I have discovered that what is wrong with many people is not so much that they specifically choose to believe what it is they believe, but instead have no consistent philosophy. Instead, they are governed by random emotions and logical non-sequitors. Example? Ask any liberal Christian individual what they think of homosexuality, and they will answer in some kind of positive statement that attempts to rationalize their religions' disdain for it. Instead of changing religious beliefs or philosophies, these people instead fail to live up to the logical conclusion of their beliefs and instead attempt to bend, twist or circumvent what is clearly written pertaining to whatever issue of the day is.
Need another example? Ask a Catholic what their religion says about birth control, and then ask if they use it anyway. If you think birth control is OK, then Catholicism is NOT for you! End of story! Just give up your religion and quit trying to rationalize and put a square peg into a round hole!
This is rather common to libertarians in the sense that we will ask someone "Should people be allowed to live their lives, so long as they do not harm anyone else?" It's such a reasonable proposition that the answer, even from soccer moms, is inevitably yes, and then the individual states that there should be seat belt laws, or some other kind of illogical non-sequitor. The real problem lies in consistency, not in malice.
How does this happen? A failure to logically deduce or induce a philosophy for living on earth. Many people, instead of rationally deciding what they believe and defending it intellectually, instead decide important issues of the day by what I call a "sports-team mentality", in that they cheer for one side or the other not because it's more logical to do so, but because they "have always cheered for Issue A", or have "always hated issue B", or "because that's how my parents taught me". Can anyone see the parallels?
Dump the emotional governance. Come to a logical conclusion and STICK TO IT!
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Fun with Your Philosophy Professor
I have indicated here how to have the most fun with your professor if he says any of the following:
"How do you know that? You could be tricked by (insert Cartesian arguemnt here, like demons, angels, or some other arbitrary proposition)"
Response: Then why am I here? If my life is unknowable and could all be a trick, then why care about what you say? And wouldn't a demon be tricky and omnipotent enough for us to never figure out his secret?
"There is no such thing as absolute truth"
Response: What do you call what you just said? You assert that it is true AND absolute!
"What may be true for you (or us) may not be true for others"
Response: Step in front of a semi doing 70 and see if truth is subjective.
"Causality dictates that there is no such thing as free will. We are here only because of events beyond our control"
Response: Does that mean if I choose not to believe in determinism that that too is determined? If I kill you, should I be held responsible or say 'It was beyond my control'?
"How do you know that? You could be tricked by (insert Cartesian arguemnt here, like demons, angels, or some other arbitrary proposition)"
Response: Then why am I here? If my life is unknowable and could all be a trick, then why care about what you say? And wouldn't a demon be tricky and omnipotent enough for us to never figure out his secret?
"There is no such thing as absolute truth"
Response: What do you call what you just said? You assert that it is true AND absolute!
"What may be true for you (or us) may not be true for others"
Response: Step in front of a semi doing 70 and see if truth is subjective.
"Causality dictates that there is no such thing as free will. We are here only because of events beyond our control"
Response: Does that mean if I choose not to believe in determinism that that too is determined? If I kill you, should I be held responsible or say 'It was beyond my control'?
Government is Good
Yes, you read that right. Government, objectively limited and in its proper form, is good. I have never and will never like anarchists, be they anarcho-libertarians or anarcho-socialists. These people fail to take into account that it is necessary to have a government which protects our rights. Instead, they say "why not privatize the protection fucntion of government? We do this all the time by hiring security guards, etc. etc.".
Goodness! Do you know what conflicting security forces is called? PERPETUAL WAR. The reason that I emphasize this is that, in the anarchists' little world, there are no objectively defined laws, and therefore no limits on how far security can go. "But there can be understanding and cooperation", they say. Absolutely, and in certain forms, I am all for that. What am I not for, however, is abolishment of a code of civilization that states what violates laws in a society. If we have no government and no rule of law, how are we to say which security force is protecting individual rights and which one is violating them? If one force chooses to pre-emptively strike another that the owner perceives as a threat, is that wrong or right? Punishable or not?
Another silly idea to come down the pike is the idea that somehow, replacing criminal courts with civilian ones is great. No way. First, how many people would frame up Bill Gates for murder or rape if it meant earning billions? Can we possibly put a monetary value on how much a life is worth in the case of murder? And who are the victims in the case of a murder? The employers? The family? And what is the punishment for those who cannot pay the price their victims demand? Slavery and death, perhaps?
No one knows, and no one can operate in a world without objectivism (objectivism in the sense that we know what's what and how to react to it) in our laws. Ever changing laws, or a lack of laws, means that the rational response if for man to cower in caves in fear of his government or bands of murdering thieves. We NEED law, and we need government.
Goodness! Do you know what conflicting security forces is called? PERPETUAL WAR. The reason that I emphasize this is that, in the anarchists' little world, there are no objectively defined laws, and therefore no limits on how far security can go. "But there can be understanding and cooperation", they say. Absolutely, and in certain forms, I am all for that. What am I not for, however, is abolishment of a code of civilization that states what violates laws in a society. If we have no government and no rule of law, how are we to say which security force is protecting individual rights and which one is violating them? If one force chooses to pre-emptively strike another that the owner perceives as a threat, is that wrong or right? Punishable or not?
Another silly idea to come down the pike is the idea that somehow, replacing criminal courts with civilian ones is great. No way. First, how many people would frame up Bill Gates for murder or rape if it meant earning billions? Can we possibly put a monetary value on how much a life is worth in the case of murder? And who are the victims in the case of a murder? The employers? The family? And what is the punishment for those who cannot pay the price their victims demand? Slavery and death, perhaps?
No one knows, and no one can operate in a world without objectivism (objectivism in the sense that we know what's what and how to react to it) in our laws. Ever changing laws, or a lack of laws, means that the rational response if for man to cower in caves in fear of his government or bands of murdering thieves. We NEED law, and we need government.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Finally!
I have been making the libertarian argument against privatization ever since I "faced down" Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) at CPAC two years ago, and someone infinitely smarter than me has taken it down too. See Tyler Cowen's defense of my position.
Cowen makes a lot of arguments that I never thought of, but misses (or barely skirts around) a major one (the one that made me change my mind): the government forcing people to be involved in markets and exchanges skews the market.
When I briefly argued with Toomey's idea, it was stated in this form: the government would make a determination of a spectrum of "safe" investments to be made, and manage the investment of Social Security into these stocks, bonds or other accounts. What was bothering me was the interference in the market in three ways:
1) Any corporation who curries favor with the government could be put in the spectrum, and there would be overwhelming "rent-seeking" behavior to be put on a list of mandatory investment. This might soak investors as they trust their government, but the government gives their money to poor investment companies that have more political pull.
2) Any corporation that criticizes the government will be taken off of the list as punishment, which will have a deleterious effect on free speech.
3) The government will skew to safe investment, which, with the billions commanded by Social Security, would skew the market.
All in all, I say let the program go broke. Yeah, it screws me over, but it will show what happens when the government engages in Ponzi schemes, and it won't mess up the market even worse than government already has.
Cowen makes a lot of arguments that I never thought of, but misses (or barely skirts around) a major one (the one that made me change my mind): the government forcing people to be involved in markets and exchanges skews the market.
When I briefly argued with Toomey's idea, it was stated in this form: the government would make a determination of a spectrum of "safe" investments to be made, and manage the investment of Social Security into these stocks, bonds or other accounts. What was bothering me was the interference in the market in three ways:
1) Any corporation who curries favor with the government could be put in the spectrum, and there would be overwhelming "rent-seeking" behavior to be put on a list of mandatory investment. This might soak investors as they trust their government, but the government gives their money to poor investment companies that have more political pull.
2) Any corporation that criticizes the government will be taken off of the list as punishment, which will have a deleterious effect on free speech.
3) The government will skew to safe investment, which, with the billions commanded by Social Security, would skew the market.
All in all, I say let the program go broke. Yeah, it screws me over, but it will show what happens when the government engages in Ponzi schemes, and it won't mess up the market even worse than government already has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
