[Eran]

I am all for moral relativism (or subjectivism) at the meta-ethical level.

At the ethical (as opposed to meta-) level, where do you stand? Do you still see virtue in standing by one's principles irrespective of what those principles are?

And as I see it, rigorous questioning and philosophical inquiry into one's own moral beliefs would lead any man to the conclusions I am purporting.

What are those conclusions?

Morality is an artificial construct, a priori so the key to realising it is through reason.

I disagree. Morality is a natural part of human nature. What is artificial is moral rationalization which, not surprisingly, is indeed realised through reason.

While there may be no inherent moral belief system ingrained into the universe, thankfully it's not necessary because human society has it's own seperate dimension.

I agree.

Basically what I am trying to get you to concede to is greater violations of NAP in which sometimes compensation is just simply impossible. I am by no means denying that the collective scales I am referring to comprise of the sum of individual decisions but that those individual decisions are often righteous and there can be no reason to deviate from their principles for such abstract reasons.

I don't accept that NAP represent "abstract reasons" any more than any other principle. I am still not clear as to whether you have adopted (at the ethical, not meta- level) any principles.

You could adopt an ad-hoc approach that says (like extreme utilitarians) - there are no principles other than acting in ways that would seem to best approach my goal (happiness or whatever else you pick). That opens you to means-ends questions.

Alternatively, you can acknowledge that de-facto you do have certain principles (such as avoiding, as much as possible, killing innocent babies). If you do, how are those principles less abstract than the NAP?

And this is the point at which it becomes abstracted because you concede the moral superiority of stealing in this case but you sacrifice the inherent value of this proper conduct for the arbitrary Libertarian definition of boundaries.

I acknowledge the moral superiority of stealing [i]in an emergency[ii]. Once the emergency is over, stealing leaves a debt. After the emergency, the excuse of an emergency no longer holds, and the (weaker) moral principle of paying one's debt kicks in.

I'm saying that there is something more to be valued here (life?).

I am willing to accept that. But once the family is no longer starving, life can no longer be used as an excuse. The debt ought to be paid.

[Sceptic]

t the ethical (as opposed to meta-) level, where do you stand? Do you still see virtue in standing by one's principles irrespective of what those principles are?

No, like I said I also see virtue in philosophising. One must question the supposed good intentions of the man who does not reflect upon his principles; you can't just act without thinking (well not always - there are exceptions, of course). In fact, to have principles, you must have thought in the first place.

This is where logic is useful - testing the consistency of one's principles.

What are those conclusions?

The harm principle. I think if we trace back the discussion, we can see that what we are talking about now leads logically to either that (through my reasoning) or NAP (through your reasoning).

If we conclude that I am right, for the sake of argument, then considering that I am taking an essentially relativist approach rooted in self-interest a posteriori, the conclusion of that is to concede removing all material constraints on individual choices so that men can realise their values (which are essentially all moral).

I can't help but feel that we've reached a stale mate though where neither of us can be disproved easily, unless perhaps some new premises are introduced.

I disagree. Morality is a natural part of human nature. What is artificial is moral rationalization which, not surprisingly, is indeed realised through reason.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with human artifice. Civilisation is a product of human artifice. The person is artificial, the human is natural.

I don't accept that NAP represent "abstract reasons" any more than any other principle. I am still not clear as to whether you have adopted (at the ethical, not meta- level) any principles.

Yes, I have adopted principles at the ethical level but those principles are all rooted in self-interest. The way I see it is that property laws often conflict with this component.

You could adopt an ad-hoc approach that says (like extreme utilitarians) - there are no principles other than acting in ways that would seem to best approach my goal (happiness or whatever else you pick).

I will concede that my approach is 'somewhat' ad hoc but I would merely argue that while the factors are often relative, the principles themselves can be adopted in a more general manner: empathy and selfishness - the dual components of self-interest. This is an appeal to the mind as essentially a moral construct (rooted in self-interest), speaking more generally.

I am willing to accept that. But once the family is no longer starving, life can no longer be used as an excuse. The debt ought to be paid.

Yes, I pointed out that they were always starving and never in a position to repay.

[Eran]

The harm principle. I think if we trace back the discussion, we can see that what we are talking about now leads logically to either that (through my reasoning) or NAP (through your reasoning).

I am very confused. According to Wikipedia: "The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals."

Is that what you believe in?

I don't see how a straightforward reading of the harm principle is consistent with the income tax, product safety regulation, drug prohibition or with professional licensing, to mention just the first few things to come to mind.

In particular, I don't see how you logically reconcile the harm principle with your ambition of thriving towards effectively allowing each person an equal scope to express their morality (by which I take you mean thriving towards, even if never achieving or even hoping to achieve, egalitarian wealth distribution).

Is that how you see it too?


The harm principle is, of course, incomplete. It stipulates that individual action shouldn't be limited when it is unlikely to cause harm to others. But, of course, we cannot logically prevent all harmful (or potentially harmful) action.

The next question then is - is it legitimate, in your opinion, for government to prohibit any (potentially) harmful action is feels like? Or do you see, as I do, that such scope could easily bring about a tyranny?


I'll leave your other points for now, except for your starving family. If they are never in a position to repay, than they are under no moral obligation to pay. One is never under a moral obligation to do something one is not in a position to do. Ought implies Can.

[Sceptic]

I don't see how a straightforward reading of the harm principle is consistent with the income tax, product safety regulation, drug prohibition or with professional licensing, to mention just the first few things to come to mind.

Because all of these things can stop harm to people, for example product regulation can stop the producers from harming the consumer. It is just a little more vague than NAP and it is before the fact, rather than after.

In particular, I don't see how you logically reconcile the harm principle with your ambition of thriving towards effectively allowing each person an equal scope to express their morality (by which I take you mean thriving towards, even if never achieving or even hoping to achieve, egalitarian wealth distribution).

Because the harm principle takes into account categories of material constraints on individual choices that NAP does not. Not egalitarian wealth distribution, substantive opportunities (or approximation thereof) because equal income can mean less opportunities.

So you see, I start with using general principles and taking into account independent variables (i.e. the material world) and I also assume meta-ethical relativism, then I deduce from these premises equal expression of moral principles through reduction of material constraints. It's just that in this discussion, if you read back very carefully, we started from the latter and worked backwards to the former.

The harm principle is, of course, incomplete. It stipulates that individual action shouldn't be limited when it is unlikely to cause harm to others. But, of course, we cannot logically prevent all harmful (or potentially harmful) action.

No, and that is where the concept of substantive opportunities without ad hoc comes in handy.

The next question then is - is it legitimate, in your opinion, for government to prohibit any (potentially) harmful action is feels like? Or do you see, as I do, that such scope could easily bring about a tyranny?

No, government should be limited by some of the principles I've outlined in this discussion as well as principles I've outlined in other discussions, such as land ownership, absentee-property and land ownership, provision of public goods and so forth. In fact the synthesis of these ideas will probably lead to substantive opportunities.

As for justice, I like what Rawls had to say, 'no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like ... The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance'

This is very inkeeping with categorical imperative; can you will less than substantive opportunities for the poor under these conditions, Eran?

If they are never in a position to repay, than they are under no moral obligation to pay. One is never under a moral obligation to do something one is not in a position to do. Ought implies Can.

Yes but are they entitled to by your theory of justice, even if they are not in a position to do so? And on a collective scale? This is what I mean about a posteriori, you can't just isolate all the relevant factors.

[Eran]

Because all of these things can stop harm to people, for example product regulation can stop the producers from harming the consumer. It is just a little more vague than NAP and it is before the fact, rather than after.

According to Wikipedia, "The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. "

So first, self-inflicted harm is not an excuse for limiting another's actions. Thus when a consumer chooses to buy a potentially-harmful product, it is his own action to (potentially) harm himself. Limiting him is, therefore, appears inconsistent with the harm principle.

The income tax, for example, implies limiting people from keeping the proceeds of their effort (not to mention imposing endless bureaucratic burdens on them). How is it consistent with the harm principle?

Because the harm principle takes into account categories of material constraints on individual choices that NAP does not. Not egalitarian wealth distribution, substantive opportunities (or approximation thereof) because equal income can mean less opportunities.

The harm principle (again, as I understand it) appears to be a purely negative dictate. It stipulates the circumstances under which limiting people is impermissible. It doesn't seem to say anything about positively and actively aiding others. Can you propose a formulation that will help articulate that component of your ethical philosophy?

No, and that is where the concept of substantive opportunities without ad hoc comes in handy.

OK - that starts to answer my question above.

This is very inkeeping with categorical imperative; can you will less than substantive opportunities for the poor under these conditions, Eran?

I have two responses to Rawls (and you).

First, assuming the people behind the veil understand (Austrian) economics, they will immediately recognize (as do I) that the well-being of the poor is not served by government attempts to help them. On the contrary. So if you care about the poor, and believe that their well-being should be considered on more than a few months horizon, you will shriek in horror at the idea of government intervention in the economy.

Experience of the (far from free) 19th America demonstrate (as I see it) that government intervention is not required to provide any person with substantive opportunities. The only important supplement to (tolerably) free markets is cultural, not political. Individuals coming within sub-cultures that value education and hard work will do well. Those that come from sub-culture with opposite values will do poorly, with government assistance only making things worse.

Second, I don't accept the "veil" as a legitimate arbiter of right and wrong. I have my own notions (as do you). Just because, at the meta-ethical level, I understand those ideas are subjective, at the ethical level proper, I see them as objectively-binding (even if not absolute).

Thus I believe it is wrong to murder innocent people. If, behind a veil of ignorance, people decide that it is OK to murder innocent people, I will reject such decision as having any moral relevance.

Yes but are they entitled to by your theory of justice, even if they are not in a position to do so? And on a collective scale? This is what I mean about a posteriori, you can't just isolate all the relevant factors.

No, they are not entitled. They cannot, for example, authorise others to use force on their behalf. But to be nice, and to expose this perspective as the irrelevance I believe it is, I will stipulate violations to NAP to avert a "clear and present danger" to human life.

Very few actions of any modern government in the developed world can, as I see it, be justified by the "clear and present danger" principle.

Please note that I am stipulating it here, in the context of discussions of overall political philosophy. There is one issue over which my stipulation would make practical difference - the issue of abortion.

[Nunt]

The veil of ignore argument for more equal distribution of income only demostrates that people are risk averse. It can't say anything about morality of income distributions. It does not take into account how a certain distribution of income is realized, for example: a distribution where 50% of the people is enslaved and they have to give 90% income to the others would be morally equal to a distribution where 50% of the people choose to have a lot of leisure thereby voluntarely reducing their income by 90%.

Futhermore, the veil of ignorance arguement cannot support government measures to increase income equality. It compares fictional distribution of income with each other. It doesn't compare a situation with government internvention to a situation without government intervention.

[Sceptic]

So first, self-inflicted harm is not an excuse for limiting another's actions. Thus when a consumer chooses to buy a potentially-harmful product, it is his own action to (potentially) harm himself. Limiting him is, therefore, appears inconsistent with the harm principle.

The income tax, for example, implies limiting people from keeping the proceeds of their effort (not to mention imposing endless bureaucratic burdens on them). How is it consistent with the harm principle?

Kant mentions somewhere that without consent the action is unethical. Harm is not self-inflicted if you have been deceived in an interaction - by definition you cannot consent if you are not fully informed. This is also the philosophical argument against sexual exploitation of minors, so if you do not concede the former, you cannot disagree with the latter.

The other instance is more about social obligation, the harm principle is implicit because you need to return whatever it is you have taken from a community, if we recall that prices and utility - using a priori reasoning - are not the same as value more generally.

First, assuming the people behind the veil understand (Austrian) economics, they will immediately recognize (as do I) that the well-being of the poor is not served by government attempts to help them.

Only through the conclusions you have come to a priori.

But, in any case, assuming I am right and State intervention helps poor, can you concede a different notion of ethics that factors into consideration material constraints?

Experience of the (far from free) 19th America demonstrate (as I see it) that government intervention is not required to provide any person with substantive opportunities.

Gah, that is certainly debatable but I am not in a position to do so.

Second, I don't accept the "veil" as a legitimate arbiter of right and wrong.

Yes but the whole point of the discussion is to negotiate that fact that ethics are subjective for purpose of collective organisation - which consists of more than just you or I.

Thus I believe it is wrong to murder innocent people. If, behind a veil of ignorance, people decide that it is OK to murder innocent people, I will reject such decision as having any moral relevance.

You don't understand someone by putting yourself, with all your same motivations, knowledge and outlook, into someone else's shoes: you have to take all these other factors into account, so your reasoning here is ad hoc because it doesn't do this. In other words, one man's preference for masochism may not remanifest themselves through the veil of ignorance.

No, they are not entitled.

Wait individually, or collectively - and in accordance with your theory of ethics or justice?

[Sceptic]

The veil of ignore argument for more equal distribution of income only demostrates that people are risk averse.

Not equal income distribution, Nunt, substantive opportunities.

[Eran]

Harm is not self-inflicted if you have been deceived in an interaction - by definition you cannot consent if you are not fully informed.

Agreed. So fraud can legitimately be countered with force. We would need to draw a line somewhere between outright lies and something less than full and detailed disclosure. But as a matter of principle, the harm principle doesn't allow the state to prohibit voluntary transactions between consenting and adequately informed adults. Would you agree?

The other instance is more about social obligation, the harm principle is implicit because you need to return whatever it is you have taken from a community.

In what sense have I taken from the community? In a world without government-provided public goods, i.e. a world in which a pay for roads, police protection, etc., do I still owe the community some fraction of my income and/or wealth? If so, why?

But, in any case, assuming I am right and State intervention helps poor, can you concede a different notion of ethics that factors into consideration material constraints?

Of course. Being a subjectivist, I recognize that more than one notion of ethics can legitimately exist. I will try and argue that my notion of ethics has many favourable features, including being uniquely justifiable. But I cannot compel you to accept it.

In addition to my understanding of the economics of forced intervention, I would also present the obvious potential for abuse associated with overly-permissive attitudes towards initiation of force. We live in the real world, with real people making governance decisions. We need a political system that is sufficiently robust against both well-meaning mistakes and self-serving abuses.

The US Constitution is arranged in terms of checks and balances. My read of American history is that the idea failed as effective means to limit the power of government. Only adoption of private property rights as components of the "constitution" of society can provide truly effective means to avoid abuse.

Yes but the whole point of the discussion is to negotiate that fact that ethics are subjective for purpose of collective organisation - which consists of more than just you or I.

Society is not going to agree on common framework for resolving disputes by relying on such hypothetical scenarios. Rawls ingeniously used his hypothetical to support the views he already held. You accept it because it corresponds fairly well with your prior commitments.

Further, I can show you how Rawl's prior views impact his reasoning such that one can just as easily derive both absolute monarchy and anarcho-capitalism using Rawl's veil.

You don't understand someone by putting yourself, with all your same motivations, knowledge and outlook, into someone else's shoes: you have to take all these other factors into account, so your reasoning here is ad hoc because it doesn't do this. In other words, one man's preference for masochism may not remanifest themselves through the veil of ignorance.

It doesn't matter. I can accept the argument that, standing behind the veil of ignorance, I would support policy X rather than policy Y. But I don't see that as a persuasive argument that policy X is just.

Risk averse people might, behind the veil, support an egalitarian redistribution policy. Selfishly, I might support a similar policy today, knowing I am relatively poor. Neither would persuade me, however, that robbing Peter to pay Paul is legitimate. Even if Peter, behind the veil, would support such policy.

Wait individually, or collectively - and in accordance with your theory of ethics or justice?

According to my theory of justice there is no difference between individual and collective authority. Collective authority is merely the sum of the authority held by individual members of the collective.

Further according to my theory of justice, starving people are not entitled to initiate force to save themselves.

According to my theory of ethics, I won't judge people who do initiate force too harshly if they do that as the only means for survival at their disposal.

A good comparison is for violating the law in our society. The law (equivalent to justice) doesn't entitle you to drive 120mph regardless of cause. However, if your wife is giving birth in the back seat, it is understandable (and a judge would be sympathetic) if you did.

[skeptic-1]

RE: Do you play? If you could can you endorse the country brandinin in PoFo region and not say anything?

?? Please explain post !

[mikema63]

Skeptic, that was a PM I sent you.

[Sceptic]

Skeptic, that was a PM I sent you. :?:

Which Sceptic/Skeptic are you referring to?

[mikema63]

Skeptic-1

[Rich]

Agreed. So fraud can legitimately be countered with force. We would need to draw a line somewhere between outright lies and something less than full and detailed disclosure.

There would be no we. there would be no government. Every Police force would draw their own line. Every Police force would have their own age of consent. There would be Christian police forces running round shooting up abortion clinics. Pro Choice police forces defending them.

It might surprise you to know that I would broadly describe my trends as leaning towards classical liberalism: after all, it was J.S. Mill who invented the harm principle, Locke, the homesteading principle to (mis)quote, 'where each man may homestead by virtue of labour, within reason, so as not to exclude others from doing the same'

Within reason, I'm sure we're all going to agree on that. And this was from a man who invested in the Caribbean slave trade. We will never agree on what is rightful property. Libertarianism just wants all the benefits of a state without the costs just by wishful thinking. Its almost impossible to overestimate humans ability for self justification. If we are to have Libertarianism I for one want a property year zero where everything gets redistributed out evenly. There will be many others that feel the same. Across the planet there are vast numbers of people just itching for the state to disappear so they can settle old score and start implementing their own genuine justice.

There is a certain inertia, a certain force of habit so people tend to obey by the conventions established even when they are not being watched by the state. But don't be fooled the invisible hand of the state is there doing its magic even when you don't see it.

[Eran]

There would be no we. there would be no government. Every Police force would draw their own line. Every Police force would have their own age of consent. There would be Christian police forces running round shooting up abortion clinics. Pro Choice police forces defending them.

Not at all. Police forces don't make decisions. They followed the opinion of credible arbitrators. The fundamentals norms of a libertarian society are based on respect for person and property as well as the peaceful resolution of conflicts. If different organisations find themselves in disagreement, they will find a mutually-agreeable arbitrator to peacefully settle the dispute.

Wars are very expensive, as are police battles. And since, unlike government forces, private police forces cannot externalise their costs onto the tax-paying public, they will be highly motivated to keep costs down, i.e. to keep violence to a minimum.

Libertarianism just wants all the benefits of a state without the costs just by wishful thinking.

Libertarians are fully willing to pay for the cost of the benefits of the state.

Our argument is that (1) only by having such "benefits" conditional on people's willingness to pay for them (individually, not collectively), we can be certain that what is provided is indeed a benefit (much of what government does isn't), and (2) that we are getting the best possible deal for our tax-money.

Its almost impossible to overestimate humans ability for self justification.

Apply this insight to politicians and voters.

If we are to have Libertarianism I for one want a property year zero where everything gets redistributed out evenly. There will be many others that feel the same. Across the planet there are vast numbers of people just itching for the state to disappear so they can settle old score and start implementing their own genuine justice.

I am glad you recognise, as do millions of people, that government is far from being a guarantee of justice. Quite the opposite.

Let us agree to base society on justice, rather than on political whim. We can then have a considered discussion on what that entails.

There is a certain inertia, a certain force of habit so people tend to obey by the conventions established even when they are not being watched by the state. But don't be fooled the invisible hand of the state is there doing its magic even when you don't see it.

I agree. But all that shows is that society needs some enforcement mechanism. Not that the enforcement mechanism must involve a monopoly with the perceived right to set its own rules (regardless of justice) and name its own price (through taxation).

There are better ways.

[Baff]

I firmly belive that in order for a society to operate as moothly as possible that there must be a single authority.

One group of people that is too powerful to mess with.

So I want a police force that is strong enough to be feared by all. I do not want lots of little private companies fighting it out for the same turf to offer protection to. All very mafiaesque
I've seen it happen with my private security teams, and I've had to pay the damages for it too.

What I want is for my national governmental police force to do the fucking job I pay them to do.
Which they have absolutely zero intention of ever doing.

So I'm stuck with the warring security firms as my best option for when I need more muscle than just my own.


The best solution I can think of is for the police to have to collect their paychecks on the door from the people who are paying them. In person.
They'd start doing their job then, I can tell you.

[Sceptic]

The best solution I can think of is for the police to have to collect their paychecks on the door from the people who are paying them. In person.
They'd start doing their job then, I can tell you.

On the contrary, I think the police would become brutish thugs: "where's my paycheck?"

[Rothbardian]

On the contrary, I think the police would become brutish thugs: "where's my paycheck?"

Having the cops show up at your home to collect their protection money the same as Tony Soprano's thugs would, would be a great way to dispel the illusion of our relationship with them. It's easy to pretend that they really are there to protect and serve when you're not faced with the reality of what they'll do to you if you dare decide you don't want to pay for their services anymore.

[Sceptic]

I think the idea of private police forces is just as insane, actually no, more so.

[Baff]

Whatever it takes.

On the contrary, I think the police would become brutish thugs: "where's my paycheck?"

And each time they asked, they'd get a piece of my mind.
And the same from Granny Briggs and everyone else they've been letting down.


They'd be directly accountable to everyone who hires them. Have to actually speak to the people they work for instead of hiding in their offices with cups of tea and convenient piles of paperwork making press releases and issuing crime numbers.