2sense: “I still do not understand what type of govenmental system the L. context would be in.”
Think about it this way: a governmental system operates within a context, not the other way around.
“Freedom”, “rights”, “liberty”, “justice”, “morality”; all of these terms have complicated ordinary (dictionary) meanings, and strong emotional connotations. To try to give them a specific meaning, and then to assign the general emotional connotation to that specific meaning, constitutes the fallacy of equivocation.
In order to justify the acceptance of terminology, one must generally redefine a term to an empirically verifiable meaning and abandon the emotional connotation.
For instance, in other threads I have defined “freedom” as “the ability to perform an action”; “natural freedom” as “the physically possible (i.e. natural) ability to perform an action”; “political freedom” as “the ability to exercise a natural freedom without fear of reprisal from the community”; and a “right” as “the ability to demand the community impose a reprisal for another’s exercise of a natural freedom.” I gain a set of narrow, precise definitions of the words, but I must abandon the ability to reference their emotional connotations. I can no longer say that “my system is better because it’s for Freedom,” any more than I can say, “My system is better because it’s Blue.” To narrow their meanings, I had to abandon the value judgement connotations associated with their complex meanings.
The following faulty syllogigism demonstrates the fallacy of equivocation and underlies he essence of “moral” argument for Libertarianism:
Premise: Freedom is good (by its complex meaning)
Definition: Freedom is the absolute absence of agressive coercion (restricted definition)
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.
Almost all moral justifications of various political theories follow this model. Moral theory only works when people already accept the underlying morality.
Premise: It is morally wrong to enslave human beings (shared morality)
Demonstration: Black people are human beings (by Uncle Tom’s Cabin)
Deduction: Enslaving black people is morally wrong (valid deduction)
The moral argument against black slavery failed, and indeed was fallacious, until the mass of population became convinced that black people were human beings. Stowe’s novel acheived this result and thus introduced the necessary element to validate the moral argument against slavery.
To debate political theories, I propose we can proceed if we can agree upon definitions of “utilitarian value” and “individual intolerance”. The first term is fairly straightforward to understand (although difficult to actually define). The second term refers to actions that, while they might have some positive “utilitarian value” (whatever definition that might have), it is intolerable to implement. For instance (absent a definition, it is useful to consider obvious case) slavery is almost universally held to be individually intolerable regardless of its utilitarian value.
If you accept this basis, we can proceed to define qualities as having or lacking utilitarian value or individual intolerability. I suggest that we take terms one at a time; a good place to start might be a careful and thorough examination of “consent”.
Libertarian:
Let’s all be nice now. Also, please continue to keep an eye on this thread. As long as we’re discussing the why’s and wherefore’s, I feel pretty comfortable. But if we start getting too far into the details of libertarian theory, I may need your help so that I don’t inadvertently credit (or debit) libertarianism with notions that are purely my own.
SingleDad:
Don’t want this to hold us up unnecessarily, but I want to comment on this:
I think the logic would be more correctly stated like this:
Premise: Freedom (complex) is good.
Premise: No person is more or less entitled to freedom (complex) than any other.
Premise: (From a separate argument). Freedom (complex) is maximized for all individuals in a context of absolute absence of aggressive coercion.
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.
On to the terms:
I can see by your choice of terms that this is definitely going to be interesting. I believe your definitions are going to be agreeable to me, but want to make sure that we are agreed on the meanings.
As far as “utilitarian value”, I have no problem with the “utilitarian” part, but want to be sure about the “value” part. Am I correct that you mean that something has utilitarian value if it accomplishes something that is “valuable” to a person or group, or are you referring to a specific type of value?
Also, I am not clear why you are saying individual intolerance when your example is something that is intolerable to a large group of people. Is the key aspect of this, for you, the “individual” part of the “intolerance” part?
-VM
To be meaningful, negative freedom (the existence of options amongst which one can in principle choose) must be accompanied by autonomy (the capacity to make choices which have a real impact on one’s life) and the possibility of valued outcomes. Without autonomy, negative freedom is trivial. Without a base level of outcomes, negative freedom is merely a right to be frustrated.
picmr
picmr:
While these things are true, I’m not real sure where they fit into the debate as it stands. Was there a larger point you were making and I missed it? I think sometimes you like to make other people’s positions more complicated without necessarily offering a position of your own. And I also think that when you do it, you probably engage in a chilling laugh.
-VM
Smartass
(Love your handle, by the way…)
Have I been Not(Nice)?
As you wish, but precious little libertarian theory is being discussed here (excepting your and Single Dad’s latest excellent exchanges). It has morphed from its original (ridiculous) assertion that the U.S. is socialist — it is, in fact, Fabianist — to a more complicated argument about political systems. Inasmuch as libertarianism is not a political system, that whole line of argument seems to be much ado about nothing.
I have, however, invited Single Dad to voice his opposition to the libertarian political philosophy in another thread. I disdain to hijack this one due to a reputation, however undeserved, that was fostered onto me by a couple of high-clout posters, that I am a thread hijacker.
Besides, you’re holding your own just fine. But I will certainly honor your request to lurk, with the understanding that I am to comment when I see contradictions in matters of theory. Is that correct?
Okay, so I’ve been away for a little while. Samrtass seems to be handling himself without any help from me in any event, but hopefully I’ll be around some more to help out, as it seems I’m the only libertarian here who is interested in the practical aspects more than the ethical ones, so I might be useful.
This seems like a good place to point out that I am not a “true believer” as SingleDad characterized me. I am a libertarian mainly due to a very strong belief in laissez faire capitalism. Libertarianism is the political philosophy most in line with the principles necessary for that. I can see many problems with a libertarian society, but these are mainly practical problems involved with the move away from depending on the government for so many things.
The biggest problem I see, however, is that people simply are most likely not ready for it yet. While I believe that if people behaved rationally, there would be no discrimination in the world, there still is, and government may still be necessary to keep racism and its fellow -isms from having much impact. As humans as a race advance, widespread irrational ideas will disappear, and these governmental protections will be unnecessary. In the meantime, I believe we should be moving towards libertarianism.
I am unlikely to change my mind due to a variety of reasons, not least of which is an incredible stubborness on my part about ever admitting that I am wrong. Libertarianism is also something I have given much thought, and find preferable to any competing system for a wide variety of reasons. I will hear out criticisms (although I would prefer that people not call me “elitist” or “religious zealot”, as I believe I have been avoiding name calling) but if you seek to change my mind, it is going to be an uphill battle.
Oh, and I’ll disagree with the notion of calling ourselves a religion. Last thing I want is The Wealth of Nations kept out of schools as a religious text.
SingleDad:
First, it’s spelled “non sequitur”, and yes that was one as well, although I disagree with your characterization of a few of my statements above.
Now on to the real issues. You mention that by not leaving the US, I am consenting to be governed by it. I maintain that an agreement that is imposed upon me by force, and which I am able to leave only at a cost to myself is not a consentual agreement. I cannot come over to your house with a gun and declare you my slave, although you are free to sell the property and move away if you like. Basically, the United States Government is using force to alter the terms of the agreement such that I must leave the country to not participate in it.
A consentual agreement that is free of coercion is one where the parties involved can choose to not make the agreement and still be in the same situation as before. By incurring a penalty, through the use of force, upon one of the parties for not agreeing, the agreement is no longer free of coercion.
This could apply to your thought experiment by saying that if Bill and Ted actually control every possible source of water, then for them to use it as a bargaining tool is wrong because the penalty upon the thirsty person for not agreeing is death, thus the agreement is coerced. This is, however, my own interpretation, not one that is necessarily held by all Libertarians. However, I do not believe that this sort of bizarre occurence is the proper way to test a context for everyone to live in.
2Sense:
Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss The Art of War. It should prove interesting. And we could stop these hijacks of unrelated threads, despite the great fun they are.
matt_mcl:
I appreciate your email about the Fed, haven’t been able to entirely read through it yet, but it is certainly enlightening.
waterj2
Yes, the “you are free to leave” argument is a classic false dilemma. It is like a troll proclaiming, “you are free to move this site.”
Libertarian:
Thanks–just trying not to misrepresent myself.
Well, this is what I was responding to:
Obviously, you could probly get by okay using my name, but I’m not steeped enough in theory to trade with you.
That’s actually what I’m referring to. Since I’m not sure where he’s going with his current argument, I’m a little concerned we might get into areas that I don’t know enough about to comment on “correctly”. So far, though, we’ve pretty much stuck with areas I feel pretty confident about.
I note that this was done only after Gadarene gave permission.
I assume you’re talking about the “Calling all Libertarians” thread? I’ve been enjoying reading it. At this point, I don’t see how anyone could accuse you of hijacking this thread–that “honor” would have to go to matt_mcl and me.
Exactly so. If I’m saying things that are coming from my ass and crediting them to libertarianism, please point it out so that we minimize the chance that anyone might get my ass and libertarianism confused. Since you are more steeped in the lore, you will be most likely to notice if I stray.
waterj2:
I hope so, too–I definitely find your posts “useful”.
The biggest problem I see is so many people are completely unaware of it. I think if we can spread knowledge, readiness will take care of itself. Which is why I bother with these kinds of debates.
-VM
My apologies folks if my posts in this thread have not been clear. I don’t write as well as some others.
I do however think that Smartass’s reply to my assertion that autonomy and outcomes matter as well as negative freedom is useful here:
This is surely as crucial point (although not all libertarians would agree with it). As I read it, it allows you to deal with the hypothetical repugnant conclusion posited by Singledad.
What you seem to be saying is that negative freedom is important in itself, but is not the only important thing. But in practice it is also instrumentally important: more negative freedom would lead to greater autonomy and better outcomes (I would wholeheartedly agree with this).
Doesn’t this allow you to say that the situation put forward by Singledad troubles you, but that your position is not meant to apply to all conceivable circumstances, just likely ones?
picmr
I’m off to lunch in a few minutes, so I’ll restrict this post to a few technical items. I promise a substantive reply as soon as time permits.
Smartass:
It is the highlighted premise that I consider not proven. picmr makes a prima facie case that the premise is not obviously true (note the word placement; “not obviously true” differs from “obviously not true”).
As far as “utilitarian value” and “individual intolerance” go, I am deliberately using fuzzy terms as a starting point for debating a system of “meta-politics”: the philosophy of determining the relative value of differing political systems. Although currently lacking in a truly objective definition, these terms seem to have an intuitive appeal in such a meta-political philosophy.
Libertarian:
With all due respect, we have a degree of momentum going in this thread, so I’m going to keep my arguments here. Much as I would wish to, my time is too limited to allow me to engage in more than one debate of this nature. To be honest, I also find Smartass a more interesting interlocutor.
waterj2:
Damn… I thought I checked that out in the dictionary. I stand corrected.
Wow! “I am only an egg” is the first phrase that springs to my mind.
As a self-registered (and how else!?!) Practical Anarchist, I plan to enjoy the show, perhaps tossing in the occasional comment or question to feed the flames, er, I mean, stimulate discussion. 
From my spectator’s seat, I can reassure you that all of the snide namecalling and armwaving rhetoric, particularly when it’s as well crafted as yours, does indeed serve a purpose, namely to spice up the debates. OK, nuff flattery. On with the show! <comfie seating - check, yummy goodies - check, choice of potables - check!> Yep, I’m ready. Bring on the gladiators!
[/quote]
After y’all finish defining ‘free(dom)’ (you did end up agreeing, right? could you explicitly state the agreed-upon definition(s) for us kibitzers?), would you please move on to ‘right(s)’? I think I have a basic understanding of what the nonLib side means (although I’d welcome a stated definition), but I’m unclear on the Lib side. I’ve seen you use the term as if you meant absolute or ‘inalienable’ rights, but when I see Smartass say “and cannot justify it by the protection of another person’s more fundamental right”, then it seems that there’s some sort of Libertarian ‘hierarchy of rights’. I’m so confoosed!
Thanks!
SingleDad
I understand.
It is important, though, that people are not mislead to believe that libertarianism, per se, is being debated here. What is being debated here is not whether people who are peaceful and honest ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Rather, what is being debated here is 1 whether and 2 how a libertarian society might evolve differently than a statist society.
Were I involved in the debate, I would concede 1 and point out that 2 is hopelessly speculative. You know, since we’re supposing…
Well, at least on that we can agree.
Smartass
I hope this will be helpful. If it isn’t, please feel free to ignore it. I’ve put together a brief, informal list of definitions and contextualizations of terms with respect to the libertarian philosophy, hopefully to assist you in your arguments as to how a libertarian society might evolve:
[List=1]
[li]Property — that which was given to you by God or nature (e.g., your life), as well as that which you have peacefully and honestly acquired (e.g., your money)[/li][li]Ownership — authority over property (i.e., the owner of a thing is he who ultimately makes the decisions with respect to it)[/li][li]Rights — the attributes of ownership (e.g., you have the right make decisions with respect to your own life, but not with respect to mine)[/li][li]Force — intentional assault, threat, or usurpation against ownership[/li][li]Fraud — misrepresentation of intentions, value, or suitability[/li][li]Coercion — the abridgement of rights (i.e., the use of initial force or fraud)[/li][li]Freedom — the absence of coercion[/li][/List=1]
Note the implications of these definitions. For example:
[ul]
[li]The use of force in your own defense is not coercion; neither is tricking a thief to recover property he has stolen from you.[/li][li]Eminent domain conveys de facto ownership of all property to government.[/li][li]If your rights are unabridged, then you are free.[/li][/ul]
And so on…
picmr:
We are agreed then. SingleDad, however, is uncomfortable without guarantees.
Indeed, you are correct. However, I am intrigued by how strongly SingleDad feels about his position. I get the impression that he believes that he has a solution that “modifies” libertarianism in a way that makes it applicable in all conceivable circumstances. Obviously, after this modification, it is no longer libertarianism per se, but I’m wondering if the modifications will be unobtrusive enough to be acceptable. That is to say, I wouldn’t know how to implement a purely libertarian government, maybe what he suggests will be as close as we can realistically hope for.
Also, it is apparent that SingleDad will not be satisfied with a system that he thinks has such big weaknesses. As I think it would be good for libertarians in general if he were won over, I’m don’t mind seeing where he’s going with this.
SingleDad:
Indeed. It has been at the crux of our discussion. I think the situation is as follows:
-I cannot prove this to be true to your satisfaction.
-You cannot disprove it to my satisfaction.
Your thought experiment shows that you think that there is an exception to the rule: economic exploitation. Your objection is that the system does not actively prevent it. I don’t believe any government can completely protect anyone, so I feel comfortable leaving it to the people to prevent this from happening, and trust their ability to do so.
Which leaves us at an impasse as far as that argument goes. I just wanted to point out that our belief in the argument wasn’t totally irrational.
So, onto the current approach:
I don’t have a problem with leaving them fuzzy for now. Obviously, though, this fuzziness may lead to another impasse as we proceed.
Please continue.
Thank you.
redtail23:
Please provide more of the context where you saw this. At this point, I don’t know whether I misspoke myself or not.
I don’t know if libertarians hold to an actual hierarchy. However, many people have sort of a mental hierarchy, with life being the most fundamental right. After all, once its taken from you, other rights do you little good. We have to be careful when discussing hierarchies, though–each person has his own personal one. Better to go by Lib’s definitions.
Lib:
Thanks for the definitions.
-VM
This is getting interesting. For spectators, don’t assume that everyone on the two sides agree across the board. I doubt for example whether Smartass, Water2j and Libertarian agree, and whether Singledad and I do.
However:
Lib: You proposed the following defintions:
For what it is worth, it seems to me that all of 1-4 and 6 depend on your definition of “property”. (I don’t understand what you mean by “suitability”, but let it pass).
Your point 7 has already been mentioned, either here or close by: not everyone understands “freedom” in this way. “Freedom” can mean “freedom to” and “freedom from”: your definition refers to negative freedom.
I do not agree with your definition of property. I do not think there could be a notion of property independent of a political and economic system (libertarian or other). Rightly or wrongly, stuff is only “property” if it is practicably defensible in one’s social situation.
On to Smartass:
I guess this is the point I was trying to get at, which in my mind distinguishes “political libertarians” from “philosophical libertarians” in my book. The former see negative freedom as an important element in a “social welfare function” which is currently undervalued. The latter see negative freedom as the “social” welfare function.
[note: I have not been following the “Calling all Libertarians” thread over the past couple of days: the board has been playing up for me, and I have not been able to see much. Apologies if I am missing points that have been made there.]
picmr
picmr:
Those definitions Libertarian posted were not actually part of the debate–he was offering them to me on the assumption that I already agree with the underlying notions. My understanding of libertarian theory is based primarily on my agreement with the platform of the political party. Lib is making sure that I am properly grounded in theory.
Also, for what it’s worth, I think we all agree that no definition of property has meaning if it can’t be agreed on by the people involved. Needless to say, libertarians will want to convince you that the libertarian definition is the best.
I’m not sure what you mean by “social welfare function”. If you’re referring to government-implemented social welfare, then I think pretty much all political and philosophical libertarians would hold it as a violation of their rights. On the other hand, if your referring to a system implemented by choice, then some would want to participate and some wouldn’t.
-VM
I’m using “social welfare function” to mean “function which evaluates ethical achievement of society.”
So a utilitrian SWF would evaluate states according to net “happiness”, an equalitarian SWF as achievement of equality etc.
A purely libertarian SWF would evaluate states according to negative freedom: two states (fully specified situations) with different levels of goods/ outcomes but the same degree of negative freedom would be of the same social value. As would be clear from above, I would not regard outcomes as a matter of indifference.
picmr
I thank you for the time that you put in discussing your politics with me. I still do not understand your position as well as I would like, but I am going to lurk for now. I am interested in seeing this debate move forward and I believe that posters like picmr, mattmcl, and SingleDad are doing a fine job of representing my viewpoint. If I have questions that are unanswered then I will ask them.
You seem to me to be holding your own here against some heavy competition. Kudos!
picmr:
Okay; think I’m starting to get you now. It’s been a few years, so I’m sometimes caught off guard by “academic” terminology.
I think it’s easy to point to libertarianism and say that negative freedom, in and of itself, leaves out too many other results to be a meaningful basis for government.
However, I think you know that libertarians aren’t just saying that freedom supercedes all other concerns because of its inherent value. Rather, libertarians would argue that this equality of negative freedoms leads more effectively than any other system to the maximization of others, like happiness.
Also, attempts to raise other social welfare functions by providing unequal negative freedoms carry too high a cost. In other words, if you try to increase happiness by removing some negative freedoms, or giving more to some people than others, then you lower the overall happiness (assuming each person’s happiness is of equal value).
Does this make sense?
2sense:
Glad you hear from you, and thanks.
-VM