The Non-Aggression Principle is NOT an Axiom

[Havet]

4vERt3njaDQ

A movie that explains why voluntary racism is nonsense (something dearly defended by most libertarians).

"The non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) should not be considered an axiom. It is not a self-evident truth, but a conclusion drawn from more fundamental philosophical principles which must be maintained as well. Not all forms of social arrangement are good because they are voluntary."

[trivas7]

Well, Ayn Rand would have liked this video, as she opposed Libertarianism on philosophical grounds. And sorry, the non-aggression principle is still my ethical bottom line.

[Jack]

Its not uh axiom cuz i no its reel.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, Ayn Rand would have liked this video, as she opposed Libertarianism on philosophical grounds. And sorry, the non-aggression principle is still my ethical bottom line.

But the NAP derives an "ought" from an "is". I don't think one can prove the NAP to be objectively true. But rejecting apriori or objective/natural law ethics doesn't make the NAP worthless. In fact, although I reject Rothbards meta-ethic, I find myself being unable to distinguish between my own system of ethics and that of Rothbards. Individual autonomy and "self-ownership" I accept as fundamental axioms, not because they are self-evident, but because I subjectively value them. I think the system that Rothbard extrapolates from these axioms is brilliant.

[trivas7]

But the NAP derives an "ought" from an "is". I don't think one can prove the NAP to be objectively true. But rejecting apriori or objective/natural law ethics doesn't make the NAP worthless. In fact, although I reject Rothbards meta-ethic, I find myself being unable to distinguish between my own system of ethics and that of Rothbards. Individual autonomy and "self-ownership" I accept as fundamental axioms, not because they are self-evident, but because I subjectively value them. I think the system that Rothbard extrapolates from these axioms is brilliant.
I don't find an ethic in Rothbard; perhaps I just haven't read enough of him. I would extrapolate this to all of libertarianism, including left libertarianism: it is devoid of ethics (this the real reason Rand and most conservatives reject it). I accept the NAP on religious grounds, not as objectively true.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't find an ethic in Rothbard; perhaps I just haven't read enough of him. I would extrapolate this to all of libertarianism, including left libertarianism: it is devoid of ethics (this the real reason Rand and most conservatives reject it). I accept the NAP on religious grounds, not as objectively true.

So just to make sure I understand, you reject the idea of objective ethics? Also, I am not sure what you mean when you say libertarianism is devoid of ethics.

[trivas7]

So just to make sure I understand, you reject the idea of objective ethics? Also, I am not sure what you mean when you say libertarianism is devoid of ethics.
Yes, as a Wittgensteinian I reject the objectivity of ethics.

Right libertarianism was born in unique historical circumstances, late capitalism in the USA of the 80s, as such didn't grow out of a philosophy or worldview; it shares w/ left libertarianism more than a little utopianism.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, as a Wittgensteinian I reject the objectivity of ethics.



I always thought Wittgenstein seemed interesting, although I haven't got around to reading him as of yet.



Right libertarianism was born in unique historical circumstances, late capitalism in the USA of the 80s, as such didn't grow out of a philosophy or worldview; it shares w/ left libertarianism more than a little utopianism.


I was being unclear. By "Libertarian" I basically meant market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist. True, modern libertarianism is devoid of ethics. But Anarcho-capitalism for example, it not.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I fail to see how the statement "libertarianism is devoid of ethics" is a legitimate claim. Nozick was sympathetic to libertarianismm, Minarchism specifically, and was greatly motivated by ethical concerns.

One of the prime motivations for libertarian philosophy is the desire to respect "personal property" and secure the fruits of one's labor, even if they are gained by mutual agreement. Libertarians disagree, for the most part, the voluntary agreements are exploitative or unethical simply because the terms of such agreements are unequal.

Ethics may not be objective (though I'm not sure how Wittgenstein criticizes objective ethics, as he isn't particularly known as an ethicist), but our individual ethical concerns certainly motivate us.

If anything, libertarianism's pursuit of a minimal state is an ethically motivated goal. They want people to be able to pursue their individual ends free from the constrains of a state. Freedom enables people to best satisfy their own interests.

Such a view is prevalent through J.S Mill and explicitly stated by William James, with his view that "ethics is simply to satisfy demand." At minimum, libertarianism has the ethical view that agents should be able to pursue the good, whatever that may be, according to their own inclinations.

If libertarians had no ethical views, there would be little reason to consider libertarianism as "necessarily preferable" than monarchy. There would be little or no foundation to convince people of its merits. A political ideology needs to appeal to the interests of people.

[Skooma Addict]

I fail to see how the statement "libertarianism is devoid of ethics" is a legitimate claim. Nozick was sympathetic to libertarianismm, Minarchism specifically, and was greatly motivated by ethical concerns.

One of the prime motivations for libertarian philosophy is the desire to respect "personal property" and secure the fruits of one's labor, even if they are gained by mutual agreement. Libertarians disagree, for the most part, the voluntary agreements are exploitative or unethical simply because the terms of such agreements are unequal.

Ethics may not be objective (though I'm not sure how Wittgenstein criticizes objective ethics, as he isn't particularly known as an ethicist), but our individual ethical concerns certainly motivate us.

If anything, libertarianism's pursuit of a minimal state is an ethically motivated goal. They want people to be able to pursue their individual ends free from the constrains of a state. Freedom enables people to best satisfy their own interests.

Such a view is prevalent through J.S Mill and explicitly stated by William James, with his view that "ethics is simply to satisfy demand." At minimum, libertarianism has the ethical view that agents should be able to pursue the good, whatever that may be, according to their own inclinations.

If libertarians had no ethical views, there would be little reason to consider libertarianism as "necessarily preferable" than monarchy. There would be little or no foundation to convince people of its merits. A political ideology needs to appeal to the interests of people.

I largely agree with you. But I was referring to the modern libertarian movement that began in the 80's. This modern brand of libertarianism (if you can even call it that) is largely devoid of ethics. It is basically a group of people with similar cultural values. For example, look at the modern LP.

I guess it depends on the brand of libertarianism. But your right, people like Nozick and Bastiat were moved towards libertarianism due to ethical concerns.

[Havet]

Follow up on the video (critique of ConfederalSocialist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C-iU3m_oRc&feature=channel_page

[trivas7]

Follow up on the video (critique of ConfederalSocialist)

Granted ConfederalSocialist is chock full of rhetorical flourishes, his basic stance is individualist socialist. Are you a communist now?

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I don't find an ethic in Rothbard; perhaps I just haven't read enough of him.He wrote a whole book on ethics:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

It's hilarious. A sample passage:

On the other hand, the very concept of “rights” is a “negative” one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a “right” to a “living wage,” for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die...

...This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn6) The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

No joking

[trivas7]

He wrote a whole book on ethics:

Perhaps; however proposing to allow babies to die is unethical IMHO.

[Skooma Addict]

Perhaps; however proposing to allow babies to die is unethical IMHO.

Only babies? Or human beings in general?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.
A free baby market. ROFLMAO. You couldn't make this stuff up. I keep discovering that no matter how hard I may try to parody libertarians, I just can't do it as well as they do it themselves.

[Robert]

The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die

So this is laughably false, but it's okay to kill a baby, even after it emerges from the birth canal, up to the moment the umbilical cord is severed?


no matter how hard I may try to parody libertarians

Is Rothbard representative of Libertarians? He sounds awfully dogmatic.

Oh, never mind. I have enough trouble figuring out who legitimately represents "the" communist P.O.V.

[Skooma Addict]

A free baby market. ROFLMAO. You couldn't make this stuff up. I keep discovering that no matter how hard I may try to parody libertarians, I just can't do it as well as they do it themselves.

Yes, a free baby market. Extremely poor or sick parents who cannot afford to raise their children can give the child a better life by giving a better equipped couple the right to raise the child.

[trivas7]

Only babies? Or human beings in general?
Everybody dies. I am not my brother's keeper.

[Skooma Addict]

Everybody dies. I am not my brother's keeper.

So in your opinion, it is unethical to let a baby die, but it is not unethical to let a human that is not a baby die?

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Perhaps; however proposing to allow babies to die is unethical IMHO.Of course. It isn't a nice ethic Rothbard has, but it is unmistakeably an ethic. The extrapolation of politics from (any) ethics is something most people here are resolutely opposed to.


Yes, a free baby market. Extremely poor or sick parents who cannot afford to raise their children can give the child a better life by giving the highest bidder the right to raise the child.Fixed that for you. Under your system a 'profit seeker' who bought babies and starved them to death on camera would recieve the full protection of the law and anyone who tried to resuce them would be treated as a criminal for violating property rights.

Ancap is a sick joke.

[LeftSideDown]

4vERt3njaDQ

A movie that explains why voluntary racism is nonsense (something dearly defended by most libertarians).

"The non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) should not be considered an axiom. It is not a self-evident truth, but a conclusion drawn from more fundamental philosophical principles which must be maintained as well. Not all forms of social arrangement are good because they are voluntary."

God that video was so dumb. I'm sorry but theres only so much "Microsoft Sam" I can deal with and I"m glad it was only 3:32 seconds long. Now, onto the rebuttal.

1) There is always something to gain from not committing aggression against another that is an expanded division of labor that makes your production and their production more productive.
2) They were under an obligation to tolerate the other person's ideology so long as that ideology was not imposing itself on them (in other words, aggressing against them).
3) Why wouldn't someone be able to "Combat the spread of false ideas like racism" without violating the non-aggression axiom? Seems to be something you could do without murder.
4) Economically, humans do not have certain "fundamental needs or desires". One example of this is the heroin addict who, in his addiction, gives up food and water in order to afford more heroin. Most people would say that food and water are fundamental needs/wants, but obviously not so in the case of the heroin addict.
5) Just because blues and reds were interacting even though reds thought that, in order to flourish, blues must be exterminated does not prove that the Red's conception of flourishing was wrong. It had not come about yet, so there is no way to prove it (I could using division of labor, but it may well be that blues were nothing but a bunch of lazy bums who did nothing all day and lived off the labor of altruistic Reds).
6) Has it been asserted that the only "morality or ethics" in a libertarian society was the non-aggression axiom? No, you can have any morality or ethics as long as you don't aggress others, and I believe it is recognized by both that there are corollary ethics that important for human development, but I believe it is asserted that these should come second to the non-aggression axiom or, in clearer terms, the non-aggression axiom is the most important one in a libertarian society..
7) She says this society will stagnate, but is an Amish society a less moral one than, say, ours?
8) IF only one person does not see the importance of the non-aggression axiom and aggresses against society, I do not see how this will make the society crumble. Even if a large group of people discard the importance of the non-aggression axiom, they cannot impose this on others (through force) with out violating the principle and therefore would subject themselves to counter attack. IF people don't like the non-aggression axiom, and want to start their own society where you can do force to anyone at anytime with no consequences, they can do it so long as you can voluntarily join and leave. I think this society will be far worse than the libertarian one.
9) Prove that the racist society is less moral than the non-racist one. SO long as they do not aggress against the other race they are doing no harm. In the video he aggresses, therefore he is acting immoral. Saying that someones thoughts concerning others are immoral simply because they disagree with your own is, to say the least, egotistical.
10) The red society, if its beliefs were enforced absolutely, would eventually die out/become smaller because its division of labor is smaller, so this society will die out.

[LeftSideDown]

Everybody dies. I am not my brother's keeper.

By the same logic, you are not your babies keeper either. There is a thing in libertarian philosophy called "homesteading" where by mixing your labor with something (assuming there isn't someone else already homesteading) that you show possession of that object. If you stop feeding your baby or neglect it, you are no longer homesteading it and anyone else can come by and grab that baby and they are justified according to Libertarian ethics.

Its not that libertarianism is unethical or terrible, but that its writers take it TO its logical conclusions regarding some terrible things and make ethical judgements on it based on their original premise. They do this mercilessly. They do this even unto their own humiliation because libertarian ethics are the only ones that are applied without regard to the situations and are, in that sense, objective.

Libertarians are against positive obligations, and for the most part you are too. The difference is we are logical and ruthless. If you feel there are positive obligations, for every second that you continue to live the standard of living you live at you are being immoral, because there are people starving in the world and you have a positive obligation to give up your material possessions to do this. IF this was the moral philosophy of the state, you would be jailed for this.

[LeftSideDown]

You'll have to prove these assertions before I believe them?
Capitalism (in conjunction with the state) can be coercive, but a free market cannot.
This is not a world of positive obligations, if its, we are all immoral.

[GPDP]

This is a terrible thread.

[LeftSideDown]

This is a terrible thread.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l71/bishsticks1x2/lolcat-funny-picture-moderator1.jpg

[GPDP]

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l71/bishsticks1x2/lolcat-funny-picture-moderator1.jpg

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2030/notmyproblem.jpg

[IcarusAngel]

The Libertarian "axioms" do not exist. In fact, property is the greatest force. One of the things the government should never do is decide who can (the capitalists) and who cannot (the workers) control the property. This leads to big government and government of by and for the elites. This system needs to be eliminated.

[Dean]

By the same logic, you are not your babies keeper either. There is a thing in libertarian philosophy called "homesteading" where by mixing your labor with something (assuming there isn't someone else already homesteading) that you show possession of that object. If you stop feeding your baby or neglect it, you are no longer homesteading it and anyone else can come by and grab that baby and they are justified according to Libertarian ethics.

Ah! Another libertarian expresses communist ideology, without taking it to its logical conclusions.

If only you guys had longer trains of thought.


A movie that explains why voluntary racism is nonsense (something dearly defended by most libertarians).

"The non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) should not be considered an axiom. It is not a self-evident truth, but a conclusion drawn from more fundamental philosophical principles which must be maintained as well. Not all forms of social arrangement are good because they are voluntary."

This is all a big joke because axioms are nothing more than concepts that you take as a truth and a fundamental starting-point. Axioms are incredibly binding ideas which manifests as the same fundamentalist, stubborn foundations as found in religion and other ideas structures which demand that human beings assert an idea onto reality, rather than extrapolating real, extant conditions and judging them based on their material character.

[Skooma Addict]

I came to RevLeft in order to get away from the idiot anarcho capitalists, agorists and free market mutualists.


Then don't visit the OI section?

[LeftSideDown]

Ah! Another libertarian expresses communist ideology, without taking it to its logical conclusions.

If only you guys had longer trains of thought.

Please show me where I expressed communist ideology? I guess you're referring to my homesteading comment, and you, yourself, do not have to constantly be mixing your labor with something; you can hire labor to do it for you.

[Dean]

Please show me where I expressed communist ideology? I guess you're referring to my homesteading comment, and you, yourself, do not have to constantly be mixing your labor with something; you can hire labor to do it for you.

Sounds just like China or the USSR. Fucking wonderful! I can't wait to get my meager wages so that the highest economic echelon can lay total claim to my labor. And as long as they own that land I work, I have to abide by all their restrictions!

[Ryke]

Please show me where I expressed communist ideology? I guess you're referring to my homesteading comment, and you, yourself, do not have to constantly be mixing your labor with something; you can hire labor to do it for you. It's just like work, except without the work! Now ain't that wonderful. One has to wonder exactly what the status of that other guy is while he's busy exercising someone else's labour.


Read: The whole thing makes no sense. No one can put anyone else's labour in anything, because in order to provide your labour, you have to work. If your labour doesn't exist, it's not going anywhere.