Why are you a libertarian?

[Libertarian]

Frankly, I'm not sure that I do understand the question.

The cite above uses the distinction as a way of categorizing libertarians. That's fair. But I don't see the words "mutually exclusive" there.

You could probably ask a Democrat if he's a Democrat because he believes in civil rights or because he believes in social welfare. You might get him to answer with one or the other, but try to tell him the two are mutually exclusive, and you're likely to get an argument.

I think getting ANYONE to admit that they believe in the UTILITY of their belief system REGARDLESS of it's morality would be next to impossible.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

Well, guess what: I am capable of disagreeing with Victor (assuming you've accurately characterized this "latest" post, which, if past experience is any indication, is questionable).

Well, I did say what Shane says i said -- but I did so as a means of simplifying the problem maximally, so that he would actually understand it. The devil is of course in the details.

Hayek and Friedman are "principled" WRT liberty -- as a consequence of the utilitarian stance; and so was Mill (who founded modern utilitarianism, and also wrote the seminal work "On Liberty", defending liberty as the greatest utilitarian good). This sort of utilitarian/empirical libertarianism is a self-consistent position. Being principled doesn't imply that the said principles must be axiomatic rather than theoremic, after all.

Now my nagging suspicion is that Shane is "principled" based on natural rights arguments rather than utilitarian arguments, and gives weight to empirical data. This would make him an empirical libertarian, but a philosophically illiterate and logically inconsistent one. Given the number of inconsistent and irrational beliefs people hold, I wouldn't be greatly surprised; and Shane has never shown any signs of philosophical sophistication.

We're talking about *foundations*.

You are getting too complex for shane. He likes his ideas simplistic, and doesn't understand nuances... That was why I had to reduce things to trivialities for him -- "yes, honey, empirical libertarians believe in liberty too".

 

[shanek]

Here's a statement from _The Ethical Spectacle_ making the same elementary distinction:

Libertarians can be divided into two primary groups: natural rights libertarians and utilitarian libertarians. Natural rights libertarians, such as Boaz(2), Nozick, Rothbard(3), and to a large extent the Libertarian Party(4)defend private property and laissez-faire markets on moral grounds based on ideas of natural law. Such libertarians usually regard taxation as theft and/or slavery(5). Utilitarian libertarians(sometimes referred to as empirical libertarians), such as Hayek(6), and the Friedmans (7) (8), argue that libertarianism will maximize the total personal liberty and prosperity in a society. Additionally, libertarians define freedom as "the absence of coercion or restraint; it includes political liberty, free speech, and economic freedom."(9)

And what is it, exactly, that stops someone from arguing both? And since I have argued both over the history of this forum, how does that not make me both?

That the two exist, I have never denied. What I have denied, and continue to deny, is that there is a dichotomy between the two.

Suppose I have gone on believing (for years!) that the Reds were the MLB world champions for 1975. Further suppose that I believe Red Sox won game 7 in the 1975 world series. Clearly, that can't be correct, but it's certainly possible for a person to believe it. You just happen to be one of those persons.

Oh, I get it. I'm wrong because you say Im wrong.

Well, guess what: I am capable of disagreeing with Victor (assuming you've accurately characterized this "latest" post, which, if past experience is any indication, is questionable).

Why don't you actually READ his post and see for yourself?

For the purposes of our argument, I believe the quoted passage above.

We're talking about *foundations*.

But foundations don't just appear out of nowhere. They're built up over a period of years, or at least they were in my case. And in my case, I found both the arguments for principled libertarianism and utilitarian libertarianism equally compelling. They both grew together, and complemented each other. The utilitarian arguments led me to conclude that the principled arguments were right, and the principles inspired me to seek out utilitarian effects. Remember that we're talking about a philosophy that encompasses quite a broad range. Liberals are (generally) civil libertarians but not economic libertarians, for example.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a unique person
Victor was not criticising Libertarianism in any way, he was asking a question on the belief in libertarianism.

First, my comment was directed at Cain, not Victor. Second, Victor qualifies as a libertarian critic anyway, based on previous discussions, and he, too, has demonstrated a habit of attributing his failures to someone else's lack of understanding.

Victor's question seems to have gone over the heads of all the libertarians here.

Baloney. Some are simply taking issue with how he's presented it.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
Oh, I reviewed that thread before posting. Good times. Your "responses" were funny.

My responses? The conversation I reviewed was characterized by you talking out of your ass about libertarians, and becoming insulting when you couldn't back up your claims, or answer some of the tougher questions about some of the statements you were making. Now, if that's not your take on that conversation, then how about providing an example or two of those "funny" responses?

Hilarious. I see nothing has changed.

Yes, libertarian critics continue to try to spin their own failures as someone else's, and to be condescending and insulting in the process.

Shanek's comments amount to a "non-response" for reasons already explained: Victory asked Libertarians* about the *foundation* for their beliefs, and it's only one or the other.

Yeah, and that last part reflects the arrogance that's causing the problems. You might as well ask "what's your favorite color, purple or orange?", and accuse someone who says "green" of a "non-response". A meaningful attempt to explore the foundation for libertarians' beliefs is not served by telling libertarians what they must choose from.

Indeed, as I said in a previous post, I attempted to ask for similar distinctions. Instead I got posts like his (and posts like yours).

Did you attempt to confine those doing the responding to your pre-defined choices, like Victor has done? If so, that could explain the problem.

In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the bullsh*t you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness. Two peas in a pod.

Ah, yes, more of the same vague references.

Um ... it wasn't intended to be specific at this point, but I'm more than willing to discuss it at that level as soon as you say the word. Incidentally, does the absence of actual quotes from your accounting of things in the next point make it a "vague" reference too? Hmm?

You mean how in those previous threads I quoted the Libertarian Party's platform several times (and provided links numerous times) and you just plugged your ears, closed your eyes and changed "Na na na na na na." Yeah, that was also funny -- painfully so.

Okay, apparently you do need to be reminded of how that conversation actually went. This is yet another example of spinning your own failure as someone else's, because while you demonstrated that you could quote something from the platform, where you failed miserably was in quoting something from it that actually has some direct relevance to the claims in dispute. I pointed that out at the time, of course, which I'm guessing is what you're spinning here as the "just plugged your ears ..." part.

And that wasn't your only failure. Like most other critics of libertarianism, you also failed to answer questions about the statements you were making. In fact, you were the one who abandoned the conversation when those questions got too tough, remember?

Like I said, we can revisit it all here if you like, direct quotes and all. Either you can provide an example of something you posted which I took issue with, and to which you were then able to respond with something from the platform that actually supported your claim, or if you prefer, I'll be more than happy to quote some of the claims you made which were in dispute, and you can try again to back them up. Take your pick. Or, if you've got a different suggestion for establishing whose memory on that previous discussion is more accurate, I'm open to that, too, as long as it will actually serve that purpose.

Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark.

I didn't say it "misses the mark", but if being unnecessarily limiting qualifies, then I will say so now. There is something kind of silly and presumptuous about asking a "why" question about someone else's views, then presenting them with only two options, and expecting them to pick one or the other. And covering his bases with stuff like "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends." does not make those options any more useful, or necessary to exploring the question reflected in the title of the thread. For instance, while I agree to some extent with the statements in both of his options, neither is an accurate characterization of the foundation for my views, nor the views of many (possibly most) other libertarians. (And if you like, we can discuss the foundation for my views in greater detail, once the rest of this stuff is out of the way.)

To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers.

So what? I thought the thread was about libertarians in this forum. And most of the libertarians out here in the real world couldn't care less about being pigeonholed by philosophers, even libertarian philosophers.

But seeing as how you don't have the slightest grasp of these elementary issuses,

Sorry, but you're confusing a lack of understanding with a lack of interest. Victor has made similar mistakes too. You guys really do have to rely an awful lot on that thing of accusing others of a lack of understanding, don't you?

and will avoid at all costs my challenge to show where Victor's analysis errors, this is a moot point.

Damn.You simply don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Not only have I never run from a discussion about anything, making your implication totally baseless (and yet another case of trying to create the impression of failure where none has actually occurred), but given the evasiveness you demonstrated in that previous discussion, for you to be making a comment about anyone else avoiding challenges is ... how shall I put this? Oh yeah ...

I don't know who "most of us" speaks for, but that's fine.

That would be most libertarians. You couldn't even figure that out?

I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious.

First, regarding the "party hacks" thing, thanks for continuing to demonstrate not only the tendency of libertarian critics to be insulting, but also their disregard for accuracy. (This isn't going to be one of those things where you make a claim, and ask me to disprove it, is it?)

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Now, if all you're talking about is studying the works of people who have written about various philosophies, then I'm guilty as charged. I've never found reading about someone else's philosophy particularly useful or enlightening in terms of formulating my own. I find dialogue and debate much more helpful toward reaching conclusions that will withstand scrutiny. And since I consistently do a much better job of defending my philosophy than those who disagree with me do of defending theirs, why the hell should I care what some author thinks who isn't even around to engage in any dialogue about whatever he's written? Such reading usually just ends up being like a one-sided conversation, or listening to a sermon.

Moreover, with my approach, I don't have to point to someone else's opinion and say "see, they agree with me". When you base your views on the opinions of authors rather than doing your own thinking, you run the risk of getting backed into corners when someone asks you questions that you forgot to ask when you were doing all that reading. This has caused problems for Victor, among others. That's usually about the time they start telling someone else what they don't "understand". The similarity to Bible-thumpers is worth noting.

However, inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically, she's always a subject of discussion. Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and others found her inspirational, but reject many of her ideas.

You guys really need to get out more. Sorry if the rest of us aren't "inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically".

I'm lumping this with another poster's comments on morality. Rights, which are predicated on preferences, come from our interactions with other human beings. But they're hardly "natural" in any meaningful sense of the word (as any first year anthropology student knows). This introduces potential complications for clear discussion: do we regard everything as "natural"? So the computer that I'm using to type this message natural? I can agree to these terms, but it changes perspective.

...

That's fine, but it's hardly "natural." Natural would be deriving an "ought" from an "is" and I cannot readily agree that a respect for individual sovereignty -- though I may agree with those aims -- is easily integrated into the Dariwnian paradigm. Nature doesn't care about rights. It doesn't care if you're happy, and it certainly has no respect for the individual. Selfish genes are only using you as a way of propagate themselves, which we might disagree with, or even judge tyrannical. "Natural" is not to be confused with "good".

I'm not sure who the above comments are meant for, but I am pretty sure I haven't mentioned the word "natural" even once in this discussion, unless I was quoting someone else. Another problem you guys seem to have is a need to say a lot of stuff that's not particularly relevant. Is it to compensate for the stuff you get wrong?

Posted by Cain, presumably quoting WMT1
That you may be incapable of comprehending [natural rights] without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

There again, you've inserted the word "natural" into something where it wasn't there originally. Allow me to refresh your memory regarding the actual exchange. You posted:

Robert Nozick begins his most famous work as follows:

"Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)."

That's all well and good, but to whom, or what, do we owe the existence of these rights? It only makes sense in a religious framework.

And to the last statement, I responded:

That you may be incapable of comprehending it without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

So, to set the record straight, the "it" I was referring to was the concept of Nozick's statement, which did not include the word "natural".

However, if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?

This sentence is quite confused.

Now who's having trouble understanding things? It's actually pretty f*****g straightforward. But then, the ones designed to pin someone down on consistency are often among the ones that give libertarian critics the most trouble.

First, define rights (and use the term consistently).

"Rightful claim" sounds good to me.

If, suppose, we define "right" in the negative sense -- freedom from (human) intereference -- then there is no "violation"of "sovereignty" because those words *assume* checks against force/interference/non-consent. This person would say "sovereignty" is an illusion and they couldn't be "violating" anything.

Great. You ask me to define it, then immediately put forth your own convoluted idea when a fairly simple one will suffice. That's another problem with you guys. You tend to equate complexity with merit. And here I think it's because you probably know the question creates problems for any approach that does not recognize rights.

In any case, since you did ask me to define it, how about answering the question based on my definition, not yours? Or, if it will make things easier for you, simply replace the words "to violate anyone else's sovereignty" with "to do anything to anyone else".

Here's your trash. Keep it to yourself next time. Thanks.

That kinda sums up my impression of your criticisms of libertarianism.

 

[Cain]

And what is it, exactly, that stops someone from arguing both? And since I have argued both over the history of this forum, how does that not make me both?

That the two exist, I have never denied. What I have denied, and continue to deny, is that there is a dichotomy between the two.

No, you don't understand. There's nothing preventing a Libertarian missionary like yourself (or WMT1) from proselyting both the Utilitarian and natural rights view in order to gain converts. Indeed, it's perfectly okay for a person to be compelled to libertarianism for a bit of both reasons, but remember, the ideas are mutually exclusive (as every single important libertarian thinker recognizes).

Jeremy Bentham, the Father of Utilitarianism, the person who made the "nonsense on stilts" comment can be described as a libertarian.

Perhaps yet another simple example will allow you to see the distinction (unfortunately, this requires a bit of philosophical sophistication).

Suppose that overwhelming empircal evidence from economists demonstrated that minimum wage laws lead to better living standards, especially for the poor. That is to say, minimum wage produces the "greatest good for the greatest number." Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and Hayek, all once libertarians, but convinced by this evidence, would be (morally) required to espouse the view that minimum wage laws are good (because they maximize utility).

A natural rights proponent, say Nozick, would nevertheless object to minimum wage laws as a restriction of liberty (specifically the violation of freedom to contract). Even if it is economically inefficient, he doesn't care.

I hope you now understand.

My responses? The conversation I reviewed was characterized by you talking out of your ass about libertarians, and becoming insulting when you couldn't back up your claims, or answer some of the tougher questions about some of the statements you were making. Now, if that's not your take on that conversation, then how about providing an example or two of those "funny" responses?

Anyone even slightly interested in this "conversation" can see it here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8780

Your lies on these exchanges in a minute.

Yes, libertarian critics continue to try to spin their own failures as someone else's, and to be condescending and insulting in the process.

The fact that you cannot grasp the most elementary distinctions is not a failing of "libertarian critics." As I have said (multiple times), all philosophers and economists accept the dichotomy presented. The only people who don't are you and Shanek. For just one second can you at least reflect on these issues and briefly consider the remote possibility that people much, much smarter than you might be correct?

Yeah, and that last part reflects the arrogance that's causing the problems. You might as well ask "what's your favorite color, purple or orange?", and accuse someone who says "green" of a "non-response". A meaningful attempt to explore the foundation for libertarians' beliefs is not served by telling libertarians what they must choose from.

*Sigh* it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute. Explore the (vast) literature from natural rights theorists (starting with Locke) and compare it to the intellectual history of Utilitarianism (preferably starting with Mill, but you can go back to Benthem).

Did you attempt to confine those doing the responding to your pre-defined choices, like Victor has done? If so, that could explain the problem.

Actually, there's a third choice for libertarians: Social Contract Theory (see Jan Narverson _The Libertarian Idea_). But their numbers are small.

In my previous post, yes, I made nearly the same exact distinction as Victor (and the same one the article, and the same one that informs debates in all academic circles). I distinguished between the "more philosophical" natural rights crowd and the "more sophisticated" utilitarians.

Um ... it wasn't intended to be specific at this point, but I'm more than willing to discuss it at that level as soon as you say the word. Incidentally, does the absence of actual quotes from your accounting of things in the next point make it a "vague" reference too? Hmm?

No, it was a vague one-sided, falsehood and I asked (due to the lack of focus), if you meant how I constantly had to repeat the same thing over again (sort of like what I'm doing right now).

Your modus operandi, it seems, is to smother others in meaningless verbiage. (see "trash" quote in previous thread).

Okay, apparently you do need to be reminded of how that conversation actually went. This is yet another example of spinning your own failure as someone else's, because while you demonstrated that you could quote something from the platform, where you failed miserably was in quoting something from it that actually has some direct relevance to the claims in dispute. I pointed that out at the time, of course, which I'm guessing is what you're spinning here as the "just plugged your ears ..." part.

Again, quite funny. There's no point repeating here (once again!) dismal failure to grasp fundamentals. This thread is yet another demonstration...

I'm not even a third of the way through with your fatuous post and still not a significant idea of merit has come up. Not surprising.

And that wasn't your only failure. Like most other critics of libertarianism, you also failed to answer questions about the statements you were making. In fact, you were the one who abandoned the conversation when those questions got too tough, remember?

For the sake of truth, we can reverse the first sentence. There's no possible way anyone can meaningfully reply. The second sentence is more interesting, only for the pure comical value. Oh, yes, I "abandoned" that conversation, so you're the "winner." Good stuff. Anyone who even glances at that thread will see it drones on for six pages. I did not "abandon" it because you made some spectacular, irrefutable point. You're just a wall, and I chose to stop talking to a wall. It's foolish for me to even indulge your shameful meandering on this point because it accomplishes your most important goal: to never discuss the philosophical ideas relating to libertarianism.

[quoteLike I said, we can revisit it all here if you like, direct quotes and all....[/quote]

You're the one who brought it up. If you see a relevant point, then bring it up, don't vaguely refer "To that one thread where... [insert mischaracterizations]."

Unfortunately, it seems we're picking up where we left off.

I didn't say it "misses the mark", but if being unnecessarily limiting qualifies, then I will say so now. There is something kind of silly and presumptuous about asking a "why" question about someone else's views, then presenting them with only two options, and expecting them to pick one or the other. And covering his bases with stuff like "Broadly, there are two ideologies leading to libertarianism. They are not discreet, but they to define the major trends." does not make those options any more useful, or necessary to exploring the question reflected in the title of the thread. For instance, while I agree to some extent with the statements in both of his options, neither is an accurate characterization of the foundation for my views, nor the views of many (possibly most) other libertarians. (And if you like, we can discuss the foundation for my views in greater detail, once the rest of this stuff is out of the way.)

I love that first sentence -- "I didn't say..." Well, um, I never said you did.

Anyway, this entire paragraph contains not a single argument, just simple assertions. Demonstrate how, contrary to all discussion of these matters among all intellectuals, natural rights does not, in principle, find itself in conflict with Utiltarianism. Oh, and if you will be so kind as to reply to this paragraph before the rest of my post, I will be forever in your debt. (Suggestion: it might be wise to attack my comments to Shanek on minimum wage laws in this context).

Let me state for the record, without ambiguity, that this is the CENTRAL topic (indeed, it's what set off this thread). A cogent reply is absolutely necessary.

So what? I thought the thread was about libertarians in this forum. And most of the libertarians out here in the real world couldn't care less about being pigeonholed by philosophers, even libertarian philosophers.

*Sigh* then prove them wrong. I hope there are more than three libertarians on this forum. Judging by the threads, one might suspect there are dozens of you... but then, judging by Shanek's presence in these threads, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no more than a handful.

So two of you view this as a false dichotomy, and one understood the question.

Sorry, but you're confusing a lack of understanding with a lack of interest. Victor has made similar mistakes too. You guys really do have to rely an awful lot on that thing of accusing others of a lack of understanding, don't you?

Another meaningless comment (for irony, refer to "abandon" comments).

Damn.You simply don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Not only have I never run from a discussion about anything, making your implication totally baseless (and yet another case of trying to create the impression of failure where none has actually occurred), but given the evasiveness you demonstrated in that previous discussion, for you to be making a comment about anyone else avoiding challenges is ... how shall I put this? Oh yeah ...

Again, more verbiage. This will be proven, simply and triumphantly, once you attempt to answer the question (or fail to do so).

That would be most libertarians. You couldn't even figure that out?

Incredible. You do realize the non-initation of force principle, the one thought we can reliably find in common to nearly all members of the Libertarian Party, was popularized by Ayn Rand. Indeed, it's informally known as the "Objectivist Oath."

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Now, if all you're talking about is studying the works of people who have written about various philosophies, then I'm guilty as charged. I've never found reading about someone else's philosophy particularly useful or enlightening in terms of formulating my own. I find dialogue and debate much more helpful toward reaching conclusions that will withstand scrutiny. And since I consistently do a much better job of defending my philosophy than those who disagree with me do of defending theirs, why the hell should I care what some author thinks who isn't even around to engage in any dialogue about whatever he's written? Such reading usually just ends up being like a one-sided conversation, or listening to a sermon.

Your anti-intellectualism and egoitism is noted. Thanks for being so bluntly honest.

Moreover, with my approach, I don't have to point to someone else's opinion and say "see, they agree with me". When you base your views on the opinions of authors rather than doing your own thinking, you run the risk of getting backed into corners when someone asks you questions that you forgot to ask when you were doing all that reading. This has caused problems for Victor, among others. That's usually about the time they start telling someone else what they don't "understand". The similarity to Bible-thumpers is worth noting.

More comedy gold. No one says reading the fine works of others is a useful substitue to real-world debate. On the contrary, it *informs* discussion. Where do you think any of these ideas originate? Moreover, scholarly works do not take place in a vacuum. If you bothered reading Rawls (Theory of Justice), you'd see he's replying to Utilitarian arguments. Then, if you had an inkling of interest, you could pick up Nozick (ASU) and see it as a reply to Rawls. And so on.

I'm not saying any on person has a monopoly on truth (as the false comparison to "bible-thumpers" implies. These paradigms are useful for meaningful discussion and debate. It clarifies issues in ways you do not (yet) understand.

You guys really need to get out more. Sorry if the rest of us aren't "inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically".

Why bother?

I'm not sure who the above comments are meant for, but I am pretty sure I haven't mentioned the word "natural" even once in this discussion, unless I was quoting someone else. Another problem you guys seem to have is a need to say a lot of stuff that's not particularly relevant. Is it to compensate for the stuff you get wrong?

Did anyone catch the non-reply here? The context is conspicuously missing, and his failure to say the word "natural" is taken as indication that he never implied it.

Recall, my argument was that natural rights owes its intellectual heritage to theism. I asked, "Where do these rights come from?" assuming WMT1 is an atheist.

The response was a rhethorical question.

Where do they "come from" for anyone?

Then asked for clarification on what he means by natural, and he says that he never said it (which he didn't), but it's just a play to avoid, again, the main issues. Curiously, anyone interested could compare his rantings on past threads, which go on and on, to any ideas (which often consist of only short sentences).

Oh, but he's not beyond harping on this point. He needs to misconstrue it in the opposite direction:

On my comment to Nozick's statements, he wrote:

That you may be incapable of comprehending it without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.

But what does that mean?

He clarifies ("clarifies")

So, to set the record straight, the "it" I was referring to was the concept of Nozick's statement, which did not include the word "natural".

Oh, and anyone with tunnel vision sees exactly that: Nozick never used the word "natural". Silliness.

That statement, nonetheless, is the consequence of a natural rights view! Just because he didn't use the word "natural" doesn't mean it's not natural. Any literate person following the conversation so far knows to make the connection.

His "set the record straight" only muddies the water.

But it gets better (if that's the right word):

Now who's having trouble understanding things? It's actually pretty f*****g straightforward. But then, the ones designed to pin someone down on consistency are often among the ones that give libertarian critics the most trouble.

[Insert chuckle here]

On defining rights:

"Rightful claim" sounds good to me.

No, that's a loaded phrase without meaning (as mentioned earlier). I offered an example (negative rights) which caused you to go into an apoplectic rage.

If someone has a "rightful claim" than they're right. That's a truism. Do you believe in murdering 20 million people when it's necessary? I do. Do you believe you have a right to kill another person when it's justified? I do. Do you disagree with an unimpeachable, perfectly rational, theory of rights?

Great. You ask me to define it, then immediately put forth your own convoluted idea when a fairly simple one will suffice. That's another problem with you guys. You tend to equate complexity with merit. And here I think it's because you probably know the question creates problems for any approach that does not recognize rights.

I'm dying to know -- who is "you guys". I know Victor's one of them (good company as far as I can tell), but who else is in the club? That whole "complexity" thing as another throwaway comment that belongs in the garabage can. The final sentence is a straightforward mischaracterization. Oh, I believe in rights, but not "natural" rights.

EDIT: argh, somehow the enter key got hit while I was talking on the phone.

Let's just insert "rightful claim" to see how it works:

However, if someone taking the position that there are no [rightful claims] wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no [rightful claim] to [do anything to anyone else]?

See, this is where a negative understanding of rights could come in handy.

Nobody takes the position that there are no 'rightful claims', period. If John says there are no "rights", then that doesn't mean
John needs a "right" to interfere with others. There are no rights! You're using rights inconsistently (or "righful claims", if you prefer), and that's the fallacy of equivocation.

But, of course, I'm talking about "natural rights" (the same thing Victor is talking about. The same thing Shanek and you both agreed does not conflict with Utilitarianism. Utilitarians believe in rights, as imaginary constructs, that can be taken away at any time for the purposes of the greater good. However, most Utilitarians, if they are remotely sophisticated, believe that hindering rights could, in the long term, do much more harm than good. Natural Rights people say "you can't take away rights, regardless. They're absolute).

 

[shanek]

No, you don't understand. There's nothing preventing a Libertarian missionary like yourself (or WMT1) from proselyting both the Utilitarian and natural rights view in order to gain converts. Indeed, it's perfectly okay for a person to be compelled to libertarianism for a bit of both reasons, but remember, the ideas are mutually exclusive (as every single important libertarian thinker recognizes).

You have yet to quote one of these "every important Libertarian thinkers" actually saying it's mutually exclusive. Besides, that's nothing but an en masse argument from authority. I have shown you that I am both, I have explained in great personaly detail how I can be both, and to this very moment that stands unrefuted.

The fact that you cannot grasp the most elementary distinctions is not a failing of "libertarian critics."

We grasp the distinctions; we've refuted the distinctions. The one Libertarian you said understood the distinction corrected you. And now it seems that you understand a completely different distinction from what Victor originally posited.

Is it possible, just possible, that the fault is in you and not in all of us?

As I have said (multiple times), all philosophers and economists accept the dichotomy presented.

You've never quoted anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive. And again, you have been provided with DIRECT EVIDENCE that they are not.

*Sigh* it's an agreed upon distinction that any sane person would not dispute. Explore the (vast) literature from natural rights theorists (starting with Locke) and compare it to the intellectual history of Utilitarianism (preferably starting with Mill, but you can go back to Benthem).

Not all natural rights theorists are libertarians. Not all utilitarians are libertarians.

*Sigh* then prove them wrong.

Already have.

Incredible. You do realize the non-initation of force principle, the one thought we can reliably find in common to nearly all members of the Libertarian Party, was popularized by Ayn Rand. Indeed, it's informally known as the "Objectivist Oath."

So what? It's a Libertarian idea, it's a good idea, we adopted it. BTW, Objectivism ≠ Libertarianism.

And with regard to paying attention to "political philosophy", I have, for many years now, spent far more time than the average person discussing and debating political views with others.

Far more time than the average person...but how much more time than the average JREF Member?

BTW, in future could you please put your replies to separate people in separate posts? It makes it easier to go through and respond.

 

[Cain]

Shanek,

If you prefer separate reply posts, then I will oblige.

Curiously, you don't even pretend to answer my example involving the minimum wage law:

Suppose that overwhelming empircal evidence from economists demonstrated that minimum wage laws lead to better living standards, especially for the poor. That is to say, minimum wage produces the "greatest good for the greatest number." Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and Hayek, all once libertarians, but convinced by this evidence, would be (morally) required to espouse the view that minimum wage laws are good (because they maximize utility).

A natural rights proponent, say Nozick, would nevertheless object to minimum wage laws as a restriction of liberty (specifically the violation of freedom to contract). Even if it is economically inefficient, he doesn't care.

You have yet to quote one of these "every important Libertarian thinkers" actually saying it's mutually exclusive. Besides, that's nothing but an en masse argument from authority. I have shown you that I am both, I have explained in great personaly detail how I can be both, and to this very moment that stands unrefuted.

These are universally agreed upon distinctions. I'm sure I could find open find the relevant passage in Narveson, Nozick or D. Friedman, but you obviously won't find it convincing (and you shouldn't. These views are not correct because every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so; rather, every philosopher and economist of merit thinks so because they're correct.)

See for example: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

We grasp the distinctions; we've refuted the distinctions.

Where? Show me where? You've only stated over and over again that you've "succesfully" been both "for years".

The one Libertarian you said understood the distinction corrected you. And now it seems that you understand a completely different distinction from what Victor originally posited.

No he didn't. He confessed that he was uncertain whether or not he understood the question (his first post got it correct).

he writes:

You could probably ask a Democrat if he's a Democrat because he believes in civil rights or because he believes in social welfare. You might get him to answer with one or the other, but try to tell him the two are mutually exclusive, and you're likely to get an argument.

That's a false analogy, though. A belief in civil rights is not an essentially criterion for being a Democrat. Indeed, many Republicans believe in both civil rights and (very limited) social welfare. Libertarianism, though, is a highly axiomatic philosophy.

Is it possible, just possible, that the fault is in you and not in all of us?

Yep, it's possible. Highly improbable, but possible.

You've never quoted anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive. And again, you have been provided with DIRECT EVIDENCE that they are not.

What evidence do you want me to provide for a contradiction? If someone states, "I believe A and not-A," how can I provide "evidence" that this is wrong?

Not all natural rights theorists are libertarians. Not all utilitarians are libertarians.

Re-read what you're replying to (in the context of this entire discussion): I never said or implied that all natural rights theorists and all utilitarians are libertarians. To the contrary, the percentage of utilitarians that are libertarians must be small, indeed.

So what? It's a Libertarian idea, it's a good idea, we adopted it. BTW, Objectivism ≠ Libertarianism

Sigh, here you go pulling that crap again. I've merely claimed Ayn Rand is highly influential in these circles. I never stated anything resembling "Objectivism = Libertarianism".

Far more time than the average person...but how much more time than the average JREF Member?

Depends how you define average. But I assure you, you're definitely not average.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

it's pretty simple. The idea is that if you believe in natural-rights ethics, then anything that contradicts your principles is by definition unethical -- any minimum-wage law is by definition unethical, for example, unless it's explicitly axiomatized in your NR formulation. A utilitarian defines ethicality in terms of utility, and thus for a utilitarian efficiency to a certain extent definmes ethicality; but not for NR supporter. The two are directly in conflict because importing utilitarian justifications into NR worldview renders them fundamentally unethical.

Suppose you are proven that roads are most efficiently run by government; or that minimum wage improves society's efficiency. If you are, as you claim, both NR and empirical, then you will accept government intervention in these areas -- and your NR beliefs will automatically render them unethical. In effect, you will be consciously implementing an unethical policy. Why?

The purpose of ethics is to guide our public actions. It is therefore inconsistent for you to publicly support actions which are rendered unethical by your ethical beliefs. Given that NR and utilitarianism lead to directly contradictory results, it's irrational to hold both (in that a contradiction entails an inconsistent and undefined theorem space).

Mind you, this is different from accepting NR-like principles based on utilitarian considerations; that would be consistent -- but you support NR principles themselves, not their utilitarian derivation. This is inconsistent with giving weight to empirical considerations at the expense of natural rights.

 

[shanek]

If you prefer separate reply posts, then I will oblige.

Thank you. It makes things easier to reply to.

Curiously, you don't even pretend to answer my example involving the minimum wage law:

Because weve discussed the minimum wage to death on other threads and I'm trying to focus my time on presenting new arguments I haven't before.

These are universally agreed upon distinctions. I'm sure I could find open find the relevant passage in Narveson, Nozick or D. Friedman, but you obviously won't find it convincing

Obviously not; it's kind of hard to find something you won't post convincing.

See for example: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

Interesting essay, but I think he splits the wrong hairs. The idea, at its core, is noninitiation of force. I think even the most extreme Libertarian would be hard-pressed to understand how a single photon "trespassing" on one's property constitutes force. The laser he mentioned does, because the laser can do damage to the property. That's what it's about, as I've continually said—force; restraint; coercion.

Where? Show me where? You've only stated over and over again that you've "succesfully" been both "for years".

No, I gave a detailed description of how I came to that position and how both the principled and the pragmatic arguments played equal roles and fed off each other. So far, that message of mine has gone ignored by both you and Victor.

What evidence do you want me to provide for a contradiction? If someone states, "I believe A and not-A," how can I provide "evidence" that this is wrong?

Well, at the very least, you could acknowledge my earlier post where I gave a very personal description of how I came to this belief.

Re-read what you're replying to (in the context of this entire discussion): I never said or implied that all natural rights theorists and all utilitarians are libertarians. To the contrary, the percentage of utilitarians that are libertarians must be small, indeed.

Sigh, here you go pulling that crap again. I've merely claimed Ayn Rand is highly influential in these circles. I never stated anything resembling "Objectivism = Libertarianism".

Both of these were for the sake of clarification, more for the lurker than for you. I'm sorry if it came across as an attack on you.

 

[shanek]

Suppose you are proven that roads are most efficiently run by government; or that minimum wage improves society's efficiency. If you are, as you claim, both NR and empirical, then you will accept government intervention in these areas -- and your NR beliefs will automatically render them unethical.

Not necessarily. Even if roads are more efficiently run by government, that doesn't mean they should be given a monopoly on them. It's not government running roads that I find repugnant (although it would be better if there were a good way of charging only those who used the roads instead of taxing everybody), it's the fact that only government is allowed to do so. And if a minimum wage really is sufficient, there are other methods—such as voluntary agreements with corporations—of implementing them such that natural rights are not abrogated.

It's not that one contradicts the other; it's that the reality of the situation makes the distinction unnecessary.

The purpose of ethics is to guide our public actions. It is therefore inconsistent for you to publicly support actions which are rendered unethical by your ethical beliefs.

Right. And so the solution is to find a method of achieving the goal practically while maintaining the principle of sovereign rights. This is hardly a hypothetical distinction. In another thread, we're discussing the Patriot Act and how we could all be made safer if the government installed video cameras in our homes and monitored us 24/7, but that is obviously a completely unacceptable solution even for the most pragmatic of us.

I just don't see any indication that reality actually prevents the merging of these ideals being theorized as mutually exclusive.

that would be consistent -- but you support NR principles themselves, not their utilitarian derivation.

Again, I support both, and I have never encountered a situation where the two are at odds with each other.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Not necessa

rily. Even if roads are more efficiently run by government, that doesn't mean they should be given a monopoly on them. It's not government running roads that I find repugnant (although it would be better if there were a good way of charging only those who used the roads instead of taxing everybody), it's the fact that only government is allowed to do so. And if a minimum wage really is sufficient, there are other methods—such as voluntary agreements with corporations—of implementing them such that natural rights are not abrogated.

Suppose the situation was such that only government intervention, financed by taxation, would be an efficient solution; that various voluntary agreements were inadequate. Which way would you go?

It's not that one contradicts the other; it's that the reality of the situation makes the distinction unnecessary.

Well, that's the point of the hypothetical: suppose the distinction was necessary -- suppose the empirical solution was in contradiction with NR principles. What would be your answer?

I just don't see any indication that reality actually prevents the merging of these ideals being theorized as mutually exclusive.

Well, that's because you refuse to consider, as a class, situations where the NR and utilitarian conclusions would contradict each other; but if they do, how would you respond?

Again, I support both, and I have never encountered a situation where the two are at odds with each other.

And if you do encounter such a situation in the future, which way will you go? Will you compromise your ethics for the sake of efficiency, or will you compromise efficiency for ethics?

P.S. Note, shane, that NR supporters would obviously wish to improve efficiency in ways that don't contradict NR principles -- just as empirical libertarians support liberty as a mean of maximizing utility. The practical distinction between NR and empirical libertarianism comes into play precisely when the two do contradict, though; and it it this hypothetical contradiction that makes them mutually incompatible by definition, and it is this contradiction resolving which will tell us which side of the libertarian fence you are on.

 

[WMT1]

Not that anyone who isn't already posting in this thread is paying any attention, but just in case ...

Since I intend to give Cain's condescending blather the usual thorough treatment, I may not get to it before next week. But in the meantime, if anyone out there with any credibility seriously thinks Cain made any valid points in response to my last post, please identify them, and I'll try to get to those more quickly.

 

[Cain]

Because weve discussed the minimum wage to death on other threads and I'm trying to focus my time on presenting new arguments I haven't before.

Use your imagination; I'm not asking for a debate on the merits of the minimum wage in terms of efficiency. It's a smiple hypothetical question.

Interesting essay, but I think he splits the wrong hairs. The idea, at its core, is noninitiation of force. I think even the most extreme Libertarian would be hard-pressed to understand how a single photon "trespassing" on one's property constitutes force. The laser he mentioned does, because the laser can do damage to the property. That's what it's about, as I've continually said—force; restraint; coercion.

I'm not referring to that part: search for "natural rights". You'll find this example:

A madman is about to open fire on a crowd; if he does so numerous innocent people will die. The only way to prevent him is to shoot him with a rifle that is within reach of several members of the crowd. The rifle is on the private property of its legitimate owner. He is a well known misanthrope who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he is opposed to letting anyone use his rifle without his permission, even if it would save hundreds of lives.

Two questions now arise. The first is whether members of the crowd have a right to take the rifle and use it to shoot the madman. The answer of libertarian rights theory, as I understand it, is no. The owner of the rifle is not responsible for the existence of the madman, and the fact that his rifle is, temporarily, of enormous value to other people does not give them a right to take it. (cont->)

Well, at the very least, you could acknowledge my earlier post where I gave a very personal description of how I came to this belief.

I have acknowledged these postings repeatedly -- and dismissed them; they don't count. One principle must supercede the other. As I said many times, a belief in both is not necessarily inconsistent (natural rights could quite possibly lead to the greatest good for the greatest number; alternatively, Utilitarianism could lead to the prescription of rights identical what philosophers call "natural rights"), but the direction matters.

1. Natural Rights --------> Utilitarianism

2. Utilitarianism --------> Natural Rights

One must be a premise, and the other can be the conclusion.

 

[shanek]

I'm not referring to that part: search for "natural rights". You'll find this example:

A madman is about to open fire on a crowd; if he does so numerous innocent people will die. The only way to prevent him is to shoot him with a rifle that is within reach of several members of the crowd. The rifle is on the private property of its legitimate owner. He is a well known misanthrope who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he is opposed to letting anyone use his rifle without his permission, even if it would save hundreds of lives.

Two questions now arise. The first is whether members of the crowd have a right to take the rifle and use it to shoot the madman. The answer of libertarian rights theory, as I understand it, is no. The owner of the rifle is not responsible for the existence of the madman, and the fact that his rifle is, temporarily, of enormous value to other people does not give them a right to take it. (cont-> )

Well, a member of the crowd certainly has the right to shoot the madman. But they don't have a right to use the man's gun without permission. So, you're really talking about two different things. Saying they have a right to shoot him does not give them carte blanche to take whatever gun they wish to do it.

I have acknowledged these postings repeatedly -- and dismissed them; they don't count.

Why? Because YOU say so?

One principle must supercede the other.

I described in my case how they complemented each other. You have done NOTHING to refute that.

One must be a premise, and the other can be the conclusion.

Then refute my description of how I came to be both at the same time. Until you do that, there's really nothing more to say.

 

[shanek]

Suppose the situation was such that only government intervention, financed by taxation, would be an efficient solution; that various voluntary agreements were inadequate. Which way would you go?

You're describing an impossible scenario. Even if it's something only government can do, there are still other ways of paying for it than taxation and ways of implementing it that do not initiate force.

If you can think of one REAL-WORLD example showing otherwise, by all means present it.

Well, that's because you refuse to consider, as a class, situations where the NR and utilitarian conclusions would contradict each other;

Because I have yet to run into any.

but if they do, how would you respond?

Probably the same way I would respond if the sun appeared to reverse its direction in the sky...with extreme disbelief, demand sufficient evidence that this is actually happening, and go from there.

And if you do encounter such a situation in the future, which way will you go?

Why do I have to make such a decision NOW??? If I were to encounter such a situation, it would obviously cause me to more closely examine this (hence my constant demand for real-world examples), but isn't the proper thing for a skeptic to do to wait until confronted with such a situation and then decide based on the evidence? Why should I have to play my hand before the cards have been dealt?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

You're describing an impossible scenario.

I described the situation where government intervention is the only efficient solution. You didn't read my words correctly.

Assume the forcible government invervention is more efficient by an order of magniture (or some other arbitrarily large number) than any available voluntary solution. Would you agree that, at certain efficiency differential, such government intervention becomes justified? if so, what efficiency differential (approximately) would be enough -- two-fold? ten-fold? hundred-fold? or would it vary depending on domain, or some other factor?

If you can think of one REAL-WORLD example showing otherwise, by all means present it.

You are missing the point. Before I try to demonstrate that government is more efficient in some respects, I want to know that you will even care about such facts. I first want to know that if certain conditions of evidence are met, you will concede to advisability of forcible government intervention.

So entertain this hypothetical for me, please. Suppose government intervention such as I described is provably more efficient than any voluntary alternative by some arbitrary factor X such that X > 1. Would you agree that in such a case government intervention would be justified, and if so, what approximately would you expect the said X to be?

Probably the same way I would respond if the sun appeared to reverse its direction in the sky...with extreme disbelief, demand sufficient evidence that this is actually happening, and go from there.

OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's say the evidence is provided that the said government intervention is indeed sufficiently more efficient than any voluntary alternative. Would you then compromise you NR beliefs by supporting the said government intervention -- or would you even revise you NR beliefs?

Why do I have to make such a decision NOW???

First of all, aren't you yourself curious about where your beliefs really stem from? take them to extreme and figure out.

Secondly, I want this answer because I want to know if conversing with you about matters of economic fact and theory in in principle pointless.

but isn't the proper thing for a skeptic to do to wait until confronted with such a situation and then decide based on the evidence?

Not necessarily. NR beliefs are epistemically equivalent to "1+1=2" -- they are a-priori, analytic rather than synthetic. As such, practical matters of experience shouldn't matter when examining NR beliefs in and of themselves. Only if you hold a broadly pragmatic philosophy like utilitarianism can you legitimately say that your specific beliefs do indeed depend on particular empirical data.

Why should I have to play my hand before the cards have been dealt?

You shouldn't have to; but i want to know if you are even playing by the same rules as I.

 

[shanek]

I described the situation where government intervention is the only efficient solution. You didn't read my words correctly.

Well, if you're asking me if I would be willing to sacrifice at least some measure of efficiency for the sake of freedom, I would say yes. I honestly can't say at what level I would consider an abridgement of freedom to be worthwhile, because I've never seen an instance like that. I suppose there might be a situation so drastic that it might lead even me to agree to it, btu I have no idea what that might be.

You are missing the point. Before I try to demonstrate that government is more efficient in some respects, I want to know that you will even care about such facts.

Of course I care; just don't assume that I will agree or that I will be willing to give up some freedoms for that efficiency.

OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's say the evidence is provided that the said government intervention is indeed sufficiently more efficient than any voluntary alternative.

Sufficient by whose measure?

Would you then compromise you NR beliefs by supporting the said government intervention -- or would you even revise you NR beliefs?

I'm not going to commit to saying I would or wouldn't revise them at this juncture. It would take a whole heluva lot for me to do it, though, even if I would.

First of all, aren't you yourself curious about where your beliefs really stem from?

I've already explained where my beliefs stem from.

Secondly, I want this answer because I want to know if conversing with you about matters of economic fact and theory in in principle pointless.

Of course not. I could, in theory, agree that a particular government program was more efficient than any free market counterpart if I were shown efficient evidence. That doesn't mean I'd be willing to give up my liberty because of it, but neither would it make the discussion fruitless so as to avoid reaching a conclusion.

Not necessarily. NR beliefs are epistemically equivalent to "1+1=2" -- they are a-priori, analytic rather than synthetic. As such, practical matters of experience shouldn't matter when examining NR beliefs in and of themselves. Only if you hold a broadly pragmatic philosophy like utilitarianism can you legitimately say that your specific beliefs do indeed depend on particular empirical data.

If you put it like that, it seems you're defining the NR crowd as the extremists. In that case, I'm probably not one of them.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Well, if you're asking me if I would be willing to sacrifice at least some measure of efficiency for the sake of freedom, I would say yes.

I asked the opposite question -- would you sacrifice some freedom for the sake of efficiency. I assume this is what you meant.

I honestly can't say at what level I would consider an abridgement of freedom to be worthwhile, because I've never seen an instance like that.

Fair enough; I realize that putting a concrete number of this is impossible. This is why I asked for a ballpark estimate.

For me personally, I would say that an efficiency differential factor of around 2 would be sufficient to justify a minor abridgement of freedom. How big a differential I would require depends on how great an abridgement of freedom it would be. I don't think any efficiency differential would justify a total abridgement of freedom of speech, for example ("better to die on your feet that to live on your knees" and all that).

Sufficient by whose measure?

Your own; that was why I left it up to you to determine the efficiency differential sufficient to justify abridgement of freedom.

I've already explained where my beliefs stem from.

No offense, shane, but your explanation is philosophically inconsistent. You didn't dig to the roots of your beliefs, you didn't tear them down and then build them back up from scrap with conscious understanding of what exactly you are doing -- and it shows.

Of course not. I could, in theory, agree that a particular government program was more efficient than any free market counterpart if I were shown efficient evidence. That doesn't mean I'd be willing to give up my liberty because of it, but neither would it make the discussion fruitless so as to avoid reaching a conclusion.

Given that most of your posting is evangelism for libertarianism in one form or another, I approach it as such. You may have noticed that most of our exchanges are debates rather than discussions.

If you put it like that, it seems you're defining the NR crowd as the extremists.

The real NR crowd (not pseudo-NR utilitarians who think themselves NR just because they agree with most of NR postulates) are extremists -- like Ayn Rand for example. Extremists are often able to conceal the true extent of their beliefs, especially from those who lack the philosophical werewithal to go to the ultimate source thereof, but such concealment only goes so far.

 

[shanek]

I asked the opposite question -- would you sacrifice some freedom for the sake of efficiency. I assume this is what you meant.

If that's the question, then most probably not. But again, I can't tell you what I'm going to have to face in the future.

The real NR crowd (not pseudo-NR utilitarians who think themselves NR just because they agree with most of NR postulates) are extremists -- like Ayn Rand for example.

Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian.