Comments (91)

• JIMB

  That is not clear. This is: Iran is able to pin us down and foment war between Sunnis and Shiites, effectively handing eventual control of southern Iraq to Iran.

  Technology is going to give terrorists more leverage over time and what we're after is a long run containment of terror ability, especially nuclear proliferation. Libertarians offer no final solution to this difficult problem other than - first do no harm to others and we're less likely to be the recipient of harm, a good starting point but not the total solution.

  Leaving others alone doesn't mean thieves and murderers won't be visiting.

  The aggressiveness of other men and governments, something libertarians point to continuously in our government, seems to be rarely considered as an external danger. The idea that "it is us, and all us" overestimates our power and underestimates foreign culpability for the world situation. Libertarianism is consonant with a wider variety of foreign policy than complete passivity. It's disturbing to see the calls for unilateral disengagement (and our presumed guilt at nearly everything that happens) for literally years on lewrockwell.com (I've read it almost daily for the last seven years).

  Following "what you feed will grow" it seems to me to be less and less trustworthy over time, despite some elements of truth not found anywhere else. For that it serves a good purpose. But one cannot take an element of truth and expand it and repeat it again and again and again and say "that's all there is!"

  I do wish us and the Iraqi people the best, contrary to some opinion which seems to hold the view "I told you so!". I'd rather be wrongly pessimistic about the state of affairs ...

  Published: September 25, 2006 10:13 AM

• David White

  JIMB:

  One would think that after seven years you would have learned something, but obviously not. Non-intervention is not "passivity," and "unilateral disengagement" is only right, given the unilateral engagement that constitutes decades of military intervention in the Middle East. Osama (a former tool of the US) was absolutely clear on this, "expressing rage at America’s military presence in Saudi Arabia and at continued sanctions against Iraq, and blasting the United States for supporting Israel" (http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060823-osama-bin-laden-september-11-uss-cole-al-qaeda-terrorism.shtml).

  Let's face it, JIMB, you are a dyed-in-the-wool statist who is incapable, despite seven years of daily exposure to libertarianism, of understanding what the state really is and why it must everywhere and always be defended against.

  Published: September 25, 2006 4:01 PM

• JIMB

  David White - I did. I learned the ideology is correct in economics, false in social construction. It elevates a known fact (one's control of the self called self-ownership) to a moral ethic, i.e. a right of action which is an entirely different claim.

  I learned that libertarians are not anti-state because they propose an impossible state of affairs which would dissolve good society and put us in a super-state (one world government).

  Consider this:

  1 - Libertarianism is likely not possible, given the nature of men and of evil (evil sure won't be non-violent for long; and if libertarianism helps evil out ...)

  2 - It doesn't look like Libertarianism is consonant with natural moral law (Natural moral law is broader than "do no violence" because great harm can be done without violence - for instance, lying under oath, etc.)

  3 - It seems incorrect for Libertarianism to ignoring the most pressing issue of humanity: sin (especially pride, and the destruction that follows from it).

  The idea that we can have a free society by somehow creating an alternate reality (where everyone is non-violent: even evil) doesn't make sense. It is not reasonable.

  In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that historically, the environment that allowed non-violent reasonable society to arise was very religious and committed to non-libertarian virtues.

  Published: September 25, 2006 5:08 PM

• David White

  Due to the parentheses, the above link was rendered inactive, so here it is again:

  http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060823-osama-bin-laden-september-11-uss-cole-al-qaeda-terrorism.shtml

  Published: September 25, 2006 5:11 PM

• Sione Vatu

  JIMB

  Your misunderstandings of the libertarian position is profound. You would be well advised to read some of what Rothbard and Von Mises have to say about governments, "external" as well as "internal."

  The issue isn't whether libertarians don't recognise threats from governments (external or internal) and criminals (local, regional or off-shore). They certainly do recognise those threats (they also recognise what self-defense is and what it is not). The issue is whether libertarians support the commission of crimes, initiations of force, invasions of innocent peoples' property and the undertaking of wars of aggression in the first place. Libertarians, clearly, do not support the notion that initiating crime and violence upon other people is a solution to crime and violence. It is crime and violence.

  What the article identifies is that state run programs consistently fail to achieve stated objectives. They are corrupt. State organised warfare is failing to achieve stated objectives presently and will continue to so do in the future. More moral corruption. More wilful ignorance as well. State organised warfare does not work and has not worked this time around, so why continue any further with it? The Iraqi adventure is not an expression of self-defence of the US govt or its military. Committing terror acts (like collateralisation bombing) does not "contain" terror. It is terror.

  Very difficult to stop others doing as you yourself do...

  The trouble for you as an American citizen/resident is that you will suffer the consequences since it is you who will be asked to pay the true costs of these foolish adventures and it is to you, as an American, that the victims of your govt's crimes will eventually direct their hate (rightly or wrongly that's what they'll do). Why does your govt provide people with hatred that motiviates them to turn to violence?

  Recently I met an Iraqi taxi driver. Even though his family hated Saddam and the Bathists, they hated America more. Why? He maintained it was the Americans who funded Saddam and greatly assisted the creation and maintenance of his regime. It was the Americans who invaded and then ran away leaving Saddam to consolidate power over the people; eliminating opposition with acquiescence by the US. It was the Americans who led a decade long war of sanctions against the Iraqi people, causing great poverty, illness, death. It was the Americans who lied about so-called weapons of mass destruction. It was the Americans who invaded, shouting yet more lies about democracy and freedom; instead setting up torture camps, murdering civilians, oppressing the people. They even attempted to sneak assets off to American organisations and companies (Halliburton for instance). And so on.

  It gets worse.

  He explained how hard it is for a 13 year old boy when he sees his 18 year old brother killed by Americans (collateralised friendlies or some such term) and his dad dragged off for interrogation by Americans. It's hard for that boy to consider that Americans soldiers are there to help "free" him. So when he gets to be 15 years old he gets involved in fighting the American invaders. He joins up with other patriotic freedom fighters. He takes the oaths of allegiance. He learns the prayers, asking God to make him steady and sure so he can fight for the cause (now where have we heard this before?). When he gets a little older he will express a desire, like so many others, to seek revenge on the invader ON AMERICAN SOIL. Getting even.

  That scares the crap out of me. And I don't even live in America.

  That boy is angry and he is illogical but that wouldn't have been a problem if he'd been left in peace. He'd likely be dealing with Iraqi problems and fighting/arguing/whatever with other Iraqis. Not now though.

  Visiting terror upon other peoples is not the way to "contain" terror. It spreads it.

  If your concern is to contain terror a good place to start would be to lobby for your own govt to stop commissioning it in the first place.

  Sione
  

  Published: September 25, 2006 8:56 PM

• Jack Diederich

  Sione and others,

  How is it you find so much rationality (cause and effect) in the Arab or ex-Arab street (the Iraqi cab driver) and none in the western/anglo world that disagrees with your views? By "disagrees" I don't mean on the Iraq war (a majority whishes it hadn't happened) but with every dog gone truth you hold. 100% of Dem and 80% of Repubs (understandable as a voter who knows nothing will vote for the guy who says he knows where the magic economic buttons and leavers are over the guy who says there is no such thing).

  The Western view is a rare thing, cultivated. The natural state of man is brutish where strongmen and passion over reason rule (how else can we explain socialism or god forbid communism?). You've read a history book or two about the last hundred years and are quite aware of the fact there are millions of people who would prefer to kill someone that earns twice as much money over making one dollar more themselves.
  

  
  It is possible to disagree with US wars in the Middle East on pratical grounds but that's not what happens at Mises.org. The same hand waving of belief that would have socialism righting all wrongs by sheer will instead safe guards us against violence from the equally crazy third third - if only we would leave them alone.
  

  
  Mises has been and is a fine site for Austrian economics. It is for shit when dealing with actual people and twice so when dealing with non-western regimes.

  Published: September 25, 2006 11:41 PM

• Sione

  Jack Diedrich

  What is your rather incoherent contribution supposed to mean exactly? You concede that the vast majority of civilised "western" people do not support the aggressive war of invasion and violence against Iraqis, yet you maintain such violent acts are the only way to deal with other people (who you characterise as "brutish"), especially non-western people. How very cultivated of you. Just as well you speak only for yourself.

  The Austrian view is that your violent approach to dealing with other people is impractical. Your methods are unjustified and just do not work. They're immoral as well. It would appear that when dealing with non-westerners the Austrian view is correct (surprise, surprise) and it is your thuggish tendencies that are guaranteed failure. False in theory and false in practice. At least in that aspect your ideas display a certain coherence; a certain consistence of failure.

  You need to learn to think mate. Try harder.

  Sione

  Published: September 26, 2006 7:51 AM

• Sione

  Oh and by the way, "rationality" and "cause and effect" are different concepts. Try not to mix them up.

  Sione

  Published: September 26, 2006 7:55 AM

• Artisan

  I must say I have more faith in the libertarian ethics than the people expressing their views here above.

  You can argue that the foreign policy did not raise the readiness for terrorism perhaps, but you cannot argue that the fear for terrorism does not raise readiness to reduce personal freedom in general. So, the question how far you accept to go comes first from there. Isn’t it legitimate to ask for some sort of efficiency even in the war thus? The legalized torture milestone is already behind us now. But who cares, right?

  No CIA agent will ever get sued for torturing a supposed terrorist now. Not that I think many got sued before. That’s just psychological war against "terrorism". If you torture me long enough I’ll probably tell you I’ve been with Osama too by the way, but there goes your efficiency in fighting the war though. What's the need for legalizing that s...!?

  When Berlin or Hamburg were bombed to the ground in WW2, Germans didn’t question the State power that put them in this situation, they were thankful that the Nazi State helped the wounded out of the ruins and thus they were willing to fight back. What’s more natural? How can you assume that the guy who throws the bomb on your “innocent�? nose does have no other choice? That was war against the Nazis. But please, not just war against the “evil soul�?. You have to have the courage to call your opponent by his name.

  War on terrorism is a bogus concept. It’s an insult to intelligence. Osama doesn’t even think he’s really a terrorist.
  

  Published: September 26, 2006 8:07 AM

• JIMB

  Sione - By what right did the former Iraqi government rule? Can a free people take down a dictatorship by their choice? Why did the U.S. formerly support Saddam (consider Iran and Jimmy Carter)? Sanctions are indeed unethical - what should we have done otherwise and why didn't we do it?

  You see, there is no context at all. It's just us ... and ... well, us.

  There's no "go and find out the most reasonable understanding": instead it's been replaced with "I already know because I have Rothbard, and AXIOMATIC truth". Maybe you're right Sione. But I don't see the arguments with appropriate context.

  Let me say here that "self-ownership" (meaning the control of one's body) is a physical reality but that cannot be transmuted to a universal moral ethic - you've no right to harm other people by your unjust actions even if they are non-violent.

  The arguments here on Mises, dripping with moral implications are IMO highly illogical and unreasonable.

  The point is to be reasonable - not to miss important details - to have an ethic that is universal and appropriate, to put our behavior coincident with natural moral law (which I don't believe is 'libertarianism').

  It seems to me that 'libertarianism' (mixed with 'scientism') is fast becoming something else entirely (in the same way politically correct tolerance has transmuted itself): a dissolving of the proper and reasonable social limits on evil, so that no force or action can be taken. Then when enough political power has been given away under the guise of "non-violence", evil will obtain final dominance by becoming violent.

  In that respect, it is PRO-STATE.

  Published: September 26, 2006 12:07 PM

• TokyoTom

  Mr. Rockwell

  I agree completely, and I especially like your point about how "Bush-connected corporations and elites" have benefitted. But you have pulled your punches, because the rent-seeking is much more pernicious and on a much vaster scale than you have outlined.

  The Administration opportunistically used 9/11 to wage war, which war was clearly used as a political tool in the US to secure and then consolidate Republican power over the Congress and over competing power centers in the military, intelligence, foreign affairs communities, to a more limited extent over the judiciary, and also over the American people generally.

  The effort to secure control over the federal government for rent-seeking purposes started with voter fraud in the 2000 elections and was evident in the early days of the administration with all of its closed door meetings with the energy industry friends that bankrolled it. 9/11 created a great distraction and a cudgel to chase out and beat dissenters of all kinds and to intimidate Dems.

  This has resulted in tremendously bloated budget, as the Republicans, with the sole key to the candy store, have opened it up to all manner of corporate friends, who find that they get better bang for their buck when they can give it directly to Republicans rather than spreading it around between competing parties.

  (Gerrymandering and continued voter fraud are other aspects of the picture, but are not directly ties into the war.)

  The war has also created the rationale for a vast expansion of the machinery of the federal government to intrude into our lives and control us - with the PATRIOT Act, the NSA etc.

  The layer of doubletalk about fear of terrorists and Iran continues to be used as a political tool against Dems and the MSM - who are painted as weak and/or traitors to the US.

  And the rent-seekers of course - the "Bush-connected corporations and elites" continue to benefit from our disastrous foreign policies.

  So it seems clear that libertarians can offer a useful critique not only on why wars are likely to be counterproductive and even disastrous for the point of view of our national interests, but why they may very well be simply a very effective tool by which wealthy elites to engage in a massive wealth transfer.

  
  Sione: Great comments. Seriously. Our "defense" policy has run rampant and is extremely short-sighted, counterproductive and with no clear cost/benefit analysis apparently going on.

  Jack is wrong; the US is just as brutish, at least in much of our behavior abroad.

  JIMB: What you are missing is that our own behavior creates enemies. Fomenting civil wars and running off bumbling and ham-handed into a bunch of places is NOT a way to make America safer. No country is a strategic threat to our existence, and certainly not in the places where our ineptness and military force instead create hositility and terrorism.

  Sincerely,

  TT

  Published: September 27, 2006 6:27 AM

• JIMB

  TokyoTom - Yes, and our efforts against Nazis in WWII "increased the Nazi activity against us". Were we wrong? I think it is reasonable to ask who is supporting morally right actions. In that regard, we have failed many times, but not always, as libertarians would have us believe. We do an enormous service if we keep Islamic Fascism contained.

  More disturbing is the failure of libertarianism to distinguish between force used for good and force used for evil - they simply say "the greatest evil is initiating force" - but that is false. In many situations, far more damage can be done non-violently than violently (especially if I'm a nuclear engineer, no?) - so protection again harm frequently necessitates "initiating force".

  The biggest problem is that libertarianism cannot address the key issue: corruption. It must be paired with a moral ethic to be successful, but it specifically demotes that ethic to an "arbitrary" or "personal choice". In my view, that is not reasonable at all.

  Published: September 27, 2006 7:23 AM

• David White

  JIMB:

  First, I must ask: Are you Jim Bradley, the Christian fundamentalist who formerly posted under that name? If not, then you have a religious twin online.

  In any case:

  1 - Evil is never nonviolent, and to my way of thinking, even self-defense, insofar as it inflicts pain and suffering on another, constitutes NATURAL evil, MORAL evil being initiatory rather than retaliatory violence. That is, while it is both naturally and morally wrong for me to kill you without provocation, you commit only natural if you kill me in your own defense.

  2- Perhaps libertarianism is not "likely," but how will we know until the powers that be allow us to try? And doesn't the fact that they -- the state -- won't do so tell you all you need to know about their morality?

  2 - I am a libertarian who believes not in natural law as traditionally defined (i.e., in law that exists "in nature," prior to man's existence) but in the fact that law is natural to man (i.e., he creates it as a function of his freedom of the will and his innate desire to live in community with his fellows, for which standards of conduct are required), the corruption of which is entirely a function the state. For while common law is the product of civil society, statutory law (law as legislation) is solely a product of the state and is by definition limitless (since the job of every lawmaker is to make laws ad infinitum, else lawmakers would not have jobs.)

  3 - Sin, so called, is a fact of human existence, but, because it has no greater outlet than the state, which is centralized coercion, it follows that the latter's eradication is paramount.

  4 - Libertarianism -- human association based on the non-aggression principle -- is only an "alternate reality" in that, again, it is not allowed a real opportunity to prove itself, your lack of faith in humanity, and thus your worship of authoritarian rule, playing right into the state's hands.

  In other words, you, not libertarians, are PRO-STATE.

  Published: September 27, 2006 11:19 AM

• JIMB

  David White -

  1 - Ok. Only disagreement is whether evil is ever non-violent (here I use the term violent as Mises.org uses it: to mean physically violent). I see immoral seduction as non-violent, lying under oath as non-violent (who owns your information?), selling nuclear secrets as non-violent -- because many (and more) of those items would not be prohibitable under a libertarian society (at least, not unless we use a less strict rule than no physical violence.

  2A & 2B, 3, 4 - My claim is libertarianism cannot work because it is not reasonable. here's the argument:

  Evil is not just physical violence

  Some non-violent evil should be prohibited (or state sanction given to an opposing structure) because of the great harm it causes

  The game today is "give me a pass for my weakness and I'll give you a pass for yours"
  
  A moral society would tend to prevent that circumstance by the application of laws. Individuals tend to have weaknesses that the majority offsets.

  Liberarianism would prevent the effort to combat moral evils with force.

  Evil (existentially!) cannot remain non-violent - it is the nature of evil to destroy, so it cannot exist on it's own, being parasitic. It MUST steal from good

  Evil will increase and evil will become physically violent

  Libertarians are also frequently against national boundaries (not believing in the authority of any state)
  
  Dissolving of national boundaries will dissolve the structural impediments to a super-state: a one-world government.
  
  I believe that is why libertarianism is supporting, and is likely to support, the moral code of "social progressives" who want to completely and radically alter society - thus the necessity of consolidating power into a world state of greater and greater consumptive violence.

  Libertarianism can only work under a common moral ethic which is also consonant with natural moral law. I believe that common moral ethic to be traditional morality and our structure - which can be improved - is still very excellent, if we can manage to remove the extraordinary extra-Constitutional authority abrogated by the government.

  (In many cases we replace "force" with "state sanction" (such as the cases with marriage) in an effort to be as inclusive as possible).

  Jim Bradley - That's me, although I'm not sure what "fundamentalist" in this context means - it's frequently used as a dismissive label on the level of a mental disorder these days.

  Published: September 27, 2006 12:29 PM

• David White

  Jim Bradley (now that I know it's you, having debated you several times in the past):

  You would seem to contradict yourself on evil and violence, saying on the one hand that it can be nonviolent, while on the other that it cannot remain so. I would say, rather, that for instance libel and slander are forms of violence in that they are a kind of identity theft and thus constitute aggression (as I argued previously in response to Roderick Long's recent article). There is no argument, however, on evil having no ontological validity of its own, as it is always and everywhere "a privation of [some] good," precisely as Augustine said.

  More to the point, however, is that, despite your seven-year-long immersion in this forum you simplly fail to understand libertarianism, which is based on the non-aggression principle -- a common moral ethic derived from the most common moral ethic of all: the Golden Rule -- believing that this can and should be the basis of all law insofar as such law is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

  Furthermore, libertarianism (properly speaking) understands that because the state is by its very nature an aggressor (if for no other reason than that taxation is theft), it is inherently immoral and that every individual therefore has the right to defend himself against it.

  As for national boundaries, with the understanding that dissolving them should not be approached willy-nilly but systematically, beginning with the largest states, power would then devolve back to their constituent states/provinces until they themselves atrophied to the point that all land was privatized.

  Doing so would not lead to a world state but to free societies built on shared customs and beliefs, just as they historically have been, but without their systematic destruction through the relentless depredations of the state. Private law enforcement, court, and penal systems would replace the unjust and evermore corrupt system that we have to day, including the emergence of large-scale insurance companies with access to nuclear weapons, if necessary, to defend their clients against remaining states with similar weapons (though having no "foreign policies," so non-interventionist would free societies be that they would present no threat to others.) You are welcome to say that this won't work, but again, we won't know until we try -- i.e., until the state is sufficiently dismantled to allow such experiments to go forward.

  As for our present structure, while it could certainly be improved (via a return, say, to constitutional authority), it is doing no such thing and is in fact rapidly disintegrating, as the "Frauds" it dispenses ad infinitum -- http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/shepherd/2006/0927.html -- march inexorably toward a cliff of their own making, and the American empire collapses like the house of cards that it is.

  As for your fundamentalism, it is so for the simple reason that your religious beliefs are founded on the premise that man is inherently depraved (since his "fall"), never mind that this depravity applies to all persons, including and especially those who comprise the state. Thus, in response to Jefferson's wise words -- "It is sometimes said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others?" -- your answer must be the same as that of any elitist: MOST men cannot be trusted with the government of themselves, while SOME cannot only be so trusted but can also be trusted with the government of others.

  But as Jefferson himself replied, "Let history answer this question."

  Published: September 27, 2006 3:22 PM

• JIMB

  David White - I think we agree that evil can start non-violent, but it cannot stay that way because it is not self-sustaining.

  Other thoughts:

  No disagreement about the state being an aggressor. I argue only that a prescription against physical violence for a nation is not enough: there must be a common social ethic.

  I don't see a reliable power structure under which "dissolving top-level nations" could occur. We're talking big, big risk (more lives at risk than Russia's horrible past). So I think the burden of a reliable mechanism is heavily on the side of the libertarian.

  Where am I wrong in understanding libertarianism?

  Published: September 27, 2006 4:32 PM

• JIMB

  David White - Forgot to respond to your last paragraph - If you mean to say that we are all equally depraved, I'd have to argue against.

  Any force-using entity will have the problem of corruption.

  Published: September 27, 2006 4:40 PM

• TokyoTom

  Jim:

  "We do an enormous service if we keep Islamic Fascism contained."

  I agree, but disagree completely that our current approach is anywhere near likely to achieve that goal. That was clear even before we started the "war on terror", as Lew Rockwell points out (and as many who once supported the war now have come to realize).

  I disagree with others here in that I think the true libertarian contributioin to this is not the principle that the state and its actions are immoral, but the understanding that too often the state is hijacked by elites for selfish purposes at the expense of the common good. Lew Rockwell understates this.

  Finally, let me say that Manichaean views of the world may be satisfying and useful in some ways in helping one to generalize about the world, but they are never wholly right, and frequently dangerously wrong. That we find them so seductive is a product of our evolved and flawed human nature - (i) group dynamics frequently engender creeds of this sort that foster intra-group unity, but result in inter-group friction, and (ii) cognitive science shows that our minds work by building maps of the world that we then tend to defend rather than constantly rejigger. As we move from the physical, hands on world of our ancestors to a more and more complex and abstract world, people's maps increasing diverge, and it its quite difficult to achieve any type of coherence.

  In other words, you might consider whether falling into simplistic black and white thinking and argumentation is an easy evil.

  
  

  Published: September 27, 2006 10:59 PM

• Sione

  JIMB

  There is no "right to rule." The Iraqi govt operated by coercion, fraud, theft and crimes of violence, same as all of them. Remember the quote, "government is crime."

  You wrote: "... what should we have done otherwise and why didn't we do it?"

  You speak of "we" but you surely speak for yourself and your own actions only. Consider, I am not a part of your "we". I don't even live in the USA. So what exactly did YOU do? Were you responsible for initiating violence against others? Were you responsible for the carrying out the sanctions? Did you partake in the invasion? Or are you merely co-mingling your identity with the state? Or are you indeed the state? Or is God who you are?

  The end result of your argument means there is no morality. In effect, anything goes. Whatever you consider "reasonable" and can get away with at the time.

  I note your assertions about Libertarianism (and can hardly imagine what you'd write about anarchism or even atheism) but confirm they are misguided. You need to do some serious research before commenting upon that which you do not know.

  Sione

  Published: September 28, 2006 1:05 AM

• Sione Vatu

  David

  I agree with much of what you wrote.

  It is curious that people are discussing non-violent evils as something requiring political sanction. Something not quite right there.

  If a man takes drugs, or is promiscuous, or lazy, or a glutton, or gambles, or is religious, so what? So long as he keeps to himself and minds his own business why should anyone else care?

  Comment?

  Sione

  Published: September 28, 2006 1:33 AM

• Peter

  I'm not sure what "fundamentalist" in this context means - it's frequently used as a dismissive label on the level of a mental disorder these days.

  Precisely what religious belief is, of course.

  Published: September 28, 2006 2:21 AM

• JIMB

  Toykyo Tom - The first post on this thread (by me) indicated a reason why our strategy might fail - not because of libertarian assertions, but because of the specific facts and execution of the strategy. We will have problems no matter what we do or don't do. If I'm not mistaken, Lew and I disagree on the fundamental reasons why.

  The state will be hijacked by elites - sure. Like saying a duck gravitates to water ... That is a perpetual issue which will not vanish even in libertarian society.

  Perhaps need MORE of good versus evil arguments? I see those arguments as essential. Practicing virtue (and civility, even to the point of classiness) is an important aspect of social living that, to my experience, has been lost in the U.S.

  I am sure you are right about the dangers of moral arguments, but there's more pattern these days to ignore morality as "personal" or "subjective" when in fact morality is essential to our society. So far it doesn't seem like any of the arguments on this string are black and white simplistic. If anything, a simplistic legal rule would be "initiate no physical violence" in an attempt to cultivate good society. It doesn't fit with the necessities of preventing extraordinary harm arising from some non-violent actions at the same time it elevates (in comparison) trivial infractions to punishable offenses.

  Published: September 28, 2006 8:14 AM

• JIMB

  Peter - Ok. Reasonableness would demand that you support that argument with some persuasion. Care to give it a shot?

  Published: September 28, 2006 8:18 AM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  1. Given its derivative nature vis-a-vis good, evil cannot be self-sustaining and exists only insofar as there is good for it to feed off of (as a cancer must have a host). This makes evil vincible, if not wholly, then in large part, libertarians (properly speaking) believing that because evil is epitomized by, and is primarily located in, the state, the state is society's primary enemy -- http://mises.org/store/Our-Enemy-the-State-P321C0.aspx

  2. If there is no disagreement about the state being an aggressor, then we agree that its existence has no moral basis and therefore can be defended neither in theory nor in practice. (Granted, a minimal state is preferable to a maximum one, but as we've seen -- and now daily experience -- a state that started out as the former can quickly transform itself into the latter, this being the nature of the beast.)

  3. The former Soviet Union did not have a "reliable power structure" to default to, but this did not stop it from collapsing once the people stopped supporting it. Massive military might notwithstanding, in other words, without the support of the people, no state can survive, precisely as Thoreau said when he described the state (in his time) as "a lone woman."

  But let us not forget that unlike the constituents of the Soviet Union, those of the United States are all perfectly capable of governing themselves, if not as truly free societies, then at least as minimal states. And while none of them presently is, neither does any of them have a central bank whereby it can fund its operations via money printing. Instead, a return to state sovereignty (as step one in the transition to free society) would also usher in a return to sound money, which, by precluding both welfarism and warfarism, would severely restrict state action.

  4. Thus are you indeed "wrong in understanding libertarianism," as it is grounded in the self-government implicit in the non-aggression principle, which in turn is natural to man (else human society is not possible) but which is thwarted at every turn by the relentless and overarching depredations of the state. So while you are welcome to criticize libertarianism (albeit on false grounds), the very least you could do is acknowledge the fact that until theory can be put into practice, we are like scientists arguing over a hypothesis that a third party refuses to let us experiment on.

  5. That said, I am in total agreement (in response to your most recent post) that there is no such thing as personal morality, as morality is inherently social. After all, what need did Robinson Crusoe have of it before Friday appeared, the question being what the shared (social) morality is. And insofar as cooperation is the essence of the social enterprise (and coercion the antithesis thereof), the non-aggression principle is fundamental to it.

  Sione:

  All actions have consequences, including those that, on their surface (e.g., drug addiction) do not directly harm others. For while the lone addict roaming the streets presents no great threat to society, multitudes of them would, "a society of drug addicts" being oxymoronic. This isn't to say that the solution would be to criminalize drug use, of course, for that would only make matters worse (as the state's "war on drugs" makes all too clear). But insofar as self-government lies at the heart of free society, the perpetuation thereof depends on restraints that apply not only to actions that directly affect others but to those that do not. And it would therefore be a society's best interests to promote them as a matter of course.

  Published: September 28, 2006 8:36 AM

• JIMB

  Sione - We are concerned with morality which to my thinking is how we treat others with justice and goodness. The nature of the discussion on morality presupposes that we are speaking of common, necessary behaviors in our relationship to other people not the self as exclusively an individual (Hence the huge problems of starting with the individual as the atomic unit of society and proceeding from there. In fact, the atomic unit of society is the successful reproduction and raising of the human race: the traditional family).

  We cannot talk morality (which presupposes our actions involve the well-being of others) at the same time assert pure individuality: they contradict one another.

  The claim "government is crime" I think is false - Government acts criminally only in cases which unreasonably violate the rights of people (i.e. acts in ways which increase, rather than decrease harm - which encompasses a large supermajority of current government activity - I know. That's why I argue for a limited state, but not from the same standpoint as do you).

  The natural tendency of government is to increase harm, thus the need for decentralization of power - an important argument against anarchic libertarianism in that powerful corporations will (eventually) act like governments, so the "solution" isn't a cure because it doesn't address the problem. The problem is the corruptibility of man (and of the vice of sloth by the majority: i.e. not actively working for rightness). It seems to me the only cure is for the majority to be actively involved limiting the state (a positive duty).

  Your comment ** In effect, anything goes. Whatever you consider "reasonable" and can get away with at the time. ** is great. In fact, that's why I believe Christianity. (Man could be 10,000 years investigating a problem and suddenly see the solution right in front of him: in other words, knowledge is not only generated by hard work, it is also revealed in ways we don't understand. If God is the author of goodness, he is the ultimate source of knowledge; knowledge and truth are revealed. It is psychologically no different for scientists). Libertarianism uses reasonableness (could it be otherwise?).

  How do I not understand libertarianism?

  Published: September 28, 2006 11:51 AM

• JIMB

  David White - I'll respond quickly.

  1. Seems to me the main problem with man is not the existence of the state but sin. There is no overcoming a sinful majority, while an ethical majority might indeed be libertarian. Libertarianism, to be possible, must consider proper ethics outside of it's 'no-physical violence' boundaries and modifying some of it's basic principles. However, doing that leaves us almost back where we started: the founding of the U.S. on principles of natural law, dispersion of power, but also with a common moral ethic codified into law.

  2. There's a change in context about the meaning of "aggressor". The state acts justly in some cases, unjustly in others, indeterminately in yet others.

  3. Propose the sequence of operations and how such a thing could be carried out. Libertarians assert that a stateless society is possible but unless I'm mistaken it cannot ever happen because in some parts it is contradictory to nature and other parts it is too incomplete.

  4. Libertarianism is grounded in many things - most of I think which remain unexplained and false. Certainly the "non-intiation of physical violence" isn't consonant with a just society as great harm can be caused by non-violent action (and is a person that defends himself by minor violence against great non-violent harm to be punished?)

  Published: September 28, 2006 12:19 PM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  Granted, the tendency to commit evil (sin, if you will) is present in all men and thus is mankind's "main problem." But insofar as that tendency is magnified many times over in the state, which is all-pervasive today, it stands to reason that the state represents the greatest threat to humanity and this is humanity's main adversary.

  And your waffling about the nature of the state doesn't change that, nor do your unsupported assertions about what libertarianism is or what it can do. You remain incapable of understanding it, so what else is there to say?

  Published: September 28, 2006 1:54 PM

• JIMB

  David W - So you assert that the nature of evil: parasitic consumptiveness which cannot support itself, being freed from many limitations by new libertarian laws, will eventually convert itself to goodness and refrain from stepping outside the bounds of "no-physical force"?

  If the issue of sin is really the problem, then I think you've answered the question already.

  I'm on your side in the sense I share your commitment to liberty, but I don't see that it can exist except in the presence of virtuous living and a shared ethic. 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.

  Published: September 28, 2006 4:09 PM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  How in the world can vanquishing the primary locus of evil in the world free it from its limitations? Let's face it, you simply cannot get it through that incredibly thick skull of yours that the state, as history has gone out of its way to prove, takes what humans have a tendency to commit and institutionalizes it. Nor can you understand that if the issue is really sin (moral evil), then it only makes sense to ATTACK IT WHERE IT IS MOST PREVALENT.

  As to the cause of liberty, OF COURSE it cannot exist except in the presence of virtuous living and a shared ethic, which, as a social being, man is inclined toward by his very nature. Perhaps you yourself are "virtuous" simply because the government has a gun at your head, but most people give not a thought to breaking the law and merely go about their business -- or would if the state weren't relentlessly interfering with it.

  And WHAT, pray tell, are the contradictory means that libertarianism would have to use in the realization of a free society? If the protection of life, liberty, and property is good enough for the minimal state, then why can't the market see to the provision thereof, especially since the precedents for doing so (e.g., private arbitration) have a long history of success?

  Published: September 28, 2006 4:53 PM

• JIMB

  David W - You are saying if we (1) restrict legal action to protection against initiation of physical violence which will (2) legalize all sorts of evils we will be able to (3) maintain a non-violent society.

  Ok. I say you will surely get #2 but not #3. [If #1 read "restrict legal action to protection against aggression" it might sound like a stronger argument, but then I don't think that's the libertarian position. Following Rothbard and Hoppe: it is crucial to libertarianism to have an objective standard to prevent increasing the scope of state action by reinterpretation].

  Under that scenario, the re-centralization of power might occur faster:

  A - Impediments to "non-aggressive" evil will not exist

  B - Evil will soon turn "aggressive" or violent

  C - ?

  D - We either (a) sustain the original society or (b) we are in a worse state of affairs than when we started with evil more fully in charge

  So fill in your argument at C, for or against:

  I argue against: What prevents a new state from arising is essentially the limit to successful application of violence by an organization (no entity can hope to compete with the state on those grounds at present, only to buy favors). Without a state, far higher revenues (not to mention the psychological drive for dominance and power) are available by centralizing power in a new state, and there's a concomittant drive for control of that state.

  I believe libertarians make the error of comparing apples and oranges in comparing collusion now under the structure of a state versus a state-less society. The economic behavior is far different.

  Published: September 28, 2006 7:36 PM

• Peter

  Peter - Ok. Reasonableness would demand that you support that argument with some persuasion. Care to give it a shot?

  No it doesn't. If someone came to you and told he he believed in Santa Claus and faeries at the bottom of his garden, and you said there's no such thing, would "reasonableness" "demand" that you "support that argument"? Of course not: reasonableness would demand that the one making the assertion that faeries exist support his assertion.

  Published: September 28, 2006 8:55 PM

• Sione Vatu

  JIMB

  You wrote: "The natural tendency of government is to increase harm..."

  Given that IS the nature of government I rather think you've demonstrated the point that govt is indeed crime. In any event it is an evil.

  As an entity whose nature is to increase harm govt is best eliminated. There is no requirement for it. It's like having HIV. You don't want it. You'd submit to painful and prolonged therapy to eliminate it or try to slow its inevitable progress. In the end it will destroy you (and itself). Better off without it in the first place.

  Sione

  Published: September 28, 2006 10:42 PM

• JIMB

  Peter - You make the claim: belief in God equals belief in Santa Claus, both of which indicate mental derangement. I think reasonableness demands that you support that claim.

  Belief in the electron is an extrapolation of effects we see to causes we cannot directly observe. All matter is subject to immaterial natural physical laws which we cannot see, but in which we very much believe.

  My feeling: it is reasonable to believe in an unseen God (unperceived by our senses) by looking at things seen.

  For example, men could search for knowledge 10,000 years and not "see" something right in front of him the whole time. Knowledge is affected by work, by a person's morality, by one's state of mind, but in the end it is also revealed by force(s) outside our control.

  (In regards to morality: what Stalin believed true is very different than what Jesus did by necessity of their morality. The Bible is accepted as an authority, reasonably I believe, based on the morality of Jesus Christ and of the ultimate message).

  We also commonly observe physical order does not occur without an intelligent organizer, but order moves in reverse if left alone; order moves even faster in reverse if energy is input, unless there is a design created to take advantage of that energy.

  Reasonable extrapolation leads me to accept that a being exists which created the natural order we now observe.

  It should not be forgotten it is bigger than that. The argument can be effected by the moral latitude made possible by the beliefs, so honesty demands introspection.

  In sum, I believe it reasonable to believe in God, a personal moral God, as acceptance of what is, based on physical and moral reality.

  Published: September 29, 2006 7:26 AM

• JIMB

  Sione - The question is whether libertarian theoretics is using "government" as a euphemism for "the violent exercise of sin" and then waving the magic wand and getting rid of sin.

  But if the fallen nature of man is to sin, "getting rid of the state" is not possible: another state will rise in the former place (why, after all, has history shown states arise again and again? That question is not asked by libertarians and it seems to me to be THE question they should first be asking before asserting an alternative exists).

  My fear is the libertarians, in their zeal for this fantasy, seriously misunderstand the natural moral order, and are more likely to dismantle what inhibitions we have remaining to a one-world super-state than to reduce state power. Witness Lewrockwell.com seeming to support the left-wing "social progressives".

  Published: September 29, 2006 7:38 AM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  "But if the fallen nature of man is to sin, "getting rid of the state" is not possible."

  This is the "fundamental" difference between us: You believe that due to his fallen nature (inherent depravity), man is incapable of virtuous behavior and must, on the contrary, commit evil to the point that it is institutionalized in the state, the natural tendency of which is to "increase harm." Thus, not only do you believe that a free society is impossible; you believe that attempting to achieve it is "PRO-STATE" and thus inherently evil.

  In other words, you do not believe in the human enterprise at all and believe instead that what matters is saving oneself, one's fellows be damned, through total subservience to a divine master who, on account of that subservience, will reward you with eternal happiness once your participation in this earthly exercise in futility comes to an end.

  Accordingly, you are worse than useless to human society in that you do not really participate in it at all. Instead, you "increase harm" with your every thought, word, and deed and are thus a force for evil that society must defend itself against.

  Published: September 29, 2006 9:10 AM

• JIMB

  David W - But is the depravity of man not a matter of clear observable evidence? Every argument offered against the state is an argument for the depravity of man ... hence - from my point of view - the contradiction in your position.

  Published: September 29, 2006 10:10 AM

• David White

  To all others on this blog:

  I rest my case.

  Published: September 29, 2006 10:15 AM

• JIMB

  David W - I believe you misunderstand; every argument offered by libertarians against the state is an argument for the depravity of man (after all- the state is composed of men). That's why there's a contradiction in your position. I believe man is both good and depraved. But in proportion to his power, man will become more corrupt (the final endpoint of great personal power against other people, such as nuclear proliferation, could be a one-world-state, where power is removed from the individual).

  The wand-waving "sin will disappear on it's own with the right structure" I don't think is reasonable.

  Quite a few religious people believe this earthly life so important they are willing to die to spread a message: far from "other fellows be damned" I see the reverse (hence the life of Jesus). His return, if you believe Christianity - will not be peaceful, but as the powerful and rightful ruler of the earth, having proven himself incorruptible.

  As far as the tone, I notice that a commitment to non-aggression (if believed) should be also present on these posts. I honestly wonder how long libertarianism would exist before it's central tenet was - by competitive necessity to alternative moral structures - discarded. That is also the point.

  Published: September 29, 2006 10:52 AM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  On the contrary, every argument offered by libertarians against the state is an argument for the GOODNESS of man, as his natural tendency is to "truck and barter" -- i.e., trade -- with his fellow man in accordance with the Golden Rule from which the non-aggression principle is derived. This man has done for millennia and with enormous success, else you and I wouldn't be communicating at the speed of light as we now are. For trade by its very nature (properly speaking, that is, as distinguished from "globalization") proves over and over to be not a zero-sum game but a vehicle that mutually benefits the parties thereto.

  But because the vast majority of mankind is deluded about the true nature of the state (the state is nothing if not diabolical in its perpetuation of this grand lie), mankind fails to see that whatever good the state does, it does for the few who control it and therefore at the great expense of the many.

  And while the delusion has persisted for centuries, this doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. Indeed, given the decline and imminent fall of what former State Department official Francis Fukuyama famously called "the final form of human government," it is increasingly clear that "Western liberal democracy" is instead the final form of the STATE, as this latest incarnation fails as miserably as its predecessors. And once people awaken to this fact, withdrawing their support of the state as they do so, the state will be revealed for what it is: the "lone woman" that Thoreau correctly called it more than 150 years ago.

  As for putting words in my mouth with your "sin will disappear on it's own with the right structure" remark, what I have said all along is that since the state is the primary locus of evil in the world, whatever can be done to shrink it -- with the goal everywhere and always to eradicate it -- we should everywhere and always do. And I for one am willing to die to spread that message.

  As for my tone, your unending defense of the state, not to mention your nihilistic religious beliefs, makes you an accomplice in the state's relentless assault on humanity. Accordingly, I despise who you are -- an aggressor -- and what you stand for -- nothing.

  Published: September 29, 2006 1:37 PM

• Sione

  JIMB

  David White has got your position identified and described correctly. JIMB, there is little in common between us. One wonders why you attend a Libertarian site.

  You are approaching philosophy (for that is what we are dealing with here) from the direction of mysticism. That is, with a collection of arbitrary assertions predicated on a blind faith in the non-existent. In this case the faith proceeds with an assertion that there is a super-natural and unknowable realm inhabited by an all good, all powerful, all knowing spirit-creature-god-monster. The entire approach is anti-human for it relies on a corruption of the attribute of reason. "Religion is not a short-cut to knowledge, it is a mental short circuit." By accepting ideas with no evidence in reality (gods and such) you frustrate the operation of your attribute of reason (which is to identify aspects of reality and make decisions according to knowledge of those aspects of reality, not to arbitrarily mix and meld concepts in satisfaction of blind faith in an unknowable, unprovable, non-existence).

  There IS a lot wrong with your approach. For brevity I'll deal with the underlying problems only.

  Metaphysics. You proceed from an anti-reality basis. For example, your blind faith in the existence of the non-existent (super-natural realm, spirit monsters etc.)

  Epistemology. You proceed from the notion that knowledge is revealed from the super-natural realm by the action of a spirit monster god thing. Man is not able to attain knowledge unless the spirit monster reveals it to him or allows him a permission to find it.

  Nature of Man. Flawed, imperfect, weak, tainted, necessarily consisting of an evil. Man requires governance by an authority for his own good. This authority is owed an allegiance as the authority is derived from a spirit monster god thing. Man should accept revelations form the super natural realm and its appointed authority which must, in turn, govern all to behave according to them.

  Morality. Collective. The spirit monster will reveal what is good and what is bad. Ultimately Man must obey this authority on faith (OR ELSE).

  Rights. Proscribed. Derived on collectivist foundation. Revealed from a super-natural source and not defined in logical manner. Arbitrarily based on undefined concepts. Acceptance of a non-right, a "right to govern." Sanction applied any who disagree.

  Politics. Governance by force. Acceptable to apply coercion based on revelations of the super natural.

  What a mess. It's false at every stage.

  Before getting into discussions of morality (and you should understand this- your morality as stated on these pages is a terrible evil and anti-life) or politics (you contradict yourself- that's going to occur for you since your position is a half thought through collection of the arbitrary) there is an entire hierarchy of thought that requires sorting out. Until that is done there is no way you could appreciate what Libertarianism is about. For you it would remain beyond understanding. Here is the rub, its nature isn't going to be revealed to you by a higher power. What it takes it a long, rigorous consideration of reality applying logical thought at every step.

  So let's start from the basics. Here is the challenge for you.

  Metaphysics. Since you posit the existence of a god, prove the god exists. Present your evidence and your proof!

  Sione
  

  Published: September 29, 2006 5:27 PM

• JIMB

  David W - What makes libertarians believe libertarianism to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society? By what standard?

  Before continuing, I want to thank you for participating. It is a good exercise.

  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?

  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."

  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).

  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.

  Making an argument that a state will exist, does not primae fascie make one an aggressor, even support for the state does not.
  
  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.

  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?

  Published: September 29, 2006 6:28 PM

• JIMB

  Sione -

  Metaphysics - We don't know everything and Stalin and Ghandi differed strongly on what is considered true (morality matters). God is the ultimate source of reality and the eternal judge.

  Epistemology - Knowledge is discovered by work and reasoning, but more than that, it is revealed in ways which we don't fully understand.

  Nature of man - A mix of evil and good: he is created in God's image but chooses wrong. Since any corruption would be magnified when men gain power, that argues for a minimal state. A state will be formed either by necessity of protection or by men desiring income and power.

  Morality - Revealed. The Bible says only what is already true in nature. It is not "forcing an unnatural order" but accurately reflecting what is.

  Right to action - Created by God and given to man; routinely infringed on by men in the state. There is no moral right to commit immoral actions, however, maximum latitude should be given for several reasons (1) men in the state are corrupt and cannot be trusted (2) God gave these choices to man and we should not usurp them (3) what is just and unjust cannot always be determined (4) it frequently costs more than the benefits are worth

  Politics - Governance by natural moral law. Governance is always by force: libertarians are no different, they just hold different moral ethics, ones I argue are incompatible with natural moral law. Under libertarian ethics, entirely reprehensible societies could exist - so it is a bad argument to say that "libertarianism will result in a good society".

  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. 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.

  For a briefly expanded treatment, see the response to Peter above.

  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).

  As far as I can tell, there is nothing posted here regarding the basic starting point of libertarianism which are incorrect.

  Published: September 30, 2006 1:00 AM

• David White

  Sione,

  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.

  Speaking of such...

  Jim Bradley:

  "By what standard" does libertarianism believe itself "to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society"?

  I could have sworn that this has been stated -- ad infinitum, in fact, by me and countless others going back, well, decades -- that the standard is the non-aggression principle.

  "Before continuing, I want to thank you for participating. It is a good exercise."

  For me, the word that comes to mind is excruciating (as in just crucify me), my hope being that others (not you, obviously) will learn from it.

  "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?"

  You tell (1) when trade is carried out for the purpose of violating anyone's right to life, liberty, or property, and (2) when trade so adversely affects society (e.g., everyone is a cocaine addict) that it can no longer function. (Education would be helpful here, so long as it wasn't the state doing the "educating.")

  "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."

  To argue against libertarianism (i.e., responsible freedom as the moral basis of society) is to argue either for the regimented anarchy of the state or the outright anarchy of the jungle.

  "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)."

  Consider me enlightened accordingly.

  "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."

  1 - Though Jesus didn't say so, he implied it -- i.e., that Caesar is owed nothing, since he has nothing that he hasn't taken from others.

  2- Non-violence (pacifism) is an ethic of surrender and as such is incompatible with libertarianism, which authorizes the use of force (violence) in self-defense.

  3 - I consider myself a Christian (having, among other things, spent a part of my life in the cloister) in the way that Jesus (vis-a-vis the Pharisees) defined the term -- i.e., as one who loves God with all his being and his neighbor as himself. Implicit in the latter is the Golden Rule (which Jesus affirmed) and thus the non-aggression principle, while the former...well, let's just say that I have my own definition of God and that, unlike traditional theism, it is consonant with freedom of the will.

  "Making an argument that a state will exist, does not primae fascie make one an aggressor, even support for the state does not."

  Support of the status (as in statist) quo, which is part and parcel of everything you say, is supportive of the state and is thus supportive of evil. And your escapist religious beliefs only reinforce this fact.

  "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."

  There is nothing more destructive of essential moral traditions -- including and especially the institution of marriage -- than the state, as its every action is dedicated to the destruction of the family and the atomization of the individual, the better to control his every thought, word, and deed.

  "In other words, what makes libertarianism believe itself in similar matters to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society?"

  In ways that you obviously cannot understand.

  "And by what standard?"

  That would be the non-aggress...oh never mind.

  Published: September 30, 2006 7:45 AM

• Peter

  What do you (JimB) even mean by "libertarianism believe itself to be"? Libertarianism doesn't have beliefs. People have beliefs. If you mean why do people believe that libertarianism is a morally and functionally superior way to organize society?, the answer varies with the person, but for people posting here I imagine the answer is an understanding of praxeology leads to that belief.

  What amazes me is that you can have been posting here for as long as you have been (several years, I think) and still not have the slightest inkling of what libertarianism is about.

  Published: September 30, 2006 8:41 AM

• Peter

  Gah; sorry; apparently the blog strips <q> tags - put quotes around "why do people ... organize society?" and "an understanding ... to that belief".

  Published: September 30, 2006 8:44 AM

• JIMB

  David - I'll have to stop here unless you wish to (1) drop aggressiveness from your posts as a good-faith downpayment on your belief in the principle of non-aggression. It's probably best to leave off the discussion of religion, as it does not bring light, but heat: the appeal has been to natural moral law.

  (2) show how libertarian ethics is most reasonably defined as "non-aggression" when Rothbard and Hoppe present the ethics as "no initiation of physical force" and "self-ownership". I believe you to be expanding the scope of legitimate force action exactly because (as was asserted) the basic tenets do not fit natural moral law adequately - but perhaps I misunderstand your view, not having a cogent definition of "non-aggression".

  (3) If "non-aggression" exceeds physical force, propose what reasonable limit the concept of non-aggression is on force-using action. It is conceivable that many unlibertarian force-using actions could be justified under that rubric (example: business competition regulated as "aggressive", welfare promoted by "defending the poor against aggression by their lower status", etc) - hence the original assertion by Rothbard that the limits must be concretely objective.

  (4) In an effort to encourage discussion, please stop the following unreasonable argument pattern "one will not eradicate murder using method X" transmuted to "you are pro-murder" in the same way : "one will not eradicate the state using libertarian ethics" as "pro-state"

  (5) Describe how the new society, lacking a means of majority use of force, will remain decent given the sudden lack of forcible limits on consumptive evils which do not fit the pattern of aggression but do dramatically affect other people (incest, prostitution, trading nuclear technology, etc.)

  I remain interested in your reply. All the best.

  Published: September 30, 2006 10:08 AM

• JIMB

  Peter - Praxeology does not specify morality. In fact, it is specifically denied by Mises (wertfrei - value free).

  Ownership is separate from the proper use of the thing owned. Self-ownership, a physical reality, cannot be elevated to a moral ethic - in fact, it would be just as valid for a person of dominant physical strength to say that the ethic is "the strongest shall dominate" because they physically do. I believe the basis for the philosophy to be unreasonable.

  Spooner's arguments to me seem far more valid.

  Published: September 30, 2006 10:17 AM

• David White

  Jim Bradley:

  1 - Non-aggression means the non-initiation of force against another's life, liberty, or property. Since one's self is logically one's own and not someone else's, self-ownership is a given, meaning that the initiation of force can be non-physical when one's reputation (social identity) is compromised through libelous or slanderous conduct on the part of another. (One could argue alternatively that such conduct is an attack on your liberty, since what is wrongly said about you can profoundly affect your ability to move about freely in society (e.g., being wrongly accused of being a child molester).

  2 - I do not see any difficulty here, since the determination should always be whether initiatory force was used against one's life, liberty, or property. Thus, intense business competition would only constitute aggression if a competitor used initiatory force to prevent you from competing in some way, including spreading lies about you and/or your business that consequently drove customers away. As for the poor, providing for their welfare through private means (i.e., not through taxation) would be perfectly acceptable as long as it didn't do so through the use of initiatory force (e.g., one does not have the right to rob the rich in order to give to the poor).

  3 - Again, to contend that attempts to eradicate the state will only exacerbate the problem, making them "PRO-STATE," is to defend the status quo and thus to be an accomplice, as it were, to the evils inherent IN the status quo.

  4 - I think the simplest and most secure way to create a stateless society (which I assume is what you're talking about) would be for the owners of contiguous lands (even an area as small as, say, an ancient city-state like Athens) to create a formal document -- a true social contract -- that they and all incoming members of the society would sign, pledging to honor the non-aggression principle and thereby promising never to violate other members' rights to life, liberty, and property, letting the marketplace see to all needs, including law enforcement, dispute resolution, and punishment.

  Published: September 30, 2006 11:56 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  JIMB;

  "Describe how the new society, lacking a means of majority use of force, will remain decent given the sudden lack of forcible limits on consumptive evils which do not fit the pattern of aggression but do dramatically affect other people (incest, prostitution, trading nuclear technology, etc.)"

  I would like to have YOU describe how the current positive law regime supposedly prevents these things, since they seem to exist unaffected.

  Published: September 30, 2006 2:19 PM

• Peter

  Peter - Praxeology does not specify morality. In fact, it is specifically denied by Mises (wertfrei - value free).

  And you're unaware of Hoppe?

  It's probably best to leave off the discussion of religion, as it does not bring light

  And how is it possible to have a discussion with you without religion entering into it? Every other word you write exudes your religious beliefs. E.g., you ask "How will society remain decent ...?", while defining "decent" in terms of your religion.

  PS: Stephan Molyneux has some good podcasts on the subject of religion.

  Published: September 30, 2006 9:48 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Jim,

  “David W - What makes libertarians believe libertarianism to be a morally and functionally superior way to organize society? By what standard?”

  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?”

  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."”

  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).”

  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.”

  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.”

  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.

  ”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.”

  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.

  Published: October 1, 2006 2:03 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 1, 2006 7:11 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 1, 2006 7:21 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 1, 2006 7:48 AM

• Peter

  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]

  Published: October 1, 2006 10:24 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 1, 2006 10:44 AM

• Peter

  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!

  Published: October 1, 2006 4:58 PM

• Sione

  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

  Published: October 1, 2006 7:59 PM

• 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

  Published: October 1, 2006 8:05 PM

• JIMB

  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.)

  Published: October 2, 2006 7:44 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 2, 2006 8:03 AM

• JIMB

  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".

  Published: October 2, 2006 8:15 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 2, 2006 8:28 AM

• Curt Howland

  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.

  Published: October 2, 2006 2:07 PM

• JIMB

  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."

  Published: October 2, 2006 4:51 PM

• JIMB

  Curt - Oops, that would be Jack Diederich ...

  Published: October 2, 2006 5:02 PM

• Peter

  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!

  Published: October 2, 2006 11:31 PM

• Peter

  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.

  Published: October 2, 2006 11:38 PM

• Peter

  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.

  Published: October 2, 2006 11:46 PM

• Sione Vatu

  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

  Published: October 3, 2006 7:45 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 3, 2006 9:55 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 3, 2006 10:06 AM

• Peter

  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...]

  Published: October 3, 2006 11:41 AM

• Peter

  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?]

  Published: October 3, 2006 12:04 PM

• Sione Vatu

  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

  Published: October 3, 2006 3:44 PM

• JIMB

  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!

  Published: October 3, 2006 6:00 PM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 3, 2006 6:08 PM

• TokyoTom

  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?

  Published: October 3, 2006 11:38 PM

• Sione

  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

  Published: October 3, 2006 11:51 PM

• M E Hoffer

  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?

  Published: October 4, 2006 3:46 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 4, 2006 6:56 AM

• Peter

  Which Sione already dismissed with his "the garden exists therefore the fairies exist" thing. Round and round we go.

  Published: October 4, 2006 7:37 AM

• JIMB

  Tokyo Tom - I agree with your observations - I believe the criticism is more in line with "libertarianism is incomplete" rather than entirely wrong.

  Published: October 4, 2006 7:37 AM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 4, 2006 8:02 AM

• Peter

  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!

  Published: October 4, 2006 7:50 PM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 5, 2006 6:02 AM

• Sione

  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

  Published: October 5, 2006 2:59 PM

• 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

  Published: October 5, 2006 4:32 PM

• JIMB

  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

  Published: October 5, 2006 5:44 PM

• JIMB

  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.

  Published: October 5, 2006 5:57 PM

• Lea Go

  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

  
  

  Published: April 10, 2007 11:46 AM