Two Million Australians live Below the Poverty Line (3 Viewers)

[HotShot]

I have made this clear already. I don't believe in so called moral 'rules' that apply regardless of the circumstances. Again, the moral conscience of the soldier who kills in combat is very different to that of a person who kills in a drive by shooting. .

Really? Arent they the same thing, both have killed? Regardless of the reasons (they both will have their own reasons) both people have killed, why should their moral consciences differ? Is this is an assumption that you make?

So to kick things off, I want to ask you :
1. Do you believe that if something was wrong in the past, it is also wrong now?
2. Do you believe that moral rules should apply equally to all people? (what is good for one is good for all)

1.NO

2. Moral Rules do not exist.

 

[volition]

I don't believe in so called moral 'rules' that apply regardless of the circumstances.

Then it would appear that you don't believe in rules at all... you just have some weird kind of subjective morality that only applies to you.

To indiscriminately apply a set of moral rules without regard to the circumstances that the individual in question finds herself is an uncalled for step for a few reasons.

Well of course the example I give to you has to be ridiculous, just to show you what that kind of rule would allow. And of course it has to be applied indiscriminately, that's done because all humans are morally equal. Unless you think some humans are just morally better than others.

Again, the moral conscience of the soldier who kills in combat is very different to that of a person who kills in a drive by shooting.

Ok, please tell me why the soldier is morally superior to the drive by shooter. You're getting into dangerous waters here, allowing some people to kill, so I'd like to see your justification of this.

I emphasise that individuals are different - not just in their moral outlook, but also in their genetics and background.

Yes genetics and background set people apart in a physical sense, but not in a moral sense. We are all equals as far as morality is concerned, do you agree? (It'd be nice if you actually answered my questions)

Exceptions to this are children and lunatics because they aren't capable of understanding what they're doing.

I refer to legal rather than moral rules because you can't pull out an old book called 'morality'.

You can't refer to legality and say that morality is now irrelevant. You know very well that legality doesn't equal morality. Instead, we have to just argue about what form of morality should be accepted, and my problem with the morality you're proposing(statism) is that its not even logically consistent.

You keep asserting the existence of so called 'universally preferred behaviour' backed up by fringe libertarian 'theorists', but experience has shown that they are not universal and they are not preferred.

I think you're missing the point with Universally Preferred Behaviour (UPB), it's there to basically say things like: we prefer the truth to falsehood. In fact, you're demonstrating UPB by arguing with me right now, you're showing that you prefer the truth to falsehood, that you think that what Im saying doesn't make sense compared to logic. UPB is just what I'm using to say that something that is logical is > something that is not logical.

Which is why the scientific method is being used to some extent, in order to validate the opposing moral theories we are showing to each other. Because if the theory is not even consistent with itself, clearly its not valid.

So if you can't logically present a bunch of rules or your own subjective morality as applying to all, then you can't really say that your brand of morality is true. You can hold it as nothing more than personal opinion.

Perhaps the manipulation of discourse and its imposition on others suited the interests of the bourgeoisie of the 18th or 19th century, but the use of words such as 'stealing' in unnatural way that you described cannot be accepted by society of today - a society that is so heavily based on interdependence.

Ok, you do at least accept that the govt is able to take money against people's will yeah? (even if you don't call that stealing)

Now, remember the govt is not a moral agent, the people inside it are the moral agents. If it is morally permissible for some people to use majority rule to impose their will on everybody and "take money against people's will", then why is it not permissible for me to do it with a majority in some other aspect of life (say atheists outnumber theists)? Even if you don't call it stealing, it still doesn't explain why the people who claim to be "the govt" can do it and I can't.

If you think statism is saveable, then please answer this paragraph. Otherwise, accept that the moral principle by which the state gains its authority is flawed.

 

[_dhj_]

Without the existence of the state, people will impose their will on others. It is the state which protects individuals from the consequences of imposition. It is not the act of imposing of the will that is morally wrong, but the consequences that flow from the way in which the imposition is carried out. Either the government - through law enforcement and bureaucratic functions imposes restrictions on the people, or it does not do so and lawlessness and chaos ensues. I understand that you may be against the welfare aspect of taxation rather than against the portion of taxation spent on law enforcement. However if we use your 'UPB' rubbish - if we apply it - there is no difference between welfare and law enforcement funding - the government in both cases is taking money away from people against their will. Now I think it's valid to weigh up the difference between small government and large government and weigh up the consequences they create. But then if we use UPB logic, the only possibility is no government. But the incidences of imposition of will increases without a government - after disasters, revolutions or coups, looting and homicide increase dramatically. But wait... isn't looting stealing? Isn't homicide wrong? So UPB might, by semantic arguments make some sense at first instance - but if it was applied in reality the consequences will be devastating. And if one does not regard the consequences themselves to be devastating, the mere fact that there would be a dramatic increase of what 'UPB' regards as wrong poses a logical problem. Such a problem alone exposes UPB as rubbish.

 

[volition]

Well actually this is something that has changed in the last few days for me, I've moved from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. So having no govt is actually desired.

But the incidences of imposition of will increases without a government - after disasters, revolutions or coups, looting and homicide increase dramatically. But wait... isn't looting stealing? Isn't homicide wrong?

Private contracts can exist which will function as the 'police'. The concept starts off with what is called a DRO - Dispute Resolution Organisation. This is basically like an insurance company and courts system rolled into one. When you draw up a contract, you might choose to pay a DRO some money to be the agreed upon arbitrator in the case of a dispute for example.

Competition is allowed to work by having choice between DROs that you can go to and use. DROs will also function much like credit risk checking companies that exist today, but with people in general. Being made to go "off the grid" by DROs for committing crimes/refusing to accept punishments will be costly, because the hit to your reputation will make other things more costly/people less likely to do business with you.

I know you'll have a million different objections, but pretty much all of them have been thought of and are answered, check a few of these links:
The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives for Dispute resolution, collective services, pollution
Stateless Prisons
The Possibility of Private Law By Robert P. Murphy
The Idea of a Private Law Society By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
www.freedomainradio.com

But I'll be more than happy to answer your objections myself if you'd prefer.

 

[_dhj_]

Anarcho capitalism is a good example of an ideology that attempts to justify the possibility of a world without an aspect that is prevalent in the present world. The very basis of the ideology is its opposition to the idea of government - it tends to regard government itself as evil and prioritises the removal of government above other, and much greater evils and potential evils. This dogmatic approach creates many problems.

We will first look at law enforcement in a government free society. Any police force will be accountable to those that pay the police force. Multiple police forces will be spawned to cater for the needs of different clients. These clients will have different moral perspectives and interests. Of course, some will hire police forces to protect their property, which seems fine from your point of view. But there is nothing to govern the actions of those police forces - they can overreact against any potential 'thieves' and murder them - from their client's point of view an overreaction is better than no reaction. If you have multiple police forces spawning, there will be competition between the different police forces. In our society, when we think of competition we think of economic and non-violent competition. Given the absence of overarching law enforcement, the competition among police forces in such a society will also be violent. You then have tribal and gang warfare much like in lawless African countries and in areas where the police are afraid of the mafia. It is convenient to assume that eventually the strongest will survive and the bloodshed will stop eventually, but that is not how it will work. Gangs that are decimated will resort to more desperate measures and inflict greater harm, in the same way that the poor are more likely in our society to commit larceny because they have less to lose and more to gain. If we are then to assume that this would eventually die out, and an overarching police force would then emerge, there would be more conflict between such a police force and society than in a society with a government, because the police force only represents those that pay. Even if you had a choice to not pay for it, you as someone who did not pay would be so marginalised that you would be forced to pay, because the police force exists for the purpose of protecting others from you - the person who does not pay. And if you think that you can be a free rider on the system, think again. A private sector police force is more rigorous in identifying those that pay from those that don't pay. When you have such a powerful police force, naturally there is nothing to stop it from forcing you to pay them. Then we come full circle - once again someone will force you to do something against your will. Any workable stage reached of anarcho capitalism reached in the future must be the result of resort to some form of government - some balance between consensus and restrictions on the individual reached after the unnecessary period of turmoil, violence and bloodshed.

 

[volition]

Ok this basically looks like the 'Warlord' objection, so for further reading check here:
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? By Robert P. Murphy
Stateless Dictatorships: How a Free Society Prevents the Re-emergence of a Government
War, Profit, and the State:The state is the health of war by Stefan Molyneux

But there is nothing to govern the actions of those police forces - they can overreact against any potential 'thieves' and murder them - from their client's point of view an overreaction is better than no reaction.

Given the absence of overarching law enforcement, the competition among police forces in such a society will also be violent.

I think it's worth throwing in an observation here. It's the problem of infinite regression.

So basically you're saying that we need govt to protect us from "these evil gangs". And yet, there will always be the question: "Who watches the watchers?". If the solution to being aggressed against by a bunch of smaller gangs is to create one massive gang that can just overpower them all, then what's stopping that massive gang(govt) from oppressing us? Clearly then, we need an even larger gang to save us from the govt. And then another gang above that, and another above that one, and so on and so on. So if you kind of abstract the principle out of this, why don't we have some kind of world govt (to protect against the evil govts of each country), and a galaxy govt and a universe govt? Where would it end?

Anarcho-capitalism contends that we need to create a system of competing self-interest, rather than creating a scenario where some people have all the power.

As for your more general criticism of the DRO/private law idea, it's a pretty tough sell to argue that the DROs are going to all fight each other, given how costly warfare is. There are so so so many costs involved, such as the risk of retaliation, the cost of actually conducting warfare as well just emotional costs.

Part of the reason the situation as it is allows countries to go to war, is that there are different groups involved:
1. those who pay for the war
2. those who benefit from the war

When those who benefit from the war(politicians, weapons companies) are different from those who pay for the war(the general population), war can happen. The people in control of govt now don't have to bear the full cost themselves. Keep in mind that the USA is losing trillions of dollars in a war to try and take over one of the world's richest oil resources... That's how unprofitable war is.

Anarcho-capitalism makes war less likely, by making the people who want to go to war, bear the cost themselves.

Another objection to the warring police firms/DROs/whatever, is that the infrastructure in an anarcho-capitalist society will be different. It's not like you can just take over the 'base' and then you own the rest of the country, you'd have to individually go and do it(much more costly and time consuming and just harder). People are likely to just use the "scorched russian" defence if they know somebody with that much power is coming. They'll just cut and run with all their valuables, leaving the invading army with almost nothing of value. DROs know that this is what would happen, and so they are kept from trying to pull a stunt like this because of it.

Another objection to it is that of the interconnectivity of society. A Defence DRO that is suspected of amassing weapons for an attack, if discovered, would simply have all its other contracts cut off. Voluntary DRO contracts will govern relationships like bank accounts, water, and other facilities. If the other DROs realise what is going on, they will sever the Defence DROs connection to the civilised society in self-defence.

As for the possibility of some crazily independently wealthy individual:

First of all, if this were a conceivable risk, his bank would have a clause in its service agreement giving it the right to refuse to honor any payments clearly designed to fund a private army. Secondly, no DRO would do business with Bill – or his soldiers – the moment that it became apparent what he was up to. This would mean that none of Bill's soldiers would have any guarantees that they would get paid, grocery stores would not sell them food, electricity companies would cut them off, gas stations would not sell them gas, etc. When society as a whole wants to stop doing business with you, it becomes very hard to get by!

Ok now your freerider objection:

And if you think that you can be a free rider on the system, think again. A private sector police force is more rigorous in identifying those that pay from those that don't pay.

Well contracts are voluntary, so you can't be made to pay if you don't want to.

As for the general freerider concerns, we have to consider once again how interconnected society is. When some people refuse to pay for law enforcement, yes it's true that there is a cost. But to the most extent, insurance companies would "internalise the externality". For eg. Insurance companies that each held policies for thousands of people in a major city would be willing to contribute hefty amounts to eliminate the menace of a serial killer. Heaps of problems can be resolved via insurance.

Don't forget, much of the 'crime' that exists today, derives much of its strength from govt prohibition on stuff like gambling, drugs etc. If drugs were legal there wouldn't be enough profit in it for the gangs to do it. That drug production would now be done by companies who have to serve consumer interests or go bust.

 

[_dhj_]

On the internet, you can find theoretical arguments supporting any ideological stance. It is easy to argue hypothetical situations - A will lead to B, rather than C. There's always a reason why A might lead to B, but in reality the reasons why it will lead to C are greater and overarching.

Think about what would actually happen in reality if a government was somehow removed. The existence of governments is a natural consequence of the existence of a group of people. There has never been a decent society without a government. You might then argue that the past is not determinative. What is clearly required however is a complete change in human nature to facility the existence of such a society. Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology, like communism, that relies on changes in human nature. Whereas communism acknowledges this and generally states the way in which people need to be conditioned, anarcho-capitalism either denies that any change is needed or fails specify the changes needed.

In reality, competing organisations act in their self interest. The only way in which competing police forces can encourage people to pay for their services is if there is disorder and violence in society - that is if people perceive a need for their protection. Government law enforcement is different because police are not paid more if there is more disorder - all citizens are required to pay regardless. That is, private police will create disorder and inflict harm to increase their profits.

Legal rules depend on predictability and uniformity. When the rules are created through private and competing interests, they become no longer predictable or universal. For example, the natural tendency of competing private police forces is for product differentiation in order to create private monopoly markets. That is, different police forces will protect paying individuals in accordance with different rules. Like cereal in a supermarket, the tendency is not to uniformity but to creation of difference. You then have a society where people don't know what rules they need to follow to be safe from law enforcement. Then the rules are unpredictable, enforcement is essentially arbitrary.

 

[volition]

On the internet, you can find theoretical arguments supporting any ideological stance. It is easy to argue hypothetical situations - A will lead to B, rather than C. There's always a reason why A might lead to B, but in reality the reasons why it will lead to C are greater and overarching.

Don't try to 'transcend' the debate. If you think A leads to C, then actually tell me why that is so.

The existence of governments is a natural consequence of the existence of a group of people.

The existence of govts is a natural consequence of some people trying to lord it over other people.

In fact, some of the first few govts were just brought in without the people's consent. They're brought in and they just expand continually with no concern for people's individual rights. Or moral justifications for their power, as we've just been discussing earlier.

There has never been a decent society without a government.

I hope you realise that this is not actually an argument. Even if you are correct, the fact that such a society hasn't existed before, does not mean that it could never work. What you're doing is appealing to tradition.

What is clearly required however is a complete change in human nature to facilitate the existence of such a society.

Yes, you are correct in saying that it would be different. As far as telling me how these differences make it fail/unworkable, you haven't done this.

The main difference is that now we actually respect private property and the non aggression principle. It's not too hard to handle.

The only way in which competing police forces can encourage people to pay for their services is if there is disorder and violence in society - that is if people perceive a need for their protection.

Well DROs don't only exist to be like police forces, they also exist for contract law arbitration/mediation/whatever people agree to. eg. whenever you draw up a contract, both parties decide upon a DRO that will mediate/arbitrate in the case of a dispute and they both pay a fee to the DRO to do this service. Both people agree to accept whatever punishment the DRO imposes. You can also put in a clause to be able to appeal to another DRO in the case of disagreement.

In reality, competing organisations act in their self interest. The only way in which competing police forces can encourage people to pay for their services is if there is disorder and violence in society - that is if people perceive a need for their protection.

You realise that this is the same as the war thing I was writing about above don't you?

Don't forget that there would be other DROs who would be dealing with this crime that the first one is artificially creating. It would pay for them to stop the first DRO. It's pretty much reduced to a sabotaging rival businesses situation, which is explained anyway by the increased costs, increased risk and fear of retaliation.

This kind of talk is like saying that Fantastic Furniture would pay some arsonist to go and set fire to the IKEA factory. Or maybe foreign hackers could be paid to infiltrate competitors' networks, or mount denial-of-service attacks on their Web sites – sure doom for those who sell over the Internet. The reason this stuff doesn't happen in the free market is that they are costly, they increase risk and there is the fear of retaliation.

If any DRO got discovered artificially increasing crime, then its reputation would immediately hit rock bottom and nobody would do business with it! This alone is a huge risk!

Bottom line: businesses care a lot about their reputation, which is why even now you don't see businesses sabotaging each other, so there really is no reason to expect that they would just start doing this.

Legal rules depend on predictability and uniformity. When the rules are created through private and competing interests, they become no longer predictable or universal. For example, the natural tendency of competing private police forces is for product differentiation in order to create private monopoly markets. That is, different police forces will protect paying individuals in accordance with different rules. Like cereal in a supermarket, the tendency is not to uniformity but to creation of difference. You then have a society where people don't know what rules they need to follow to be safe from law enforcement. Then the rules are unpredictable, enforcement is essentially arbitrary.

When you sign up with a DRO, you have all the terms right there! You agree to whatever terms you negotiate with them, so there actually is less uncertainty! You can negotiate whatever terms you want, so long as the DRO accepts them. The govt as it exists now can just pull the rug out from underneath you, you don't have a 'contract' with the govt! Just look at how they changed the police powers for APEC and you'll see that there isn't as much certainty in the current system as you think there is.

But even with uncertainty, ever heard of a credit risk check? Firms are already able to mitigate risks like these, via agencies like Standard and Poor's or Moody's, so I'm sure the market would be able to cope with the risk of changing rules. How do you think insurance companies do their business now? They make a living out of dealing with risk, there are plenty of examples of how the market copes with risk. Futures markets, existence of Investment banks, stock markets as hedging instruments, there's really no shortage of examples.

Oh yeah, and one last comment, as for: "You then have a society where people don't know what rules they need to follow to be safe from law enforcement." - As contrasted to.... our society where we have constantly increasing legislation ? Have you seen that graph where they show you how much more legislation there's been recently than there has been in the past? It's like some kind of exponentially increasing graph, ever since computers became more widely used in parliament etc. Take a look at how shit insider trading laws are, and then tell me people don't know what rules they need to follow ;-)

 

[_dhj_]

The idea of not having a government is not some complicated intricate idea that has only recently been discovered and has therefore understandably not been implemented. It is a simple idea - you either have a government or you don't. If it hasn't worked in the past, that is strong evidence that it will not work. Indeed all arguments and theories are based on some form of empirical evidence and its application to different situations. Of course you can try to assert some parts of empirical evidence - such as contract law - as applicable to a government-less society. What is overwhelming is the fact that this sort of society has never successfully been formed in history. It is not about appealing to tradition but about using the evidence we are presented with - and not ignoring it. When we have two competing views - A leads to B or A leads to C, and existence of theoretical arguments in support of both views, we require empirical evidence to support the assertion. Governments have been overthrown countless number of times in history. The result has been either the emergence of another government and progress in society, or total chaos and disintegration of society (e.g. Dark Ages). There is therefore ample empirical support for the proposition that A - the non existence of government - leads to C (chaos) rather than B (progress).

Your so called DROs accord with the same principles as private police. If they exist and perform such an important role in this hypothetical society, as you seem to suggest, there will be competing DROs with their own sets of rules and interpretations of contracts. Of course, they would be keen to earn profits and earn clients. When you have two parties to a contract, one seeking to enforce it and one seeking not to, they will try to approach different DROs that have their own interpretations. In any case, the assertion that these organisation would spawn is grounded in speculation. It was the sovereign that created dispute resolution in normal society, and it was left to the government and the legal profession to maintain the system - to legislate uniformly and generally in accordance with the best interests of society. Without a positive force, a government, to initiate and maintain 'DROs', they will not exist.

Companies in normal society compete in accordance with the laws of society. It is the existence of clear rules and certainty of their enforcement that encourages companies to invest and do business, that prevents companies from competing in unacceptable ways, such as by arson, with other companies. When you remove the protections of the law, when you dissolves the institutions that enforce law uniformly, you lose the certainty at the most fundamental level.

 

[volition]

The idea of not having a government is not some complicated intricate idea that has only recently been discovered and has therefore understandably not been implemented.

As far as ideologies go, it is relatively new though. The concepts of DRO and private law and so on haven't been around for that long, and I would have to disagree with you: anarcho-capitalism is yet to fail!

Governments have been overthrown countless number of times in history. The result has been either the emergence of another government and progress in society, or total chaos and disintegration of society (e.g. Dark Ages). There is therefore ample empirical support for the proposition that A - the non existence of government - leads to C (chaos) rather than B (progress).

Governments have been overthrown, by people wanting to do what: install their own govt! So its not really fair to say that anarcho-capitalism has already failed, because it's never been tried.

When you have two parties to a contract, one seeking to enforce it and one seeking not to, they will try to approach different DROs that have their own interpretations.

They would have agreed to the DRO that would enforce the contract, BEFORE they start dispute resolutionn of the contract. But even then, private law is still possible. The private court would just have to be agreed upon by both parties, and if one party continually rejects the offer to go to court, then this is bad for his reputation. On the other hand if the court reputation is bad, then its also not a good thing. So it pays for the court to be as unbiased as possible, because it is only with repeat business that a court will stay afloat.

Without a positive force, a government, to initiate and maintain 'DROs', they will not exist.

You still haven't answered my question of infinite regression. If i were to say to you, "we need a world govt", and "we need a galaxy govt" and "we need a universe govt". Where does it end?

It is the existence of clear rules and certainty of their enforcement that encourages companies to invest and do business, that prevents companies from competing in unacceptable ways, such as by arson, with other companies.

I already answered this, its the risk, increased cost and fear of retaliation that stop businesses from sabotaging each other.

Say you go to your arsonist and say "yea go burn that warehouse down", there's a chance he might blackmail you back and say "pay me more or i'll burn YOUR warehouse down". There's a chance he could get caught in the act. That kind of thing.

Don't forget the reputation hit you'd cop if you were discovered for doing that. It's much more profitable and sensible to just compete on price and service like in normal capitalism.

Although with all this talk of it never having been tried, it may be worth mentioning the case of Somalia:
The Rule of Law without the State By Spencer Heath MacCallum

From 2000-2005, under anarchy

Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.

Although, they do have a somewhat different system of law there. While these stats aren't what you would call "good", it's important to note that they are an improvement.

And not just that, much of the turbulence in the country has just arisen because clans want to be in the govt that the UN are trying to establish.

The turmoil in Somalia consists in the clans maneuvering to position themselves to control the government whenever it might come into being, and this has been exacerbated by the governments of the world, especially the United States, keeping alive the expectation that a government will soon be established and supplying arms to whoever seems at present most likely to be able to "bring democracy" to Somalia. The "warlord" phenomenon refers to clan and independent militias, often including leftovers of the former central government, who promise to establish a government under the control of their own clan. They often operate outside the control of the traditional elders and sometimes in opposition to them.

 

[_dhj_]

Governments have been replaced by new governments because 1) governments are required to coordinate creation of law enforcement, healthcare, infrastructure, and other basic services that are not adequately provided by the market and which the payoffs to the entrepreneur that would provide it do not correlate with the payoffs to society of the presence of the services in a universal, uniform and stable form. Of course, people are 'power hungry', and so it is in their nature to form governments, but there is no evidence to suggest that this tendency can be altered. The reality is that a government-less society not only should not exist, but cannot and will not exist in the long run - somebody in the society will attempt to form a government.

A 'positive force' is an action which exists outside the realm of market forces, and include creation of organisations whose purpose is to act in the general interests of society. To the question of who regulates the positive force - in western democratic societies a number of positive forces exist side by side to check on one another - these include the judiciary, the executive, the legislature, the citizens who vote in the legislature. It is a balance which has worked well and created a stable and credible set of institutions allowing businesses, consumers and families to invest and save, to feel relatively safe from physical harm, from crime and from illness, starvation or lack of shelter.

Again, I emphasise that so-called 'UPB' - the 'moral' reason behind your resort to anarcho-capitalism is not upheld in a governmentless society. Indeed, you conceded in the Health thread that public healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare. It is the same with private law enforcement. In a governmentless society there will be more crime, not less - particularly non-property personal crimes, such as assault, rape, or murder that ought to be prevented regardless of who the person is - whether they are rich or poor, business savvy or incapable of signing up to commercial agreements for protection. 'UPB' cannot be upheld by anarcho-capitalism. Indeed it cannot be upheld at all. By contrast, the idea of morality in a normal society can be upheld. In particular, taxation does not contradict with the broad consequentialism that I outlined earlier. This does not prove that consequentialism is correct, but it does prove that UPB is incorrect as it is logically and practically impossible.

With regards Somalia, I find it odd that you are resorting to such an example. But to use your distinction between the stock and the flow, has it occurred to you that the improvement may have come as a result of actual increase in positive intervention and increase in the prospect of a government establishing in the near future (as you point out, by the UN). That is, to use your distinction the actual state of governmentlessness (like the actual stats) is irrelevant, the only thing relevant is the trend towards establishing a government. By increase in positive intervention I refer to foreign aid and foreign established infrastructure and grass roots level programs. These interventions are alien to somalian market forces. There is so much that civilised normal societies in the west can bear. They cannot wait for somalian people to all die out in order to see if anarcho-capitalism would work. The news that the UN would establish a government no doubt improved prospects in the private sector. Businesses, anticipating the implementation of a government and thus proper law enforcement and regulations to allow the conduct of business without fear, no doubt cautiously increased investment in response to the good news.

 

[volition]

Indeed, you conceded in the Health thread that public healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare.

I didn't actually concede that public healthcare is more efficient, I just decided to abandon the argument from efficiency because there's no standard to which I can say I've proven something, so I figure I may as well not bother with it. I still actually do think private systems are more efficient, I just don't see any real 'end' to the argument. On the other hand, the argument from morality hits home with a lot more people.

governments are required to coordinate creation of law enforcement, healthcare, infrastructure, and other basic services

Really? Well that's interesting seeing as we've just been discussing how the anarcho-capitalist society is capable of handling these things. I don't feel like repeating myself, just read the posts/links above.

To the question of who regulates the positive force - in western democratic societies a number of positive forces exist side by side to check on one another - these include the judiciary, the executive, the legislature, the citizens who vote in the legislature.

Well, people are still getting money taken from them against their will, so your solution is still violating people's property rights. eg. i disagree with the war in Iraq, but I still have to fund it. My right to disagree is purely imaginary. This side by side force of separation of powers has clearly failed if it fails to uphold my property rights.

So you still haven't answered the infinite regression question.

IF the solution to gangs is to create one big gang(govt) to deal with all the smaller gangs,

THEN it should also be the solution to create an even bigger gang to deal with all the big gangs

This cycle could go on forever and ever. Do you see what I mean? What arguments do you have against the world govt to control all the countries govts? And so on all the way up, to infinity and beyond!

In particular, taxation does not contradict with the broad consequentialism that I outlined earlier.

We've been through this. Your consequentialism, until you can justify it and prove it, is nothing but personal opinion. It is not a moral theory that applies to everyone. UPB is just the framework that we build our theory on, its not something that needs to be 'upheld', it is something that already exists. You prefer truth to falsehood yes?

Any theory that we use, must be logically consistent with itself, or its demonstrably false. Majority rule is demonstrably false.

That is, to use your distinction the actual state of governmentlessness (like the actual stats) is irrelevant, the only thing relevant is the trend towards establishing a government.

Errr, not really. There has been increased turmoil, because of increased fighting, because of intervention by the US arming whoever seems likely to be able to "bring democracy" to Somalia. Surely this turmoil has had a negative influence on the nation's economic development.

 

[_dhj_]

We've been through this. Your consequentialism, until you can justify it and prove it, is nothing but personal opinion. It is not a moral theory that applies to everyone. UPB is just the framework that we build our theory on, its not something that needs to be 'upheld', it is something that already exists. You prefer truth to falsehood yes?

Any theory that we use, must be logically consistent with itself, or its demonstrably false. Majority rule is demonstrably false.

Of course, the theory of UPB exists. But so does consequentialism, Marxism, feminism, Confucianism etc. The mere existence of a theory does not go towards proving its merits or justifying its usefulness. The fact that something is logically consistent with itself is insufficient. Regardless of the status of UPB, consequentialism, for example is also logically consistent with itself, and so are many other theories.

What then is an objective framework to measure the theories against? I suggest reality as the yardstick. Then the question is whether we ought to consider objective reality or subjective reality. If there is a god, objective reality encompasses both physical and moral elements. If we assume that there is no divine force, no inherent purpose in the world, objective reality is only the physical and all matter subject to our individual perceptions. Individual perception then, is subjective. That is, without inherent purpose in the universe, the purpose of our existence depend on the purpose laid out by the individual in question. Whether you like it or not then, individual purpose will be different among different individuals.

The problem with UPB is that it asserts the 'rules' as absolute truths without examining their origin or their purpose. If we assume that there is no god, there is no inherent purpose, only individual purposes. Individual purposes are malleable and transformable. That is, external and internal catalysts can alter individual purposes. The reality then is that no absolute and unchanging rule can be fished from an individual, let alone from all of society. Instead, 'rules' are positively enforced by sovereigns and governments in law, or indirectly enforced by community consensus on the lay-concept of 'morality'. UPB runs into such a trap. UPB 'theorists' attempt to fish objective rules from the law and from community consensus despite condemning 'democratic morality'. But UPB is derived from 'democratic morality', taking out the parts that are 'logically inconsistent' (but democratic morality comes from the logic of consequences and the logic of anthropological evolution, not from the logic of semantics and language). After UPB strips democratic morality of some of its essential parts the 'moral' product that remains become useless.

 

[KFunk]

Hi volition. You've not countered my last posts, so I don't feel the need to directly defend them. To clarify the decisive reason - 'stealing' is a word that categorises a number of actions that those in power (historically the monarch) and the community, regard as morally wrong. Any definition conferred to stealing is not overarching, but rather arise through convenience. Exceptions to such convenient definitions, for actions not regarded by the system and the community as morally wrong, are conferred by statutory sections. One has to bear in mind that without the state to enforce the rules, they will disintegrate. When the enforcement of moral rules disintegrate, the moral rules themselves dissolve. Therefore the interests of the state in defining the rules are pertinent. Put it another (albeit simplified) way - if the state did not exist, 'stealing' would not exist. But the existence of the state requires taxation. Therefore taxation cannot be stealing.

On another note, when we're talking about stealing and murder etc. we're talking about legality and morality. Because taxation is legal, the main concern is morality. Income and wealth redistribution is morally correct because it alleviates an overarching injustice, which operates both on philosophical and a common sense levels. That injustice is the disparity in luck. There is a tendency that those who've ended up with better outcomes have been luckier than those who've ended up with worse outcomes. On a philosophical level, the combined operation of determinism and indeterminism suggests that life is ultimately all down to luck. But even on a common sense level the input of luck is obvious. Some of us are born with 'better' genes than others - aesthetically, intellectually, emotionally or physically - not because they 'deserve' it but because they are lucky. Some are born in the right countries and suburbs, into wealthier families or met the right people - again only because they are lucky. The fact that reward for one's effort is based on another's perception of the outcome that resulted from the effort, and not on one's actual effort is another example. All these factors add up, and are in fact vastly under-compensated by income and wealth redistribution. Society's acceptance of the principle of wealth redistribution at least indicates a general recognition of the existence of disparity in luck.

Hmm, I wish I'd been following this debate from the start. I've been waiting for someone to say exactly what you said above dhj --> hear, hear.

 

[KFunk]

Any theory that we use, must be logically consistent with itself, or its demonstrably false. Majority rule is demonstrably false.

First off, was your above link (to the UPB thingo) a proof of this, or do you have another proof elsewhere?

There are a set of universally preferred behaviours, that logically must exist, because in arguing that "universally preferred behaviour doesn't exist" you would be expressing a preference for truth over falsehood.

1. The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
2. Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
3. Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

This is the basis for a set of moral rules that must exist. Once we've established that, we have to examine any set of moral rules using consistency and universality. If a moral theory is based on self-contradictory principles or fails the test of universality it is obviously invalid.

To be bluntly honest, I think that the argument that guy made for UPB is quite terrible. In the above post it seems that you have misinterpreted the part of argument where he argues for the necessary existence of preferred behavior. I'll explain what I mean:

(1) Sure, there is a sense in which it is contradictory to argue against preferred behavior (since one's position on the matter indicates some form of preferences). However, and this is a big however, the important point is not whether preferred behavior exists, but whether universal preferred behavior (UPB) exists. Note that you claim that the above argument shows the logical existence of UPB when really all it establishes is the existence of some form of preferred behavior, universal or otherwise. One can happily claim that UPB does not exist without risking any inconsistency. This is because one can consistently hold that a number of different preference sets exist, none of which is universal (furthermore, the argument would recognise the fact that it is conducted from within a preference set).

(2) I also want to note that I am uncertain whether it is reasonable to lump all preferred behavior together like that. Mightn't we establish categories of logical preference and moral preference, and then argue against the existence of moral behavioral preferences from within our set of logical preferences?

Having read through his article I found that every second paragraph warranted some kind of rebuttal or qualification, so I don't plan to write out all my objections to his claims. I am, however, interested in how you think objectivity/universality is established given that the above passage does not suffice to prove UPB (whether this is through exposition of Molyneux's argument or otherwise).

In brief: on what grounds do you claim that morality is objective or universal?

 

[volition]

Of course, the theory of UPB exists. But so does consequentialism, Marxism, feminism, Confucianism etc. The mere existence of a theory does not go towards proving its merits or justifying its usefulness. The fact that something is logically consistent with itself is insufficient. Regardless of the status of UPB, consequentialism, for example is also logically consistent with itself, and so are many other theories.

Yep ok I accept that other theories are logically consistent with themselves, but I still don't see how majority rule is consistent with itself.

And yeah I also accept that the fact that it is logically consistent with itself is not enough, but I still think logical consistency is at least a requirement.

In some ways, what I'm discussing is something that is tentatively valid, to put in place of something that I consider to be invalid (statism). So yes its possible that there are other potentially valid theories that could be used instead.

Then the question is whether we ought to consider objective reality or subjective reality. If there is a god, objective reality encompasses both physical and moral elements. If we assume that there is no divine force, no inherent purpose in the world, objective reality is only the physical and all matter subject to our individual perceptions. Individual perception then, is subjective. That is, without inherent purpose in the universe, the purpose of our existence depend on the purpose laid out by the individual in question. Whether you like it or not then, individual purpose will be different among different individuals.

I'm not sure I agree with you when you say that without God, objective moral elements don't exist. The effects of moral choices are measurable and objective, even if doing 'the right thing' is optional.

The problem with UPB is that it asserts the 'rules' as absolute truths without examining their origin or their purpose. If we assume that there is no god, there is no inherent purpose, only individual purposes. Individual purposes are malleable and transformable. That is, external and internal catalysts can alter individual purposes. The reality then is that no absolute and unchanging rule can be fished from an individual, let alone from all of society. Instead, 'rules' are positively enforced by sovereigns and governments in law, or indirectly enforced by community consensus on the lay-concept of 'morality'. UPB runs into such a trap. UPB 'theorists' attempt to fish objective rules from the law and from community consensus despite condemning 'democratic morality'. But UPB is derived from 'democratic morality', taking out the parts that are 'logically inconsistent' (but democratic morality comes from the logic of consequences and the logic of anthropological evolution, not from the logic of semantics and language). After UPB strips democratic morality of some of its essential parts the 'moral' product that remains become useless.

This is an interesting way to look at it, I didn't really think about it in the way you've expressed it. But even though individual purposes are different, I'm not sure if it would be consistent to just let morality turn on what each person thought. It would violate the notion that we're all moral equals, because some people would then be able to do things other people can't.

When the effects of decisions are objective, doesn't that suggest that the overall moral code is also objective?

As for where the rules(absolute truths) come from, doesn't it just make sense that rules need to apply to us all equally? How could a moral theory ever claim to be a law without being universally applicable?

First off, was your above link (to the UPB thingo) a proof of this, or do you have another proof elsewhere?

Yea that's the one.
Proving Libertarian Morality

(1) Sure, there is a sense in which it is contradictory to argue against preferred behavior (since one's position on the matter indicates some form of preferences). However, and this is a big however, the important point is not whether preferred behavior exists, but whether universal preferred behavior (UPB) exists. Note that you claim that the above argument shows the logical existence of UPB when really all it establishes is the existence of some form of preferred behavior, universal or otherwise. One can happily claim that UPB does not exist without risking any inconsistency. This is because one can consistently hold that a number of different preference sets exist, none of which is universal (furthermore, the argument would recognise the fact that it is conducted from within a preference set).

edit: I found a thread on freedomainradio where someone pretty much asksa similar question: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/91628.aspx

Here are two answers by other people:

Welcome aboard, Jeff! What preference would be exhibiting if you were to say "preferred behavior does not exist?" You're not saying that you would PREFER that preferred behavior didn't exist, but you're saying that it, in reality, does not exist. Saying gravity exists isn't akin to preferring gravity doesn't exist, for example. But there is a preference being exhibited -- and the preference is that "truth is preferable to falsehood." And very much implicit in the definition of truth is that truth is universal. That's where the "U" in "UPB" comes in.

I think the key thing about the statement "Universally preferred behavior does not exist." is that it occurs within the context of a conversation and refers to other people's beliefs as well as the speakers. It is generally the same as "I do no believe in universally preferred behavior and neither should you or anyone else." This is the same as "Noone should believe in UPB." That is an example of UPB.

The only alternative meaning is "I don't believe in UPB, but you can believe whatever you want. I don't care." This is consistent. However it is not an objection to UPB. It is only an expression of disinterest in the topic.

Because of this, no objection to the existence of UPB can be raised, only arguments about the content of UPB.

I think this last sentence here might be noteworthy there, because you're talking about people's different preferences. Perhaps you're not really disputing the existence of UPB, but the content of UPB?

(2) I also want to note that I am uncertain whether it is reasonable to lump all preferred behavior together like that. Mightn't we establish categories of logical preference and moral preference, and then argue against the existence of moral behavioral preferences from within our set of logical preferences?

I think if a moral behavioural preference ever turns out not to be universally preferable (or goes against a logical preference), then it would be precluded from being a preferable behaviour in the first place.

eg. somebody might say that its preferable to steal for him, but logically we know that as a universal theory, stealing would not work (property rights become both valid and invalid at the same time), therefore the very notion that stealing is a preferable behaviour is discounted.

In brief: on what grounds do you claim that morality is objective or universal?

To put it in a sentence, I think its because the effects of our moral decisions are objective and measurable.

 

[KFunk]

It seems as though a lot of equivocation goes on in the use of the term 'universal'. Here are two importantly different uses, where I use '*' to indicate different useage ('universal', versus 'universal-star'):

(1) A moral principle can be universal in that it applies to all people, e.g. everyone should have the right to free speech.

(2) A moral principle can be universal* in that it is universally held, e.g. it might be the case that everybody believes that it is wrong to kill.

Molyneux claims that "morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours". My understanding is that a 'preferred behavior' is a behavior that the individual holding the preference would prefer others to engage in. For example, one might prefer that people not sing loudly in the middle of a funeral. No doubt, an individual can universally [in the sense of (1)] prefer a behavior by preferring, of all people, that they engage in that behavior. I do not doubt that such preferences can exist and, more importantly, I think that 'should' statements, when made, often imply this kind of universal preference --> which makes me wonder why this sense of universal even needs to be tacked onto 'PB', suggesting perhaps that 'universal*' was intended. I should here note that the fact that a preference is universal [in the sense of (1)] does not make it true in any objective sense. In other words, its being universal does not ensure that there is any objective fact external to your preferences that makes it true.

Now consider the other option: universal* preferred behavior (U*PB). At a longshot one might be able to argue that there exists some behavior which is universally* preferred. But to suggest that there exists a complete and consistent set of moral rules which are universally* preferred is rediculous. It is the existence of U*PB which I feel one can safetly deny, rather than UPB which is rather uncontroversial. If Molyneux advocates U*PB then I feel that he does so incorrectly.

(In answer to - In brief: on what grounds do you claim that morality is objective or universal?)

To put it in a sentence, I think its because the effects of our moral decisions are objective and measurable.

I don't understand how the objectivity/measureability of actions which stem from moral decisions make morality objective. Consider the following analogy:

Suppose, for example, that there is a French woman whom I consider beautiful. One day I am sitting in a cafe, munching on a croissant, when she walks by, causing me to become 'hot and aroused'. Note now that this state of being 'hot and aroused' can be measured objectively through various physiological and psychological tests. The effects of the woman's beauty are objective and measureable. Does this then entail that the woman is objectively beautiful?

I believe the answer to be in the negative - that beauty is subjective, not objective. Other individuals from different backgrounds - cultural, religious, whatever - may not find the woman beautiful at all, and some may even find her unattractive or ugly. My view is that moral beliefs are similarly subjective and socially constructed.

My question to you is then: how is morality any different from beauty in the above case? How can the fact that "the effects of our moral decisions are objective and measurable" make morality objective?

 

[volition]

It seems as though a lot of equivocation goes on in the use of the term 'universal'. Here are two importantly different uses, where I use '*' to indicate different useage ('universal', versus 'universal-star'):

(1) A moral principle can be universal in that it applies to all people, e.g. everyone should have the right to free speech.

(2) A moral principle can be universal* in that it is universally held, e.g. it might be the case that everybody believes that it is wrong to kill.

Molyneux claims that "morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours". My understanding is that a 'preferred behavior' is a behavior that the individual holding the preference would prefer others to engage in. For example, one might prefer that people not sing loudly in the middle of a funeral. No doubt, an individual can universally [in the sense of (1)] prefer a behavior by preferring, of all people, that they engage in that behavior. I do not doubt that such preferences can exist and, more importantly, I think that 'should' statements, when made, often imply this kind of universal preference --> which makes me wonder why this sense of universal even needs to be tacked onto 'PB', suggesting perhaps that 'universal*' was intended. I should here note that the fact that a preference is universal [in the sense of (1)] does not make it true in any objective sense. In other words, its being universal does not ensure that there is any objective fact external to your preferences that makes it true.

Now consider the other option: universal* preferred behavior (U*PB). At a longshot one might be able to argue that there exists some behavior which is universally* preferred. But to suggest that there exists a complete and consistent set of moral rules which are universally* preferred is rediculous. It is the existence of U*PB which I feel one can safetly deny, rather than UPB which is rather uncontroversial. If Molyneux advocates U*PB then I feel that he does so incorrectly.

In the sense of (2), the only thing that we have to accept as a UPB is that truth is preferable to falsehood (because arguing that UPB doesn't exist is itself a statement of preference). Everything else is up for debate.

In preferring truth to falsehood, it can be argued that effectively, this is arguing that we should use the scientific method (which is objective) to seek the truth, and that this is a preferable behaviour. Because if you seek the truth, it is logical that you want any theory to be: (a) universal, (b) logical, (c) empirically verifiable, (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible

As for the 'complete set of consistent moral rules that apply universally', I think that's what we're actually arguing about now! It's false moral propositions that UPB is designed to disprove, if that makes sense.

So yeah, its not to say that everyone actually does prefer no murdering to murdering (there may always exist some crazy individual that wants to murder), but it is to say that those people who say that "murder is ok" are proven wrong by the use of the scientific method. And thus, the 'principle' allowing murder is reduced to mere opinion or personal preference.

I don't understand how the objectivity/measureability of actions which stem from moral decisions make morality objective.

I'm not the best at explaining this stuff and its pretty confusing, so let me take another stab at showing where the 'absolute realm of truths' of morality comes from. And then I'll have a look at your analogy.

Imagine this interaction between 2 people:
person A: Morality is only relative
person B: Relative to what?
person A: Relative to oneself
person B now decides that 'relative to himself' it'd be a great idea to kick person A's ass
person A now decides that 'relative to himself' it's not ok for person B to kick his ass

Now how would these two people decide which decision is correct? Whatever this standard is, that's where the 'absolute realm of truth' lies (or as dhj put it earlier, the big old book of morality). The alternative is "might makes right", which I'm pretty sure you guys don't agree with.

Now instead of "relative to oneself" you could try and say "relative to society", which is where you get these euphemism-type phrases like the "social good" or "community good" from, but I think we need to point out here that morally, "society" doesn't exist. Society is a concept, whereas the only actual moral agents are humans. So just to reiterate what I was saying before, moral rules apply to people, not concepts.

Now its possible to have a personal preference for things but that doesn't necessarily say anything useful or solve anything. I'm perfectly entitled to the opinion that rocks fall upwards, but I'd be wrong to say it, and I consider this in much the same way that I'd think if someone said that theft is ok. So yes we do have our own feelings about what is right and wrong, but ultimately this isn't the sole determinant of what is right and wrong. For our personal opinions and preferences to become actual moral rules/principles, they need to be subjected to the scientific method. (dhj, this is what I was talking about when I was saying that your moral theories need to be subjected to the scientific method, and as long as you accept majority rule is valid, then I think your theory is only a personal preference and not a valid statement of moral rule or principle)

Oh yeah, I think the 'absolute realm of truths' effectively requires us to only have "freedom from", rather than "freedom to". (negative rights rather than positive rights) Because obviously people have the "freedom from" getting their ass kicked

Bit of a random question (to either KFunk or dhj, or whoever is still following the thread):
When you say that "morality is subjective or relative to oneself" - would you say this statement is objectively true?

Consider the following analogy:

Suppose, for example, that there is a French woman whom I consider beautiful. One day I am sitting in a cafe, munching on a croissant, when she walks by, causing me to become 'hot and aroused'. Note now that this state of being 'hot and aroused' can be measured objectively through various physiological and psychological tests. The effects of the woman's beauty are objective and measureable. Does this then entail that the woman is objectively beautiful?

I believe the answer to be in the negative - that beauty is subjective, not objective. Other individuals from different backgrounds - cultural, religious, whatever - may not find the woman beautiful at all, and some may even find her unattractive or ugly. My view is that moral beliefs are similarly subjective and socially constructed.

My question to you is then: how is morality any different from beauty in the above case? How can the fact that "the effects of our moral decisions are objective and measurable" make morality objective?

Not really sure how to go about answering this, so here are a few:

1. Getting aroused by some hot chick is an involuntary reaction. Morality deals with situations where you have a choice to do something. If you didn't have the opportunity to NOT do something, how can you be immoral for doing it? I don't think your analogy is a 'choice', let alone a moral choice.

2. Perhaps you're not really being fair with your logical connections here? In saying that you can objectively measure your reaction to this french woman, maybe you're really just objectively proving "that you find her attractive", not that she is objectively attractive.

I think there's a difference between one person finding a woman attractive and this woman actually being objectively attractive.

3. This is more a situation of preference than of moral choices. There are actions that we hold to have no real moral status. Like preferring chocolate icecream to strawberry icecream. It's not immoral or moral, its just... whatever flavour icecream you like.

 

[KFunk]

As for the 'complete set of consistent moral rules that apply universally', I think that's what we're actually arguing about now! It's false moral propositions that UPB is designed to disprove, if that makes sense.

So yeah, its not to say that everyone actually does prefer no murdering to murdering (there may always exist some crazy individual that wants to murder), but it is to say that those people who say that "murder is ok" are proven wrong by the use of the scientific method. And thus, the 'principle' allowing murder is reduced to mere opinion or personal preference.

In what sense can UPB disprove a moral belief?

 

[volition]

In what sense can UPB disprove a moral belief?

It can downgrade a statement from a 'moral theory' to mere personal opinion by subjecting it to the scientific method.

If for example a theory turns out to be logically inconsistent, then this theory could never be held to be valid. Therefore if someone still holds this belief, that person is only able to hold it as a personal preference, and not as something that is 'fact' if you know what I mean.

Think of it like disproving a scientific theory if that helps.