MAGIC SOOUULLLSSSS Libertarian

[Mistborn]

ISP you do realize that calling your opponents Nazi's and communists at the same time makes you look stupid and juvenile.

[Occluded Sun]

If we condemn any accurate description of foolish people's foolish positions as 'stupid and juvenile', then the dumbth will win.

Which is the only motivation for attacking accurate analysis that makes sense.

[Mistborn]

If we condemn any accurate description of foolish people's foolish positions as 'stupid and juvenile', then the dumbth will win.

Which is the only motivation for attacking accurate analysis that makes sense.

What bizarre alternate universe are you living in, nothing ISP just typed was accurate or sensical. ISP is just Zaking at this point he lost this argument months ago when he said the problem with Somalia was too much government.

[...You Lost Me]

I'm pretty confident ISP is just trolling. His posts here have a noticeably different voice than they do on IMHO... but that could be wrong.

[nockermensch]

Is ISP even trying at this point? That post was nothing but bait.

[DSMatticus]

First: you are begging the question. People are asking you why you think you can use the laws of the universe to derive non-arbitrary moral axioms, and you are responding with... the laws of the universe can be used to derive moral axioms and they're non-arbitrary because... reasons.

1: You don't understand what the phrase "begging the question" means.

2: You don't understand what 'arbitrary' means, either. The primary definition - which is the one most appropriate for this context - is "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion".

A related definition is "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle".

I've met my burden of argument. You haven't.

If people ask you why you think the ethical statements you can supposably derive from the laws of the universe have non-arbitrary value (your original claim), and you answer that they have non-arbitrary value because they are derived from the laws of the universe (your latest argument), that is begging the question. It's not an argument, it's just the boldly-stated reassertion of your initial assumptions without any defense at all. Repeating yourself with "so there" on the end is not how you meet the burdens of an argument.

The arbitrariness bit is complicated, because you are double-fucking-wrong. The broader argument here is about whether or not you can justify the ethical values you have from a purely logical basis, or if you have those ethical values because they are simply the ethical values you have and are trying to justify them after the fact. Both definitions of arbitrary apply. But the core question is whether or not you can justify them solely by logic and reason (or if you cannot, in which case they would be arbitrary), and you have clearly not done that.

If we condemn any accurate description of foolish people's foolish positions as 'stupid and juvenile', then the dumbth will win.

Are you really this thick? Is it difficult embarrassing yourself this thoroughly in such a short period of time? If you accuse people of being nazis and communists in the same breath, anyone who actually knows and understands the ideologies behind those movements will laugh at you. They are deeply incompatible with one another. But ISP did exactly that, because for all his protesting he is actually just a Fox News tier conservative who regurgitates all the memes and buzzwords that find their way to him through the rightwing media machine, and that means the people who disagree with him are all the badwords he has been taught to call the people who disagree with him, no matter how nonsensical that ends up being. And when you rush to his defense, nodding along and chanting "amen," it tells us you don't know what those words mean either, but will mindlessly cheerlead whoever agrees with you regardless of how blatantly retarded they are being. Clearly, you're a man of knowledge and integrity.

[Occluded Sun]

If people ask you why you think the ethical statements you can supposably derive from the laws of the universe have non-arbitrary value (your original claim), and you answer that they have non-arbitrary value because they are derived from the laws of the universe (your latest argument), that is begging the question.

That is not what "begging the question" means.

My point was that certain principles are not arbitrary. I explained how they are derived from deeper principles, principles that underlie human existence and are not defined by them. By definition, that makes them NOT ARBITRARY.

Now, if you'd like to argue that the nature of existence itself is arbitrary, you're free to do so. But even if they are, concepts which follow from existence aren't.

Of course, you don't exactly have the intellectual chops to grasp this point. I do hope you're deriving some satisfaction from acting the fool, because other than amusing the various people laughing at your behavior, that's the only value that comes from your posts.

[Kaelik]

(Speaking of the Kaelik, his questionnaire was really hilarious. Not only does sneak all kinds of completely unjustified assumptions into its bullshit questions, but then he asks me to define terms he uses in his own questions. Good job dude.)

If you have a problem filling in the blank you could point to which parts are not true of your beliefs. Oh wait, that would require you actually having an honest discussion about your beliefs instead of lying the fuck out of yourself just declaring that you don't believe the stupid things you definitely do believe.

But good job casting derision on the very concept of informed conversation by refusing to define terms that you personally used to describe your own beliefs. That is fucking priceless.

Well to be fair, Kaelik did try to distance himself from that radical position, by suggesting well maybe just SOMETIMES there are alternatives to the law of contradiction, when it’s APPROPRIATE. But he is pure fail. He offers as a true statement “the law of contradiction has alternatives” yet in the very assertion of his thesis, he must assume that the position is false! Because what is he asserting? Obviously he intends us to believe that the logic used in establishing the conventionality of logic is itself somehow exempt from the conventional character just ascribed to other logics. But what logic is he using? Uhhh, are you starting to see the problem here?

I realize you want very badly to talk about the law of non-contradiction, and you very much don't want to talk about anarchy. I realize this is because every single time you talk about anarchy and governments you are super obviously and idiot, whereas when you talk about the law of non contradiction you are merely obviously an idiot.

None the less I will briefly address this, because you are an idiot.

What I said was that without claiming it is in fact true, it could be really simple to see how the law of non-contradiction is true sometimes and false others, and that which is which is context dependent.

The statement "The Law of Non Contradiction is true sometimes and false others, but is true when applied to this statement." is logically as justified as anything stating that the law of non contradiction is always true.

I am not asserting that the Law of Non Contradiction has alternatives that always apply, I am asserting that the statement "The Law of Non Contradiction is sometimes true and sometimes false." is logically possible, and that the statement can be true, and it's negation false, because in that instance the Law of Non Contradiction applies.

Now, what kind of things make it true or false? How would you know if you ran into a situation that was true or false? Gee, sounds like the kind of thing for people to do complex logical thesises on, but who gives a shit. It is still easy to see how it could be true.

EDIT: Sorted according to relevance instead of chronology.

[DSMatticus]

Is ISP even trying at this point? That post was nothing but bait.

"At this point?" It's the exact same thing he did last time he was active in the thread - take a bunch of benign statements, strip them of context, restate them in an extremist form, and then pretend he doesn't have to defend himself from criticism because everyone else is crazy. When people challenged him to defend his bullshit strawmen, he shut the fuck up and wandered off.

Now, it would be trivial to do the exact same thing again - his crazy rant about how Frank rejects the law of non-contradiction is actually a reference to this:

The basic idea is that you shout at anyone who discusses nuance or caveats that they are violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. So you start with something simplistic and non-controversial sounding, then you slippery slope it to whatever the fuck you're arguing for, and then when people call you on your bullshit you shout about logical axioms. It's a really sophomoric argument style, and ISP isn't even doing it right because you're supposed to start with vague positive statements that you can get other people to agree to rather than just jumping in headfirst with the extraordinary claims.

Of course, quantum mechanics being what it is, I'm pretty sure we live in a universe where the Law of Non-Contradiction actually isn't true. But it's still useful for logical discussions to pretend that it is. Still, if anyone attempts to use a formal axiom in an ethical argument, that's a big red flag. Like trying to use an accounting identity as evidence in a discussion of economics.

That's incredibly uninteresting. It's an accusation that ISP is slippery sloping his way to something not unlike a false dichotomy and then (incorrectly) shouting "law of contradiction" at people who disagree with him, plus an aside about how quantum mechanics is weird but the law of contradiction is still a totally useful formal axion despite being very frequently misused in ethical arguments. That's the smoking gun ISP is claiming to have and using to justify his last rant about how everyone else is crazy.

Basically, ISP will do literally anything he can to avoid having a straight-up discussion about his beliefs. He has deliberately ignored every challenge laid out before him, attacked the very notion that he is even obligated to explain his beliefs (let alone defend them), and when all of that failed started filling the thread with as many strawmen as he could in an effort to nuke the conversation.

[Kaelik]

that's the only value that comes from your posts.

Says the person refusing to define value.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Here's an attempt at a logical explanation for a belief:

My Belief:
Given the following circumstances:

• Person A has more stuff than is necessary to maintain what I consider an acceptable standard of living (food, healthcare, games, Internet, a home, etc.)
• Person B does not have enough stuff to maintain what I consider an acceptable standard of living.
• Taking some or all of the "more stuff" from Person A and giving it to Person B ("Action C") would allow Person B to maintain what I consider an acceptable standard of living.

I believe that "Action C" is justified.

My Justification:
Let us consider four situations:

• I am Person A, and Action C is not performed (!C)
• I am Person B, and Action C is not performed (!C)
• I am Person A (now A'), and Action C is performed
• I am Person B (now B'), and Action C is performed

Let us further assign my "acceptable standard of living" an arbitrary numerical value of "10", Person B's initial state a value of "2", and Person A's initial state a value of "20"

	A	B
!C	20	2
C	12	10

Now let's translate that into the boolean, "does this person have what I consider to be an acceptable standard of living?"

	A	B
!C	1	0
C	1	1

People who have what I consider to be an acceptable standard of living:

• A
• A'
• B'

People who do not:

• B

My desire to not be B (and instead be B') vastly outweighs my desire to be A (instead of A'), so I am clearly better served by C than by !C.

[DSMatticus]

If people ask you why you think the ethical statements you can supposably derive from the laws of the universe have non-arbitrary value (your original claim), and you answer that they have non-arbitrary value because they are derived from the laws of the universe (your latest argument), that is begging the question.

That is not what "begging the question" means.

My point was that certain principles are not arbitrary. I explained how they are derived from deeper principles, principles that underlie human existence and are not defined by them. By definition, that makes them NOT ARBITRARY.

Um... do you understand that your defense against the accusation of begging the question is to admit to committing a completely different but equally self-defeating intellectual sleight of hand instead? I can't tell if you're actually that stupid, or if you are trying to pull off a conjob here.

Your argument is that by applying some function to a set of facts you can produce a set of ethical statements which are objectively valid. The challenge that has been posed to you is to explain why applying that function to that set of facts produces objectively valid ethical statements. And your response was "... because they were produced by applying that function to that particular set of facts." Now, that's obviously bullshit, but it could be bullshit in two different ways. The most obvious is that you could be begging the question - that is, after all, just a blind reassertion of your original assumption.

But, to give you credit and then promptly take it away, it could simply be the case that you are too fucking stupid to understand the ramifications of the original question and have been arguing all along that the application of such a function to an objectively true set of facts must produce objectively valid ethical statements. Technically, this would also be begging the question, but it would explain why you are too stupid to understand that that's what you're doing. But more importantly than that, it is also obviously bullshit - it's objectively true that Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate male prostitutes, and there exists a function which takes as input the set of all facts and outputs anything Jeffrey Dahmer did as an ethical good. And the resulting ethical statements include "you should kill and eat male prostitutes."

The burden is still on you to demonstrate that the function you've chosen is objectively the function that should be used. Because there are infinitely many such functions and infinitely many such outputs that you disagree with, and you do have to establish that your's is the "correct" function.

[Occluded Sun]

The burden is still on you to demonstrate that the function you've chosen is objectively the function that should be used.

Y'know, I got into this expecting to have to deal with a lot of trolls. But I didn't expect stupid trolls. I thought the standards of this board were higher than this. I am disappointed.

I don't need to demonstrate that a function "should be used", not least because that implies that I need to demonstrate to humans what decision humans should apply.

It's reality itself that uses that function. We recognize that objective fact - if we use the fatty substance between our ears for anything besides taking up skullspace, which in the case of some people here is questionable - and respond accordingly. To the objective reality.

And it's not even a matter of it being an objective truth in this particular reality, or in one particular model we use to try to grasp reality. Evolutionary principles work in an extremely broad set of conceivable realities. To find ones where they don't work, we need to exclude very basic concepts - like causality and time. And we can barely even comprehend what those realities would be like, to the degree to which they can be modeled in this reality at all.

The truly sad thing is that most philosophers wouldn't have anything more intelligent to say than you do. Oh, the style would be lots more sophisticated, but the basic ignorance and stupidity would be a constant.

[Kaelik]

It's reality itself that uses that function.

My right to property is derived from people's recognition that we have an inherent interest in that sort of thing, manifested in legal protection from the government which derives its powers from said people.

In what way does reality give you a right to private property when the government can take it away any time they want and I can walk in with a gun and take your property after shooting your kneecaps?

In reality people can and do take your property. How does reality then give you a right to private property?

Or was that thing you said earlier completely false and full of shit and do you now retract it.

Pick one:
1) Explain how the principle "Things which propagate and/or continue to exist continue to exist" gives you a right to private property and define right.
2) Admit that you do not have an objective right to private property.
3) Continue to be the laughing stock you are.

[nockermensch]

It's reality itself that uses that function. We recognize that objective fact - if we use the fatty substance between our ears for anything besides taking up skullspace, which in the case of some people here is questionable - and respond accordingly. To the objective reality.

Now I can't tell if you're being sincere (in which case you're a religious nut) or not (in which case you're practicing cargo cult philosophy).

[momothefiddler]

The burden is still on you to demonstrate that the function you've chosen is objectively the function that should be used.

Y'know, I got into this expecting to have to deal with a lot of trolls. But I didn't expect stupid trolls. I thought the standards of this board were higher than this. I am disappointed.

I don't need to demonstrate that a function "should be used", not least because that implies that I need to demonstrate to humans what decision humans should apply.

It's reality itself that uses that function. We recognize that objective fact - if we use the fatty substance between our ears for anything besides taking up skullspace, which in the case of some people here is questionable - and respond accordingly. To the objective reality.

And it's not even a matter of it being an objective truth in this particular reality, or in one particular model we use to try to grasp reality. Evolutionary principles work in an extremely broad set of conceivable realities. To find ones where they don't work, we need to exclude very basic concepts - like causality and time. And we can barely even comprehend what those realities would be like, to the degree to which they can be modeled in this reality at all.

Things that try to survive are more likely to survive than things that don't. Therefore survival is objectively good.

People who try to climb mountains are more likely to be on top of mountains than people who don't. Therefore mountain-climbing is objectively good.

People who attempt to take away your stuff or freedom or life are more likely to take away your stuff or freedom or life. Therefore theft, slavery, and murder are objectively good.

Your argument here is essentially that things are good because they happen, and while that does in fact put you in the best of all possible universes (except apparently not because you're dissatisfied with certain political arrangements for some reason), I can't even begin to conceive under what circumstances this is a better judge of value than, well, anything. Your evidence that living is good is literally that things that are better at living are better at living.

[Maj]

I got into a discussion on SoH similar to this one... It was actually in response to the question, "Are human rights an artificial construct?" (I said no). And I totally thought I was having a breakthrough moment and actually understanding the other perspective. So I asked for clarification by creating an example to see if I understood the underlying principle.

Because all humans have skin that burns upon excessive exposure to sunlight, and thus people of all societies seek to protect themselves from it, humans have a natural right to protection from the sun.

That was apparently wrong on some level, but no one explained how. I got a "not every human instinct correlates to a right" and "the drive to protect one's life and property is an instinct" (which is why it's a right).

I remain stumped.

[MGuy]

As far as this conversation goes I'd say it's wrong because skin protection isn't a universal, moral, or legal entitlement. Don't know why you'd need more than that to explain it.

[Kaelik]

As far as this conversation goes I'd say it's wrong because skin protection isn't a universal, moral, or legal entitlement. Don't know why you'd need more than that to explain it.

Well it is universal, it could be legal, but that would obviously be an artificial construct, and whether or not it is moral depends entirely on you making up an artificial construct of a moral system so same as legal, unless you have the first ever moral system that is in fact not artificial, which is the point, people think they have it, and they never do.

I got a "not every human instinct correlates to a right" and "the drive to protect one's life and property is an instinct" (which is why it's a right).

I remain stumped.

If you just up your cynacism level, everything makes perfect sense.

See, when people say "not every human instinct correlates to a right" they mean "only the ones that justify the ethical theory I already believe in." And the reason they think this is objective is because they are idiots.

[Maj]

The conversation was that rights are derived from evolution and instincts. The legal and moral didn't factor into it. So I came up with what I thought was a universal instinct that should then lead into the creation of a right. The point wasn't that it was realistic, the point was to demonstrate understanding of the principle and thus the process whereby the right to property and life are derived.

[Username17]

Libertarian thought is essentially a shell game. Occluded Sun is particularly bad at this game, and ISP essentially gave up long ago when people called bullshit on him attempting to go to step two of his slippery slope plan. I mean, Occluded Sun is at this point trying to argue that the universe itself gives a flying fuck whether people around you recognize some piece of land as being "yours" in some sense or another even when you aren't physically standing on it. That's basically insane of course, but more importantly it's insane in a way which is completely unconvincing and a waste of everyone's time.

The actual three arguments for Libertarianism are as follows:

• Libertarian policies result in the greatest good for the greatest number.
• Human Autonomy is the greatest good that humans can aspire to.
• Humans have a fundamental right to negative liberty.

Now right away we have a fundamental problem, which is that the first argument is an argument for Libertarian policies, but does not actually make any argument at all for Libertarian philosophy. If we were strict utilitarians, we might be persuaded to adopt policies that Libertarians liked, but we would in no way be moved even an inch towards adopting Libertarian ideals. There is a related, and perhaps even more gratuitous problem with the second and third argument, which is that while they are arguments for Libertarian philosophies, they do not actually imply any support for Libertarian policies. Human Autonomy and Negative Liberty are not, as it turns out, maximized in any plausible sense by the existence of a Libertarian Night Watchman state.

But beyond the simple structural problems of the arguments, the fact also remains that all of these arguments are extremely weak. Indeed, wherever they can be checked against measures other than the faith of the devout, they are simply factually untrue. Libertarian policies are not things that provide the greatest good for the greatest number. This is a testable and tested claim, and Libertarian policies hurt people in measurable and measured ways.

In 1980, Friedman confidently predicted that all Scandinavian countries must quickly retreat from the "road to serfdom" and abolish their interventionist states or become socialist hellholes. thirty four years have come on gone, and Sweden has not, in fact, been plagued by the "high inflation and high unemployment" that Free To Choose predicted for them. Sweden's unemployment rate is 7.9% and their inflation rate is negative. The Swedes did not turn away from their dirty dirty statism (current net tax burdens in Sweden are about two thirds), and the collapse of freedom and the economy very blatantly did not actually appear.

Of course, I'm having to make both sides of this fucking argument, because Occluded Sun is such a fucking jackass that he can't even figure out that before arguing that socialism is metaphorically "the road to serfdom" that you have to first unequivocally denounce actual serfdom as being a bad thing. He still hasn't done that. He still hasn't admitted that maybe the cause of "freedom" was perhaps a little bit worse when literal slavery was still legal.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

It's reality itself that uses that function. We recognize that objective fact - if we use the fatty substance between our ears for anything besides taking up skullspace, which in the case of some people here is questionable - and respond accordingly. To the objective reality.

No, reality does not use that function, because reality does not make ethical statements. Reality makes shit happen, and you are claiming that you can derive ethical statements from the shit that reality makes happen. And everyone is telling you to put the fuck up or shut the fuck up, and explain why the ethical statements you've derived are objectively valid as opposed to bullshit you've pulled out of thin air.

It is objective reality that Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate a bunch of male prostitutes. That is something that really happed in the very real reality we really live in. Does that fact carry with it the ethical implication that it is right to kill and eat male prostitutes? But wait, it is also an objective reality that police arrested Jeffrey Dahmer - does that carry with it the ethical implication that it is right to stop people from killing and eating male prostitutes? Is the meaning of life one big game of cops and robbers with a side of dead, half-eaten male prostitutes?

It is objective reality that the universe will approach a state of perfect equilibrium and a uniform distribution of energy and matter and all action within the universe will effectively cease. This is a state the universe prefers as a result of its initial conditions and physical laws. Does that fact carry with it the ethical implication that the most ethical state of the universe is one in which nothing happens?

Your theory can be used to justify anything and everything that has ever happened or ever will happen. You have chosen to accept only a subset of the results, and you are being asked to justify that subset as anything other than arbitrary cherrypicking to reach the destination you already know you want.

[Maj]

Thank you, Frank. I had no clue there was a legit thing called "negative liberty." It explains a lot about American political parties.

[Occluded Sun]

Things that try to survive are more likely to survive than things that don't. Therefore survival is objectively good.

No, entities that have traits that result in their survival end to accumulate. Entities which value their own survival persist and increase their numbers, compared to entities which don't - they go extinct.

Why is it right for bees to build six-sided cells? Sure, it's a more efficient use of space and resources, but why should "more efficient" be better? Ultimately, it's because efficiency leads to survival, and the bees whose genetic instructions lead to survival dominate. That's what makes that behavior 'better'.

Apply the reasoning to beliefs. Subject A thinks plunging red hot spikes through his eyes is a terrible idea. Subject B thinks it's a great idea! Leave them alone to do as they please, and pretty soon B is dead. Instead of a field averaging out to neutrality, the population's preferences are skewed towards no-hot-spikes. What a surprise!

[Occluded Sun]

No, reality does not use that function, because reality does not make ethical statements.

'Using that function' and 'making ethical statements' are totally different concepts. I suspect your brainmeats have gotten a little soggy.

Reality operates upon entities, and to the degree that those entities behave according to ethical beliefs, reality operates upon ethical systems. It's no different than any other aspect of behavior. Ethical systems that lead to their own self-destruction are, after sufficient time and abrasion, no longer present.

Existence doesn't make statements. It does effectively make judgments, though.