The point is, violence is the ultimate decider of action. Waving the literary wand (so to speak) and saying “no more violence” is not going to stop it.
Vince – I should expand the prior post to say that the libertarian position is not against violence per-se, but against “initiatory violence” – which should be clear from the long context, but just in case …
David’s argument (you can read more above) is that destroying the “tool of evil” (the state) is likely to reduce the main perpetrators to ineffectiveness.
Peter – I believe “religious” beliefs are frequently denigrated unreasonably. ‘Scientism’ (belief in science) is one of the main culprits – but scientism is a religion because it holds the unprovable assertion ‘objective truth cannot be known except by the scientific method – all else is subjective’ which is, of course, cannot be validated by science! It is also false – you know a great deal of things not possible to be confirmed by science).
All beliefs are “religious” in the sense they require faith: I give you the difficult (I believe impossible) challenge of demonstrating one belief that isn’t itself, or doesn’t derive from, a presupposition that is unprovable.
But I reasonably ask that we stick to natural moral law, as the scope is getting too broad. I think a reasonable consideration, rather than a hostile consideration, of Christianity, shows that it is comprehensively true in the sense that it fits very well with the moral nature of man, of knowledge, and of an ordered universe.
I believe “religious” beliefs are frequently denigrated unreasonably
No you don’t. You believe your religious beliefs are frequently denigrated unreasonably. (Because you don’t have a proper definition of reasonableness – as demonstrated by your comments about science)
If someone told you that he believed that God wanted people to have sex with 10 year old children (not an extraordinarily rare belief, in fact – I know a couple of people who grew up in such communities), and he thought it was a good idea for everyone to act on that belief, I have little doubt you’d denigrate his religious beliefs.
I give you the difficult (I believe impossible) challenge of demonstrating one belief that isn’t itself, or doesn’t derive from, a presupposition that is unprovable.
How about “I exist”? (Define “provable”. I obviously can’t prove to you that I exist: you could just be a “brain in a jar” with a computer feeding it sensory input, or something, and I’m just a computer-generated illusion; but I can prove to myself that I exist. Though I suppose I can prove it to you, personally (really: any religious person, with the possible exception of Buddhists) since (you believe) you have an external source of unassailably-true knowledge, so presumably can reject the “brain in a jar” hypothesis)
Given that I exist, I can examine myself (or rather, my perception of myself) and (if I were smart enough) discover praxeology, and Misesean economics and Hoppean ethics which flow from that.
[I might also discover the scientific method, and use that - not, as you claim, to discover "objective truth", but to assign "reasonableness values" to assumptions about external reality. Then I would be able to accept the existence of other people, and reject the "brain in a jar" idea, with a very high degree of reasonableness without requiring absolute proof. Similarly, I could reject the existence of gods, faeries at the bottom of the garden, etc., as having a very low degree of reasonableness, again without requiring absolute proof]
All beliefs are “religious” in the sense they require faith
If that’s how you want to define “religion”, and if you define “faith” with enough latitude, then I suppose that’s true. But it’s hardly a useful definition.
I think a reasonable consideration, rather than a hostile consideration, of Christianity, shows that it is comprehensively true in the sense that it fits very well with the moral nature of man, of knowledge, and of an ordered universe.
Well, sure, there are parts of Christian belief that are surely true. But those parts are nothing to do with Christianity. The aspects of Christianity that are unique to Christianity (or even to religion per se) are not only not “comprehensively true”, they appear downright silly to anyone who doesn’t already accept them (which is why everyone in the world isn’t already a believer in (your particular branch of) Christianity!)
[I'm not "hostile" to Christianity, by the way; no more than I'm "hostile" to belief in the Easter Bunny]
David W – Under that theory, welfare could be “defense of the poor against aggressive action taken by concentrations of wealth in society”. You understand I do not actually believe this to be a decent argument (for reasons different than yours), but it fits with your non-aggression principal in the sense that it is defensive; so I think you must make the initial guiding principle less broad and more objective. That is why I believe the libertarian position, “no initiation of physical force” is the correct one, and it is the principal promoted by Rothbard and Hoppe.
But physical reality (self-ownership) cannot be elevated to a moral imperative (non-initiation of violence) without some intervening belief (such as God made it that way and intends every person to be a “self-owner” to the extent possible). By the same ‘physical reality’ assertion, it could be argued that a person that is physically more powerful has the right to dominate by force, because he physically does.
As far as the other arguments:
Libertarians compare the apples of corporate behavior under a state with the oranges of corporate behavior without a state. The only reason bankruptcy and subsequent firing of 10,000 workers occurs relatively peacefully is because the state prevents the violent alternative.
I see no reason to believe the concentration of economic power won’t be in dominating hands (witness Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc) that consolidate into a state. In addition, “providing sin for profit” could corrupt economics (look at abortion) to the extent that a market could become more and more consumptive and expansively violent depending on the character of the people who have economic power and of the character of the population.
So the conclusion that a stateless environment is desirable or even possible seems to me unsupported.
That leads us to the second problem:
What if the basic moral structure of society (such as one man, one woman, traditional family, directed sexuality, birth and support of children, outlawing of abortion, etc.) is critically important? I think libertarians (at least in formalized theory) assume our wealth and success to be from libertarian principles and to exclude other factors. But how is that justified given the necessity of moral living?
So I see two pillars of sustainable free society remaining unsupported: (1) the limitation on violence by concentrated economic power and (2) of moral ethics. The only way to have a free society to have the following:
1 – libertarian ‘no initation of physical violence’ ethics at the federal level
2 – a citizenry with a strong moral ethic (libertarians) ready to constrain the state to that ideal
3 – sub-states which handle the more difficult issues of balancing morality and state power
4 – citizenry in the sub-states which are religious and committed to necessary additional morality
i.e. what we (for all the faults and mis-steps) had.
In my view, the libertarian ethic also has illusory support – I imagine the pedophile and the saint could both be pleased by what they see in libertarianism, but I guarantee they have opposing morality: one destructive, one productive.
The final issue is what the theory of libertarianism is doing in our present environment:
It looks like libertarianism’s only success (given the alignment of values with the social progressives and the likely impossibility of the goal of voluntary secession) will be (1) to dissolve the justification for the use of force for moral good at all state levels, (2) to dismantle what remains of the moral structure of the U.S. in it’s body of law, (3) to provide justification for the dismantlement of the U.S. which will result in submission to another state, perhaps eventually to a world state.
My ultimate claim is that, in this operative environment – libertarianism – by it’s elimination of necessary moral promotion, will not dissolve the state, but transform it into something more evil, more concentrated, and more deadly.
By the same ‘physical reality’ assertion, it could be argued that a person that is physically more powerful has the right to dominate by force, because he physically does.
No, you can’t argue that position without contradicting yourself – see Hoppe: by “arguing – attempting to convince the ‘arguee’ through reason rather than using violence – you’re demonstrating a preference for non-violent interaction, contrary to the very thing you’re attempting to argue for!
JIMB
You confirmed what I wrote about your system of thought. Your fundamental errors are at the level of metaphysics. The error is compounded throughout your entire thinking and corrupts it utterly.
You make a blind faith assertion that there is a super-natural realm inhabited by a spirit monster god thing. I asked you for a proof of its existence. Repeating assertions is not proof. You have yet to make an honest attempt at a proof. Excuses and rationalisations and evasions will not suffice. Get on with it. Show proof.
You wrote: “Epistemology – Knowledge is discovered by work and reasoning, but more than that, it is revealed in ways which we don’t fully understand.”
Revelation of knowledge from a super-natural realm requires that super-natural realm exist. To back up your assertion you need to start by proving the existence of that realm. In other word, prior to asserting a theory of epistemology based on a super-natural metaphysics you need to establish and validate that metaphysical system. You need to prove it. See above. By failing to prove the existence of the super-natural etc. your epistemology fails immediately and completely.
This next is a circular evasion. “On the proof of God – This is indeed ironic. If the nature of God is truth, justice, morality, and knowledge, every attempt to disprove such a being would only affirm him.”
Not a proof. You can’t abandon the burden of responsibility for proof. It is not up to me or anyone else to disprove your assertions. It is up to you to prove them. The burden of proof falls on he who asserts the positive, remember.
By your method, I could claim that fairies lived at the bottom of my garden and that they were the creators of the garden. Then I could claim all life in the garden came from them; they, the source. Should I be asked to prove the existence of the fairies, by your method I state, “If the nature of fairies is that they are the source of the garden, every attempt to disprove them in the garden only affirms their existence because of the garden”. Just because I assert an attribute to my garden fairies, that does not provide support for the contention they exist in the first place. Similarly for you to posit the existence of a super-natural god and further posit the god has some attributes is not a proof.
Besides which your god is evil or at the least has an evil component. This refutes truth, justice, morality, and knowledge aspects. For if Man is “created” in God’s “image” (as you concede he is) and is a mix of good and evil, then God is evil. He deliberately contaminates the good with a corruption. He weakens and ultimately enables destructions of good. In such a case he can’t be the source of truth, as he is a deceiver; an evil doer. Similarly he can’t be a trusted source of justice or morality or knowledge either. Hence he isn’t the source. Your concept is self-contradictory and hence false.
Then you wrote: “However, I think you mean to say “show me a little god, one that fits inside my comprehension that I can prove by reason”.That of course, is to ask for a contradiction of the concept in the first place. I think the question is (1) can there be something of greater dimension than man’s comprehension, and (2) IS there something greater than man’s comprehension? (3) what is the nature of that being? I say yes and yes, the nature of that being is a personal God – all of which appears to be reasonable.”
You are asserting the existence of a god (little or big, it matters not) and so the burden falls on you to prove it. I do not have to disprove it. Unless you provide a proof, the idea can be dismissed out of hand.
The concept of god is a concept you have produced and promoted. Presumably it fits in your comprehension. That means that the concept can be comprehended by others (finite though their comprehension may be). That includes my comprehension. The issue becomes, is this concept valid? Is it true? Does it correspond with reality? If the concept is valid there should be no problem with you providing a proof of it. Of course, a false concept will not be provable at all; comprehend that?
When you ask such strangely phrased questions as, “(1) can there be something of greater dimension than man’s comprehension, and (2) IS there something greater than man’s comprehension? (3) what is the nature of that being?”, you are attempting to smuggle a man made concept about the nature of reality (or un-reality) into an answer about the state of knowledge of man. There are two separate subjects at issue here; the nature of Man’s knowledge and the concept of a super-natural realm. What you are attempting to do is ask whether there are aspects of reality Man presently does not possess knowledge about and then hijack an affirmative response to assert there is some creature that exists since Man is not omniscient.
Repeating; you are attempting to posit that since man is not omniscient therefore it follows a super-natural god exists. No, JIMB, it doesn’t follow.
Moving on to this, “You also assert I do not “understand” libertarianism, but in my view you’ve offered no evidence. I believe you confuse the argument about the possibility of libertarian society with the understanding of it (like arguing for the existence of communism and saying the opposition just doesn’t “understand” real communism when presented with contradictions).”
Now you are telling furphies. Yes, I did offer evidence of your misunderstanding. Among other things you wrote: “The aggressiveness of other men and governments, something libertarians point to continuously in our government, seems to be rarely considered as an external danger.”
I refuted that, referring you for evidence to von Mises and Rothbard and what they had to say on the matter of governments “external” as well as “internal.” Your response was an evasion. Rather than check out what you were told about you simply started making yet more assertions. On subsequent occasions you claimned that Libertarians were pro-state and that the system of Libertarian thought would lead to a supra-national government and then continued dribbling on about that super-natural spirit monster stuff. That’s about as silly as you could have been. Nevertheless you did demonstrate your utter lack of comprehension of Libertarianism. BTW had you really been reading Lew Rockwell for seven years you would know Libertarians are concerned about government per se, not simply one in particular.
You claim: “As far as I can tell, there is nothing posted here regarding the basic starting point of libertarianism which are incorrect.”
Yes there is. Plenty of material provided and not only by me. Where have you been hiding? Other contributors have consistently & patiently pointed out the numerous errors you have fallen for. Your approach to the topic is false. Given your entire system of thought is incorrect, that’s not a great surprise.
I am concerned that you may be arguing for the sake of it and are incapable of rational coherent thought. Whether this is from dishonesty or addiction, it’s still a wrong that you are committing. You need to stop.
Sione
JIMB
Quoting you: What really is “the rub” is that “a long, rigorous consideration of reality applying logical thought at every step” is only required because the state has succeeded so well in dumbing down the public (what else is public education for?) that the transparent is rendered opaque, the better for the grand lie to portray itself as truth incarnate — “the march of God in the world,” as Hegel so (in)famously put it. One only has to watch the news, of course, to know that the state incarnates nothing but evil, at least if your hands aren’t over your ears and you’re eyes aren’t wide shut.
—
There are two separate issues to consider within that statement. The first is the process of applying one’s power of reason in order to understand the nature of aspects of reality. The second is a characterisation of government.
The primary reason a long, rigorous consideration of reality applying logical thought at every step is absolutely required is because of the nature of Man’s ability to reason. One of the features of reason is volition and it is possible to make errors or even to be dishonest. Reason is best applied by inducting aspects of reality (for example, entities), identifying them, analysing how they relate to each other and deducting what that means (for example, consequences of an action, understanding how certain things operate, recognising the nature of an entity and determining how that entity is most advantageously treated, forming values and pursuing them, developing skills and applying them for gain and satisfaction etc.). You concede, gaining knowledge requires effort. The process I discuss is that effort. It is necessary to undertake it in order to ensure one understands as far as possible the nature of reality, what one is doing and why.
Whether the state succeeds in dumbing the “public” down or otherwise may depend on how well individual members of that “public” apply faculty of reason, but even in the absence of the existence of a state or government each person by his or her nature would still need to apply reason in order to live. They may make errors but the process described above is the best approach to minimise or eliminate them. You should try it.
Turning now to the second point. That the state incarnates nothing but evil is a reason to get rid of it completely. Not minimise; eliminate. Eliminate the state and govt from human affairs entirely. It is not necessary for it to exist.
Sione
Peter – Your analogies fail – it’s clear that sex with 10 year old children is false, so any religion proposing that would necessarily be false; however it is not clear that any elements of Christianity are false if the belief structure is taken as a whole: If God exists and is a just judge of sin and evil, of which we are paying the physical price for our own sin and from being corrupted in a genetic line of sin, and the nature of evil is to harm the innocent (hence the continued presence of evil and our duty to mitigage it), the fact that he was incarnated and paid the moral price for our sin and was risen from the dead (death being the price of sin), and that at some point unknown to us he will right the physical world as well – none of that is unbelievable – and is confirmed by personal experiences the world over.
The fact that viewpoint shifts occur depending on one’s chosen lifestyle I think is one of the most dramatic evidences for Christianity: Or as GK Chesterton said (paraphrase) it’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it’s that it has been found difficult and left untried.
As far as the definition of religion – in fact the idea that all thinking is religious IS the most useful – it puts philosophies on equal consideration rather than the false connotation that “religion” is substandard thought. It never has been (look at some of the extraordinary religious thinkers). It’s always been more a moral latitude question.
The “all thinking is religious” makes clear that “methodological materialism” inherent in science limits the authority of scientific scope in subjects not open to hypothesis testing and verification. But even there, science calls a great many things “verified” that cannot be seen or directly measured. Where does the line end, Peter? What is science exactly? It’s so strange that it does all the things religion does yet says “I am the authority”.
Pick up an edition of Scientific American and tell me a large segment hasn’t gone completely and wildly “religious” (dark matter, worm holes, time travel, ten dimensions, etc. etc.)
Sione – The quote you used wasn’t from me.
The state is more properly considered the battlefield between good and evil (and frequently people who are confused about which is which): it is not a contestant in the battle.
Its my view that libertarians make that error.
Eliminating the battlefield does not eliminate the war. Changing the battlefield so that evil has greater advantage seems to me to be the worse solution.
Peter – I don’t think the dominating physical person is arguing, it is we who are arguing, so Hoppe’s example fails. His standard is only a standard for those that agree to use persuasion in the first place.
The zeal to accept Hoppe’s theory without at first being critical of it I think is a serious impediment to decent libertarian thought.
Hoppe’s formulation, if I’m not mistaken, is essentially the same thing as saying “what is physically true is morally correct”.
Sione – What would constitute, in your mind, proof of God’s existence?
As far as libertarianism, I’ve got to say the accusations are humorous, having been an avid reader for fifteen years of libertarian thought. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think I’ve got it wrong.
There is no god.
Everything else is rationalization trying to warp the definition of a god to fit whatever religion is being touted.
Proof of a god existing would require the same proof as any other natural phenominon: Repeatability. Mix chlorine and ammonia, you get poison gas.
It doesn’t matter if you mix them on a high mountain on the 3rd full moon of a virgin’s ritual rape, or in golden cups before the sacred alter to Saint Greenhouse while chanting “Say it now and say it loud, I’m a Cow and I’m proud” in High Gaelic.
So, show me how invoking this or that god _prevents_ poison gas from forming from mixing chlorine and ammonia. Show me how invoking one god, but not another, changes the result. Do it repeatedly, under controlled conditions, thereby violating “natural law”, and I will believe there is something to it.
And, do it for James Randi and you can have his $1 Million that is sitting there, waiting for someone (anyone) to demonstrate a paranormal power. Even if it’s some power of a god, it’ll still get you the Million.
Curt – So you don’t believe in your own birth? Seems like repeatibility doesn’t meet a reasonable standard of truth at all …
In my view, this string isn’t centered around the claims of christianity, deism, agnosticism, atheism or other philosophy, but about whether libertarianism is accurate in it’s assessement of world affairs starting with the nature of man, the proper role of morality, and what libertarianism seems to be accomplishing given the structure under which it is operating. I think Jack Dietrich summed it up really well in the opening (I think 7th entry above).
My take:
“It looks like libertarianism’s only success (given the alignment of values with the social progressives and the likely impossibility of the goal of voluntary secession) will be (1) to dissolve the justification for the use of force for moral good at all state levels, (2) to dismantle what remains of the moral structure of the U.S. in it’s body of law, (3) to provide justification for the dismantlement of the U.S. which will result in submission to another state, perhaps eventually to a world state.
My ultimate claim is that, in this operative environment – libertarianism – by it’s elimination of necessary moral promotion, will not dissolve the state, but transform it into something more evil, more concentrated, and more deadly.”
Curt – Oops, that would be Jack Diederich …
Peter – Your analogies fail – it’s clear that sex with 10 year old children is false, so any religion proposing that would necessarily be false
I don’t know what “sex with 10 year old children is false” means. If you mean it doesn’t happen, you’re obviously wrong. If you mean it’s false that people actually believe that God wants that, you’re wrong again (as I said, I know a couple of people who grew up among people who believed exactly that!) [Google "Children of God" for a particularly well-known Christian-based example] If you mean it’s false that God wants that, how do you know? Again, you’re just saying “it’s not what I believe, therefore it’s false” – well, that’s simply nonsense!
Peter – I don’t think the dominating physical person is arguing, it is we who are arguing, so Hoppe’s example fails. His standard is only a standard for those that agree to use persuasion in the first place.
That’s hardly a failure, since it never claimed to be anything else. But you’re attempting to make the argument, and therefore contradicting yourself.
In my view, this string isn’t centered around the claims of christianity, deism, agnosticism, atheism or other philosophy
String? You mean thread? No, ultimately it’s not, but you are – the whole thread relating to you is about your underlying assumptions/irrationality, which come from your religion.
JIMB
You’d need evidence from reality.
Simple example; I can prove John Howard exists. I just go to Canberra during the working week and I can find him there. If you wanted to meet him, that could be arranged. Simple stuff.
Direct evidence from reality is what you’d require.
Talofa.
Sione
Peter – In my view, God does not want things that are contrary to natural moral law. That follows from the belief that he created the universe. Thus your analogy is false.
As far as Hoppe’s argument, my view was libertarianism is supposed to be a universal ethic, and I believe it is reasonable to say that you are saying it is not a universal ethic, by indicating it is valid only for people that engage in persuasion. The person that uses force is excluded and cannot be held to a non-aggressive standard. In other words, violent people have the right to be violent. I find that a disturbing break from moral arguments. Libertarianism, at least in that form, is it’s own enemy.
“Underlying assumptions” are not unique to any position – and in fact different assumptions can yield the same position. Hence the reasonable assertion that the argument does not really depend on what you are calling the assumptions (i.e. a philosophical belief in Christianity). Libertarian philosophy, if I am right, can be shown deficient by appeal to natural moral law, which I believe was attempted above. That would be true from a deist or an atheist or an agnostic perspective as well.
It seems to me that violence can be a two step process. It starts in the thoughts and expands to physical action. If experience is a guide and that argument is reasonable, then half of the libertarians I’ve talked to are closer to violence than peace. They call all sorts of things evil, believing themselves to have a moral position derived from an axiomatic base (is that not a God or an ultimate authority of action?), but the logic between economic action and moral action I don’t think is reasonable. It is only replacing one god with another. So your position – in my view – is at once true and false: true in the sense as to what authority should be used, false in the sense that the authority for the arguments I’ve put forward cannot be natural moral law.
Certainly I could be wrong. If you wish, you can make an argument, rather than an accusation, but please do review above before you do so. I think it unprofitable to cover the same territory twice: so unless you’ve something unique to add I must step out of the conversation.
All the best.
Sione – Right: but “John Howard” is not just what you can see; he is bigger than what you see. And in the same sense, when you look at the universe, you are looking at God, but at the same time, he is bigger than what you see.
One line of thought is expansive, allowing for things outside our comprehension. The other is contractive (materialism), assuming all things worthy of belief must be in our observation, and hence in our comprehension (we cannot observe beyond our limits. Are there senses beyond the five which we have? What if we didn’t have sight – wouldn’t your argument be equally applicable, but false to a person that has sight?)
I think it fruitful to consider that on every insane person’s door the words “he believed in himself” would be true. But the circle of belief that the insane observes is far to small. Perhaps our circle is too small as well.
Peter – In my view, God does not want things that are contrary to natural moral law. That follows from the belief that he created the universe. Thus your analogy is false.
??? What analogy??
And how do you know that having sex with 10 year olds is contrary to “natural moral law”? I would imagine that people who believe God thinks that’s a good idea also believe that it’s perfectly consistent with natural moral law! Maybe even believe that whatever God wants defines natural moral law (was that the assumption you were trying to smuggle in there?)
As far as Hoppe’s argument, my view was libertarianism is supposed to be a universal ethic, and I believe it is reasonable to say that you are saying it is not a universal ethic, by indicating it is valid only for people that engage in persuasion. The person that uses force is excluded and cannot be held to a non-aggressive standard.
By whom? Do you hold dangerous man-eating tigers to “a non-aggressive standard”?
It’s a universal ethic for the universe of civilized men; it simply doesn’t apply to sharks, tigers, wasps, potatoes, etc.
In other words, violent people have the right to be violent
How do you get that?? You’re not just talking about violent people here, you’re talking about (imaginary) “people” incapable of reason – “tigers” in human form. Do hungry tigers have the right to be violent? Of course not; it’s just what they are – the concept of rights doesn’t even apply! [If such a person exists, it's perfectly legitimate to lock him up...or put a bullet through his head...]
an axiomatic base (is that not a God or an ultimate authority of action?)
I don’t know. See if you can convince the American Mathematical Society to rename “axioms” to “God”. [That would be kinda cool, actually. Do you like the God of Choice or the God of Real Determinacy?]
JIMB
John Howard is not bigger than John Howard. He isn’t bigger than what I or you or anyone else can see and experience. To claim otherwise is just being silly.
John Howard is a particular entity. He has certain specific attributes. Those attributes can be seen and experienced directly from reality. And that is all there is to it.
By your method one could argue that when one looks at Australia one is looking at John Howard. John Howard is Australia, but at the same time he is bigger than what you see there. More than John Howard and more than Australia as well.
Actually one could go further than that. John Howard is also all the sea around Australia and all the atmosphere above it and all the earth below it as well. And John Howard is all the space above the atmosphere above Australia stretching away to the infinite wastes of the universe which we can’t see but its there. John Howard is infinite. He must be a god! In fact he must be the source of truth, freedoom and the Australian Way! He comes among us in physical form to protect us from evil (and Indonesians and other assorted troublemakers and problems).
Yeah right!
Still, you prove me wrong. Prove John Howard is not god.
Sione
Peter – What core, most essential claim are you trying to make which will add to the discussion of libertarianism and morality?
I think we can agree, from a standpoint of natural moral law, sex with 10 year olds is evil because 10 year olds cannot give consent to an act they can have no proper conception of, not being fully mentally (or biologically) formed. The acts are evil because they are harmful and consumptive. That sounds reasonable to me. In any case, I think it best to drop that subject in this thread unless you wish to posit a broader principle out of it.
Libertarian ethics appears to claim universality for all men via the self-ownership argument; I don’t think it’s reasonable to willy-nilly redefine men into “tigers” as an effort to make the point. We take it as axiomatic that man acts (i.e. he chooses), tigers are not self-aware, so they cannot, in the same sense, choose.
Men that practice violence without arguing their right to do so would fit Hoppe’s formulation – that is why I feel it is weak.
To clarify:
You and I can discuss person X doing violence. You say X has no right because the nature of discussion presumes self ownership exists and initiatory violence should not occur. But X is not discussing, he is acting. Thus our discussion in Hoppe’s formulation has no moral force on his action. And if in our discussion we make the argument physical action (discussion) equals moral sanction (self ownership and non violence), then X apparently is fully justified in being violent!
Sione – But of course if John Howard cannot be more than the attributes you see, you then make the extraordinary claim that John Howard is exclusively what you experience and can be nothing else.
Again, your thought is collapsing into itself, where the final conclusion must be “I, and I alone: my experiences, thoughts, and my own logic, is all that there is”. If you’re really willing to support that chain of logic, then I don’t think we have common ground. I find it unreasonable both from a psychological health standpoint and from the necessary assumption that neither me nor you is the final authority – hence discussion which appeals to various facts and knowledge outside of our persons.
JimB:
Thanks for your comments. I am sympathetic, but find the skeptical, libertarian view most convincing, particularly now. Do you fail to perceive that a focus on whether a use of force by the “good” side against “evil” might itself be a cynical manipulation of public into supporting a war that may benefit an elite but greatly disadvantage a society as a whole? As well as destabilize the world by fostering similar us vs. them, black-white reactions around the world? I submit that’s exactly what the GWOT has been. Isn’t that an evil that deserves your concern?
An historical reference is useful, but not sufficient. Muslims around the world are not Nazi Germany. You say that “We do an enormous service if we keep Islamic Fascism contained.” Okay, but hasn’t the GWOT been exactly counterproductive to that end?
Please note that I am an “impure” libertarian, so I am not opposed to war per se.
You say that “libertarianism cannot address the key issue: corruption.” But I fail to understand you. Libertarianism very effectively analyzes political corruption and moral corruption as they relate to the misuse of the levers of state for the private ends of elites and for favored rent-seeking corporate interests. Why do you not address these issues?
JIMB
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Now you’re playing with words. It won’t work. It isn’t proof. To prove your god exists you need to provide the actual proof, not attempt to manufacture some uncertainty somehow somewhere or exploit some way-out suppositions in some manner.
Now go back and read what I wrote. All of it (not just the bits you think you’d like to play word games with). Do not be trying to characterise it as something it is not.
John Howard exists as an entity in reality. His existence is provable. I (or you or whomever) can go down to Canberra during the working week and validate that indeed John Howard exists. He will be there. You can see for yourself and experience the fact of his existence. In other words, there is evidence in reality that John Howard exists. To prove your god exists you would need to be able to provide validated evidence of reality, not simply cast doubts about what is known about particular aspects of the nature of John Howard.
Next point, John Howard has certain attributes. He has a particular identity. He is finite. Any and all his attributes can be seen and experienced within reality. He is EXCLUSIVELY what can be seen and experienced within reality by you or me or whomever. In other words, his attributes are expressed in reality and are available to be experienced within reality. That is because there IS nothing else. He is not bigger than reality. He is a particular entity with particular attributes. He has no immortal soul. He is not a super-natural god.
What I was demonstrating to you was your error of arguing something is so by assertion. Just because I can assert John Howard is Australia etc., that does not make him a god. It is a baseless assertion which consists of a gross mis-identification of attributes. Similarly it is invalid for you to suggest that the universe, truth, justice, the American way or whatever, is god and that because you quoted those concepts a god exists. We’ve been over this previously. Remember the fairies creating the garden example?
In conclusion, John Howard is and only is what exists in reality. His attributes are only those that are expressed in reality. They can be seen and experienced by me and you and other people. And that is all there is to it.
Now you still have failed to prove your god exists idea. You need a proof mate. So far it’s looking like you aint got one. Ah well, as has been said, “You can’t rationalise your way out of this existence into a super-natural non-existence.”
*
The chain of logic is:- I experience aspects of reality. I use my attribute of reason to identify, learn and understand that which I experience. In other words I acquire knowledge of reality. I make decisions on the basis of what I know and act accordingly. That is all there is to it. What I do not do is make up arbitrary suppositions such as, “Down at the bottom of the garden are the fairies. They created the garden out of nothing, just as I thought them up out of nothing”, and then claim them as existent fact.
*
In summary your argument proceeds along these lines:
1/. Man is not omniscient.
2/. Therefore God exists.
There is no chain of logic in this whatsoever.
It is illogical to posit that since there are unknowns then it necessarily follows that there is a super-natural spirit realm with a god in it. It is even more illogical than that to claim this entity is also the universe and also truth and justice and good and so on; an infinite nothing with no particular attributes and arbitrary attributes; a known unknown. That’s very silly. Foolishness.
I am reminded of the lesson of the Matai when the missionaries came to the village. He taught, should we see a man running down the road screaming that he was being chased by a fire-breathing red dragon that wanted to eat him and there was no dragon anywhere to be seen, then the man was either playing a joke or insane. A sound lesson.
My process proceeds like this:
1/. Evidence for the existence of John Howard can be experienced in reality.
2/. I experienced and validated the evidence (went to Canberra and there he was).
3/. Conclude: John Howard exists.
Now should you wish to convince ANYONE of the validity of ANY of your various assertions you need to begin by supplying proof for the existence of god. That’s step one. You are required to do this since your entire system of thought relies on the assertion of the existence of a super-natural god. Until you do it nothing you state can be trusted to correspond with reality. That is why we have so little in common.
Now where is your proof?
Sione
TT,
You posit: “Libertarianism very effectively analyzes political corruption and moral corruption as they relate to the misuse of the levers of state for the private ends of elites and for favored rent-seeking corporate interests.”
Which, to me, strikes me as both: True and well-said.
Though, how is it that you choose not apply the same insight to “environmental” regulation?
Sione – I rewrite part of your post: “God exists as an entity in reality. His existence is demonstrable. I (or you or whomever) can look at creation during the working week and validate that indeed God exists. He will be there. You can see for yourself and experience the fact of his existence. In other words, there is evidence in reality that God exists.”
I do not have to know “John Howard” totally without any ignorance (which would surpass the knowledge John Howard has of himself) to demonstrate that “John Howard” exists: I need only to point to his attributes at variance with the attributes of all non-John Howards. I do not “see” the full John Howard: I see only the attributes of which I am capable, his impression on my senses. That is our routine experience of reality.
We do not “see” God fully, we are seeing God by looking at the nature of the physical universe. His attributes are unified with existence (truth, knowledge, consciousness, order, other axioms). The universe is testament to the glory of his creative intelligent nature, and further that since we routinely experience truths outside of visibility or provability, that those also are an acceptable basis for evidence, and still further since we accept that things we see “have more to them which go beyond their immediately perceived nature” it is very likely that the universe “has more to it” which will even more strongly point to God.
The conceptual argument that I argue “God of the gaps” seems to me to be false: Contrary to the claim that God is disappearing, every gap that is filled points more and more to his nature. Over time God seems more likely, not less likely. What we have now is a grand experiment by a large majority working in science to “prove” that nature is all there is, and finding the evidence for design to be overwhelming.
In fact, I think it amazing that you live and breath in contradiction with your stated philosophy: “prove” a person’s mother loves them. Love is not visible, only it’s effects. God is spirit, you see only the effects of his nature.
To clarify: I believe you propose a double standard. To meet your standard of proof, To “prove” God exists (if I read you correctly), one would have to be God – to have all knowledge so there is no ignorance remaining. And in fact to accomplish this, you propose that “John Howard” is completely and utterly the attributes which you (or others) perceive.
In summary, you ask for a contradiction (prove God) and when the contradiction cannot be provided you assert a counterclaim (our experiences are “all there is”): but the counterclaim demands what never has been, and in fact, cannot be true. Given that, I would submit for consideration that the evidence of creation taken as a whole, seems strongly to indicate that God exists.
Which Sione already dismissed with his “the garden exists therefore the fairies exist” thing. Round and round we go.
Tokyo Tom – I agree with your observations – I believe the criticism is more in line with “libertarianism is incomplete” rather than entirely wrong.
Peter – That kind of reduction is a straw man. This isn’t about evidence obviously, but epistemology. It’s commonly understood that you cannot “get inside someone else’s shoes unless you wear them”. So wear them. Assume God exists and go look for evidence. I guarantee if you do it honestly, you will be surprised.
But let’s go with your claim. Let’s say you’re right and a person claims “garden fairies” and has no evidence at present for such a claim. As knowledge of nature increases, I suspect that the “fairies” would eventually graduate to a claim for “God” based on our understanding of nature – in other words, it is not the case that we are moving away from God and that God is still “equal” to evidenceless garden fairies, but in fact we are finding that the fairies we only imagined before were really something else.
If I start with the assumption that 2+2=5 I can prove all sorts of weird and wonderful things, too – all nonsense. [But yes, I imagine I would be surprised if I honestly started with the assumption that God existed and looked for evidence - I assume you mean I'd find none, and therefore be surprised since the starting assumption was that it was there!]
Irrational as your “circumspice” argument is, even if we accept it, the “evidence” is purely that “god exists”, it says absolutely nothing about any other attribute of god – it can’t distinguish between your favored mythology, Norse or Babylonian mythology, or something completely alien that nobody has ever even considered. Maybe you’ve “proved” Cthulhu!
Peter – I believe you to be claiming belief in God is a contradiction with a known fact but you’ve offered nothing to confirm that. I wonder what, in your mind, would qualify as proof if the nobility of the universe itself were not sufficient!
I trust you can see your position could be considered an inconsistent demand between things that you currently believe (but haven’t seen) and the possibility that God exists. At the least, I think it reasonable to ask, that you consider it – I can say I’ve been on both sides of the fence and the perspective is different.
I’ve got to end my participation on this thread at some point. Here seems appropriate. Good luck to you.
Peter
Yes, you are correct. Around we go again. JIMB is unavailable to reason. He is unreasonable.
I note in a reponse to you he accepts the fairies as real. Ultimately, he posits, they are properly to be understood an aspect of God. He must do this since he has no way to refute them without refuting his own system of asserting God in the process. What’s most amusing is that he accepts the fairies as real even though I already stated that I dreamed them up out of nothing. In other words, he accepts them as real even though they are not. Similarly he can’t reject the notion that John Howard is an infinte God. His is a weird epistemology. It leads to intellectual corruption and a form of amorality.
Sione
JIMB
You are quite unreasonable! You can assert the existence of the non-existent as much as you like. Argument by insistance is not a proof. What is required from you (and if you were honest you would require from yourself) is proof. Proof you aint got mate.
Let’s contrast the statements. I claim John Howard exists solely BECAUSE evidence of reality supports that statement. Reality comes first.
You rewrite my statement about John Howard replacing John Howard with a supernatural god. You claim a super-natural god exists. Yet never have you produced ANY evidence of reality to support the amended statement. It’s all in your head. You are asserting something in the absence of evidence of reality. You assert in spite of reality. Just because you wish something is so, that does not make it so. You’re dealing in fantasy.
The two statements are not equivalent. Mine is based on fact of reality. Yours is not. Simple stuff mate.
Yes, indeed. It is unnecessary to know every aspect of John Howard in exhaustive totality to prove he exists. Nevertheless evidence of his existence in reality is available. Hence I make a statement that he exists (see above). To prove your god you need evidence from reality as well. That is what you were asked to produce. That task is what you have consistently evaded. Instead you attempt to argue with contrivances and silly devices. It’s dishonest, as you still do not address the need to prove your assertion with real evidence. Evidence is required, not word games, sophistry and evasions.
That Man is not omniscient does not prove the existence of god. That I am not omniscient does not prove the existence of god. An ignorance about certain details of John Howard such as what time he retired to sleep yesterday night, or exactly what time he awoke this morning do not assist you in your endeavours to prove god.
Another important concept for you to realise is that any and all aspects of John Howard are expressed in reality (such as when he retired to sleep and when he awoke from slumber). John Howard’s attributes are available to be experienced in reality. And still this has nothing to do with the task you face; supplying a particular proof for your assertion.
You keep wriggling off topic, looking for an angle, a confusion of the issue, a red herring, an excuse, some device or sneaky way you can let the god assertion in without meeting the requirement of proof. You’re merely arguing in a half-witted sort of manner hoping to find a loop-hole to smuggle in your mythology. Not proof, JIMB. Not by a long shot. You need real evidence from reality, from existence, not mumbo jimbo jumbo stuff.
You wrote: “We do not “see” God fully, we are seeing God by looking at the nature of the physical universe.”
Another wild assertion. Prove it.
You wrote: “His attributes are unified with existence (truth, knowledge, consciousness, order, other axioms).”
In other words god has no particular identity. He is all identity, whatever identity you want and no identity- something and nothing. What gibberish. Your comment is ANOTHER assertion. You must supply proof, as with the others.
And then there is this: “The universe is testament to the glory of his creative intelligent nature, and further that since we routinely experience truths outside of visibility or provability, that those also are an acceptable basis for evidence, and still further since we accept that things we see “have more to them which go beyond their immediately perceived nature” it is very likely that the universe “has more to it” which will even more strongly point to God.”
Now you assert that a super-natural non-existent being “created” that which exists. Proof is necessary to validate such an incredible statement.
Further, you fail to explain your conceit that you know the unknown and that it is a god. You do not know that which is unknown. And you are STILL left with the problem of proving your god exists. You are claiming you KNOW he exists after all.
JIMB, I’ve refuted these utterly imbecilic arguments of yours already, but here we go again. Repeating, lack of omniscience is not a proof of the existence of a god. Try to understand that if you can.
On this latest occasion the variation of the “Man lacks omniscience so there is a god” argument you use proceeds like this:
1/. Truth is unprovable
2/. Unprovable assertions are acceptable as evidence of reality
3/. God exists
4/. Man does not know all aspects of reality (he is not omniscient)
5/. God exists
This is just a list of assertions and it’s even worse than before; unbacked and according to you unprovable. You are claiming that anything you assert in the name of a god must be accepted on face value simply because you assert it.
That’s not good enough. It is dishonest evasion. You’ve exposed your own system of thought to be a self-deception. It is unreasonable, illogical and it is anti-reason. Given your lack of rigour and the absence of any proof supporting your contentions, the best thing to do is to dismiss you, your assertions, your claims and ideas, without further consideration. They are false. They do not correspond to reality. You can not be trusted.
Sione
Sione – Reason is also beyond proof, yet you accept it – hence the obvious quandry – you must believe in an authority which cannot “prove” itself.
You see, you demand God be subject to human reason, and then give reason a free pass, not even holding reason to the same standard of proof. You see the contradiction?
I accept the fact that God cannot be proven by something that cannot contain him. So I offer no proof that God exists. It is instead offered that a great many things we believe are true yet have no proof.
If I say “prove gravity,” you cannot. You cannot even see “gravity”. Gravity is a concept, but it actually describes the behavior of matter. You accept that this relationship between matter will re-occur indefinitely. But that is a matter of mystical belief – it is mystical because there is no necessary relationship between, say, the attraction of planet A and planet B to which you can point.
So belief in reason and naturalism I see as mysticism, while belief in God I see as the “non-mystical position” — I assert that C: an agency between planet A and planet B is the will of some being which has ordered the universe by what we call natural law.
I point out reasonably that John Howard is “more than what you can perceive” and it is reasonable to conclude that the universe is no different. That is our common experience. And you must accept that even to remain in the debate. You see the honest non-mystical position is to admit “something outside ourselves”. It is in the nature of human existence.
But if – in the end – you desire to “fit the universe into your head”, I can only say that the universe will win and your head will crack.
All the best
Sione – I’ve got to step off this thread – The evidence you ask for cannot ever be up to the task of proving God unless you are willing to accept experience and the natural world as that evidence.
I give you the last word.
Greetings,
As what i read on this posted article, i found out the informativeness of this
kind of topic. For that reason i opened up an idea and some knowledge in this
field. well, you made just did a great job..more power!
sincerely,
Lea Go
Dog Containment Fence
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.