Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American conservatism. Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle. Good for you... it's not, IMO. Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's Harm no one and do what thou wilt, with the harm no one clause being optional--particularly when doing business. That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment of social responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have to do anything for our neighbors because the universe will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism. But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux respondents. Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise. This actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and conservatives. The first is that taxes are a form of theft. The second is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money. Ack. Again, no morality here. Pragmatic arguments are not moral arguments, they are complementary. Many seemingly practical arguments are outlandish because they are immoral, which, for example, is Swift's point in A Modest Proposal. The moral principle that taxes are theft suffers from a similar limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft. Newspeak! Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian thought about the world. It is a shallow exercise in participant observation. To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially empathize with our libertarian subject. Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com mailto:tship...@deru.com wrote: It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American conservatism. Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle. Good for you... it's not, IMO. It is in the sense that a libertarian tends to believe that markets optimally allocate resources, so a market based economy is best for promoting the commonwealth. The greatest good is a rather pragmatic moral principle and very widely held. That is what I meant by not particularly based on moral principle. Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's Harm no one and do what thou wilt, with the harm no one clause being optional--particularly when doing business. That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment of social responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have to do anything for our neighbors because the universe will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism. No it is a morality. A libertarian believes that nosy neighbors, let alone the state, should stay out of ones personal life. Thus, recreational drugs should be decriminalized and sexual queers should not be discriminated against. But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux respondents. Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise. This actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and conservatives. The first is that taxes are a form of theft. The second is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money. Ack. Again, no morality here. Pragmatic arguments are not moral arguments, they are complementary. Many seemingly practical arguments are outlandish because they are immoral, which, for example, is Swift's point in A Modest Proposal. I did not intend to state that these were pragmatic. Quite the contrary, I consider them VERY logical but utterly un-pragmatic. I will focus on the principle taxes are theft. If you asked my informant is theft right, he would say no, theft is wrong. Thus, he would also say that taxes are wrong, perhaps a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Behind the principle that taxes are wrong is a ratio to the effect that taking someone else's property whether by stealth, guile, or force is theft and morally reprehensible. Indeed, unless I part company with my property entirely of my own free will, or exceptionally as punishment for wrongdoing, it must be theft. It is a moral principle of Others. It's just not yours. The moral principle that taxes are theft suffers from a similar limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft. Newspeak! I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
Trent Shipley wrote: ... The moral principle that taxes are theft suffers from a similar limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft. Newspeak! I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however. Trent-- No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country. Is everybody happy now? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
That falls in with IAAMOAC. There are dues to pay when you are a member. -- Matt - Original Message From: David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 5:11:02 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood. Trent Shipley wrote: ... The moral principle that taxes are theft suffers from a similar limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft. Newspeak! I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however. Trent-- No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country. Is everybody happy now? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's Harm no one and do what thou wilt, with the harm no one clause being optional--particularly when doing business. That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment of social responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have to do anything for our neighbors because the universe will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism. Well, how do you define what a moral principal is? I'd argue it is an axiom of a system of ethics. Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics, but that does not keep it from being an ethical system. You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals. You can either posit them explicitly, or implicitly. Personally, I prefer explicit, because the principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down withRobin Hood.
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Trent Shipley Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 3:23 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down withRobin Hood. While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian thought about the world. It is a shallow exercise in participant observation. To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially empathize with our libertarian subject. I have a question for you Trentdon't libertarians assume that, in a free market, those that create wealth get to keep at least a tenth of a percent of the wealth they create? I've got a trillion dollar counterfactual that I've discussed here before for that argument. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
