59 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

"the average IQ within an Anarcho-Capitalist society will be much higher than 100"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

elitism FAIL

[Alex Libman]

I just presented a crystal clear explanation on why that would be the case. Your failure to understand it is not my problem, and it only validates my assertion.

As an interesting side-note, it's these failures to understand the mathematics of natural selection within a group that have been behind much of the "antisemitism" over the past few centuries - people think that if Jews are disproportionately rich and powerful then there must be a conspiracy of some sorts. The reality is that "Jewish IQ" and capital accumulation is the result of many generations of selection, where only the smartest and most financially successful individuals remained Jewish while the rest assimilated. To say that Jews have higher IQ's is not "elitism" or "racism" (much of "Jewish DNA" is a patchwork from all over Europe, North Africa, and West Asia), it is a measurable fact with a purely logical scientific explanation, and the same will be the case to an even greater degree for Anarcho-Capitalists as well.

Edited by Alex Libman, 09 April 2010 - 06:13 PM.

[Traclo]

It is impossible to have an average IQ higher than 100, as 100 is defined as the average. I realize you meant that the comparative average IQ would be much higher, but maybe this is what progressive was laughing about?

It seems obvious that (comparative) IQ will rise in a society that rewards innovation.

Edited by Traclo, 09 April 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[Alex Libman]

Um, yes, when comparing intelligence between different societies you must obviously use a common baseline, otherwise you'll always be comparing 100 == 100 for every society. That should go without saying.

Now can we end this tangential diversion and return to my proof that there is a rational basis for Natural Rights, which applies to human beings but not to animals, and that applying fictitious "rights" to animals would in reality only violate the actual Rights of humans?

[Traclo]

I wonder where your system will lead in regards to treatment of the severely mentally handicapped.

There are people who are handicapped to a degree that they are functionally comparable to some of the great apes (or lower). Would your system allow for the mistreatment/killing of these humans?

[Alex Libman]

I believe I've already answered that question multiple times...

[Traclo]

There is such a thing as mental retardation, of course, but it's quite rare (and will decline in frequency as prenatal medicine advances) and it currently seems to involve IQ levels of 50-70 ("mild mental retardation") or below.

So being rare exempts it from consideration? I think not.

Furthermore, one's mental qualifications for full self-ownership (i.e. the inability to be emancipated from one's parents, or loss of the Right to Liberty and Property in later life) should be determined by functional criteria and not mere intelligence. Specially designed communities can cater to people with low IQ's and make it possible for them to function quite normally, while a super-intelligent person can still be a criminal - one's worthiness of freedom is all about one's ability to respect the Rights of others.

I am not talking about people that are slightly below average. People actually exist that are functionally similar to non-human animals.

...and they will have to prove to the concerned parties (i.e. everyone who frowns on infanticide, murder of mental patients / prisoners, etc)

I included this even though you refer to mental patients and not mental retardation. However, even if we were to assume it applies to them, what happens once we've conclusively shown that these people are incapable of self ownership?

A society that fails to come up with a rational definition of the Right to Life will face many problems that will put it at a competitive disadvantage. A society where people not presently fitting the criteria of rational economic actors (children, mentally ill, people under the temporary effect of powerful narcotics, unreformed criminals, prisoners of war, indentured servants, etc) can be killed with impunity will face not only population decline due to the deaths of children no one is allowed to rescue, but also deep psychological trauma as the result of some parents being total dictators over their children's lives, and countless other reasons as well. All checks and balances on insane asylums, work-houses, and prisons, would be non-existent! Any idea of a criminal justice system would be next to impossible!

All of these concerns do not apply to humans that have never been and will never be rational economic actors. In fact by breeding and exploiting the severely mentally handicapped there could be a positive economic advantage.

This brings up another interesting point; at what point is one considered a rational economic actor? There will always be cases that straddle the line, challenging your definitions.


That is everything you've said about mental retardation in this thread. You really haven't addressed my concern (unless it was in other threads, but forgive me if I don't really want to go over your every post with a fine toothed comb).

My question is:
How should humans that can be shown to not be rational economic actors be treated? Should I be allowed to run a shoe factory by enslaving these people? You may claim that no one will buy my shoes, but strictly speaking there would be nothing wrong about it, right?

Another interesting scenario based on what you've said (though admittedly it is more fanciful):
What about breeding humans that are highly competent in certain specialized ares, but lack the necessary qualities for them to appreciate the rights to property, life etc. (or providing that I'm mistaken in what gives them rights, what if they lack the things that you deem necessary for them to be given rights but are highly functional in all other areas)?
Should I be allowed to create and enslave these people?

Edited by Traclo, 09 April 2010 - 11:26 PM.

[Alex Libman]

So being rare exempts it from consideration? I think not.

I didn't say that. Being rare makes it easier to pay for mental patient care through voluntary charity (that is in the cases where it cannot be dealt with inside the family, which would be a much stronger institution in absence of government force). And I'm sure private charity could come up with many creative ways to raise money, like encouraging their patients to create crafts and stuff to sell, which many people would buy as items of prestige that demonstrate their compassion.

I included this even though you refer to mental patients and not mental retardation.

I meant individuals who fail to meet the criteria to be emancipated from their parents well into their 20s, 30s, and beyond (by which point many families will consider transferring custody to a special institution that cares for mentally handicapped individuals, for profit or otherwise), as well as individuals who lose the capacity for self-ownership later in life. Violent criminals would be treated similarly to the mentally ill in some ways, except that their emancipation would be contingent on working off restitution to their victims, making amends, and demonstrating their intention not to repeat their aggression in the future.

However, even if we were to assume it applies to them, what happens once we've conclusively shown that these people are incapable of self ownership?

Given the functional need to err on the side of caution (i.e. "innocent until proven guilty"), it is impossible to definitively prove that human being will NEVER be capable of self-ownership in the future, which is why all human beings have the negative Rights to Life and Emancipation from the point of physical autonomy until documented and irreversible death.

All of these concerns do not apply to humans that have never been and will never be rational economic actors. In fact by breeding and exploiting the severely mentally handicapped there could be a positive economic advantage.

You keep mindlessly repeating various dysfunctional theories about the perceived vulnerability of human beings who are not "rational economic actors" at any given moment, and I have to keep reminding you that the Right to Life and the Right to Emancipation have been conceptualized quite a while ago specifically for this reason... You need to understand that Natural Law is an emergent self-optimizing concept based on the principle of greatest competitive advantage, not on Traclo's loosely understood desire to score points for "animal rights" by pretending that a free society can't adequately take care of mentally handicapped humans!

This brings up another interesting point; at what point is one considered a rational economic actor? There will always be cases that straddle the line, challenging your definitions.

There's some room for cultural fluctuation on that issue. A recent high school graduate who wants to be emancipated, has a job, and has no criminal record definitely qualifies. A 10-year-old who wants her mommy clearly does not. It's not up to me to dictate a specific algorithm / decision matrix for how the cases between those two examples should be judged - unless of course I become a reputable one-man arbitration agency specializing in child emancipation disputes, which I won't because I'm sure there are psychologists and legal scholars who are far more qualified for that position. (Once again - you need to read some introductory Anarcho-Capitalist books / audio-books to at least understand the basics of how polycentric law and private arbitration agencies will function in a free society.)

How should humans that can be shown to not be rational economic actors be treated? Should I be allowed to run a shoe factory by enslaving these people? You may claim that no one will buy my shoes, but strictly speaking there would be nothing wrong about it, right?

Yes, you are allowed to run a shoe factory with your dependents as uncompensated employees, but you'll have to deal with an endless stream of Emancipation inquires to ask if your dependents want to leave you and come work at a shoe factory that treats them better, or a charity that doesn't require them to work at all, or to be emancipated entirely (if they qualify). Failure to comply with those legal proceedings would be a violation of your dependents' Right to Emancipation, at which point you become a criminal and defensive force against you would be seen as legitimate. And, like you've mentioned, the gap between merely antisocial / nasty behavior and outright crime can be filled through punitive market pressure and ostracism, which doesn't just mean no one will buy your shoes but you'll have a very hard time buying food from other people, driving on other people's roads, and so on - until you repent and make amends.

What about breeding humans that are highly competent in certain specialized ares, but lack the necessary qualities for them to appreciate the rights to property, life etc. (or providing that I'm mistaken in what gives them rights, what if they lack the things that you deem necessary for them to be given rights but are highly functional in all other areas)? Should I be allowed to create and enslave these people?

The aforementioned need to err on the side of caution would apply to parahumans as well. I cannot answer where the dividing line for the Right to Life and Emancipation would be drawn exactly (any amount of added human DNA, >10% human, etc), but anything resembling the level of intelligence of pre-humans from ~500,000 years ago or less would qualify as a potential rational economic actor. And it's very difficult to imagine what tasks such creatures would do that robots can't do better and cheaper. The economic value of a human being comes from his mind, which is also what makes him free.

Edited by Alex Libman, 10 April 2010 - 03:37 AM.

[Traclo]

Given the functional need to err on the side of caution (i.e. "innocent until proven guilty"), it is impossible to definitively prove that human being will NEVER be capable of self-ownership in the future, which is why all human beings have the negative Rights to Life and Emancipation from the point of physical autonomy until documented and irreversible death.

It seems as though you consistently insist that all humans have the right to life and emancipation. However, you insist on such a principle in spite of the fact that some humans have the same probability of becoming economic actors as many animals (practically zero).
I'm sure that there are cases where anyone (though perhaps not you) can agree that certain human beings are not and never will be self-owning persons. What of a human who's entire brain save the parts needed for life support functions is destroyed? Similarly what of someone who is in a coma which experts agree they will never come out of? These represent humans that are not nor ever will be self-owning. If you agree on this point then one must consider those who are slightly closer to self-ownership but may not have reached it. Again I suppose I have an issue with where the line lies, or should lie.

I think I know what you'll say to this; private arbitration committees judged by public opinion (voting with your dollar) will determine where the line is. However public opinion is notoriously poor at judging that which will bring the greatest economic benefit. There is a divide here between what is economic and what public opinion supports.

You need to understand that Natural Law is an emergent self-optimizing concept based on the principle of greatest competitive advantage

Alright, but what of the times when public opinion differs from that which provides the greatest competitive advantage? You defined competitive advantage as right, but you insist that some things that may be 'right' (e.g. exploiting severely mentally handicapped humans, parahumans, etc.) would be regulated by public opinion. However the public opinion that you use to vindicate many of your arguments is, as of now, clearly against your very own positions!
You may protest that competitively advantageous systems will naturally out-compete those which are less competitive (virtually by definition), but then why hasn't such a society arisen?
Again you may protest that your ideal society hasn't been given a chance (while dreaming of sea-steading), but then where is the 'chance giving' mechanism in the society you propose? If everything that is against public opinion is stamped out, how is this any different from what we have now? Even if there was one, what is to stop those who have more power as of now from taking the fruits of your labor? How will you begin?

I would argue that humans will never reach any form of competitively ideal society because we are both stupid and capricious. We have fads, memes, celebrities, cults and much other economic nonsense. Who we choose as our leaders has never been based on who will perform best in such a position, but rather those who appeal to us most. As much as I like the sound of your ideal society (you have been very convincing to me as it appeals to my utilitarian nature), I don't see it ever happening with humanity as we stand.

I always thought Galt would have failed because once he was found, the self-destructive behavior of humanity would kick in, they'd kill him (and his compatriots) for not listening and the the world would collapse.

(Once again - you need to read some introductory Anarcho-Capitalist books / audio-books to at least understand the basics of how polycentric law and private arbitration agencies will function in a free society.)

Agreed. So I'll stop spouting my 'various dysfunctional theories' until such a time (also exams are now). Also you must realize that these dysfunctional theories are what you are up against from the majority of people, who will (for the most part) not even give you the opportunity to convince them.

Edited by Traclo, 10 April 2010 - 05:53 PM.

[Alex Libman]

It seems as though you consistently insist that all humans have the right to life and emancipation. However, you insist on such a principle in spite of the fact that some humans have the same probability of becoming economic actors as many animals (practically zero).

No living (or even cryogenically frozen) human being has absolute zero probability of (re)gaining the capacity for full self-ownership. No other animal known to contemporary science has even the minute possibility above zero.

Once again, the deciding factor of whether all human beings have the Rights to Life and Emancipation doesn't come from Traclo understanding the assignment of burden of proof (which is also the logic behind the presumption of innocence and due process in criminal trials), but it comes from what I call "evolutionary pragmatism" - a society that errs on the side of caution in recognizing those Rights will have a clear competitive advantage. It is functionally much easier to have a stable society that recognizes all living human beings as having equal negative Right to Life than to empower someone with the ability to take it away (except of course in cases of clear and present danger, i.e. self-defense).

I'm sure that there are cases where anyone (though perhaps not you) can agree that certain human beings are not and never will be self-owning persons. What of a human who's entire brain save the parts needed for life support functions is destroyed?

If this person can be kept alive, there is the voluntarily-provided financial means to keep him alive, and there are no legal mechanisms with the authority to act to the contrary (ex. living will requesting euthanasia in such cases, a decision by someone with the power of attorney, etc), then deliberate interference to end that person's life would be murder. A society that fails to recognize it as such will have much higher incidence of involuntary euthanasia, which would discourage people from working hard and saving money to try to keep themselves alive as long as possible - which, like all weakening of individual rights, would be bad for the economy, and the types of medical research directions this forum is concerned with in particular.

You cannot speculate which parts of the brain are essential or non-essential for (re)gaining self-ownership and which damage is irreversible, because brain is a highly adaptive organ, and new technologies may come about at any time to stimulate the formation of new synapses, and even organically regrow the missing parts of the brain! There can also be AI implants, transplantation of brain parts from a human donor (or a clone), and maybe even some StarTrek-like replication of missing tissue, or even beaming of braincells from the past! All this is far-fetched, obviously, but you cannot logically prove that something will not be invented in the future, especially since a person can be cryogenically frozen and stored indefinitely, so any grim prognosis claiming absolute certainty are completely inappropriate.

I think I know what you'll say to this; private arbitration committees judged by public opinion (voting with your dollar) will determine where the line is. However public opinion is notoriously poor at judging that which will bring the greatest economic benefit. There is a divide here between what is economic and what public opinion supports.

Public opinion is notoriously bad in a democracy, where politicians claim to have a magic wand and people get to decide whether Politician A or Politician B has told them more believable lies every few years, but it is much better in a free market, where people have complete individual control over all decisions regarding their capital.

I've already mentioned some of the harms of failing to recognize human Right to Life from the point of view of infanticide and child abuse, and elderly / comatose patient abuse is the other side of the coin. If you had to undergo a dangerous medical procedure that risked turning you into a "vegetable", having yourself committed to a nursing home, or planned to have yourself cryogenically frozen - wouldn't you be more willing to do it (and probably pay more to do it) in a legal jurisdiction that would punish anyone that murdered you (even if they were not party to your contract)? This clearly indicates that a stronger Right to Life, even for those whose brain damage is alleged to be hopeless, constitutes a competitive advantage for a society, and that advantage will grow as people become ever-more able to choose whether they have their surgery in the local hospital on half-way around the world, and ever-more concerned with "cheating death" for as long as they possibly can.

You may protest that competitively advantageous systems will naturally out-compete those which are less competitive (virtually by definition), but then why hasn't such a society arisen?

Because socialists are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill millions upon millions of people in order to retain and expand their might! Most libertarians are not willing to stoop down to that level, so the governments' power and brainwashing are not going to disappear overnight...

Good things take time, and they require a lot of persistence, argumentation, agitation, and hard work - or "trolling", as those things may called on the Internet.

Religious atheism gradually arises as churches lose their ability to burn heretics and control public opinion. Political atheism (of which I consider Anarcho-Capitalism to be the highest possible form) will arise similarly, as the "divine right of government" delusion is debunked to ever-greater degrees. There will always be "true believers" who will buy into religion or government voluntarily, and it is their Right to do so, just as long as they don't use force on anyone else. The use of government force will gradually fall out of favor as people's access to information becomes freer (i.e. the Internet), and as the world becomes ever-more economically inter-dependent, making nationalist fear-mongering (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, and FDR all propped up each-other) a lot less viable - although "the powers that be" have been trying to manufacture new global threats like "global warming" or "terrorism" to replace it. Unless they can impose a tyrannical-enough "world government" quickly enough, intergovernmental competition will continue to naturally push all countries in the libertarian direction, with the freest countries (or secessionist movements / "special administrative regions" / private islands / seasteads / space stations) attracting the most brains and capital.

Anarcho-Capitalism is an advanced state of social organization that would have been very difficult for me to advocate in the past, only in the (near) future. Most of the market mechanisms in a free society would be somewhat harsh without near-universal computer literacy and access to portable telecommunications technology (although most mechanisms in a socialist society are far harsher). It would also aided by globalization and upcoming technological advancements like: affordable flying cars (less fuss about private roads), cheap video / satellite surveillance (making crime ever-more difficult to get away with), less-lethal self-defense technologies (less reliance on private defense agencies), solar panels (less need for centralized grid management), etc, etc, etc.

I would argue that humans will never reach any form of competitively ideal society because we are both stupid and capricious. We have fads, memes, celebrities, cults and much other economic nonsense.

People have the right to be stupid - just so long as they pull their economic weight and don't initiate aggression against others (as they inevitably do in the totalitarian system called "democracy"). With that universal Non-Aggression Principle in place, people are forced to act rationally enough to make a civilized society possible, even when they aren't being perfectly rational. I don't care if the person manning the cash register accepts Jesus or Tom Cruise as her "personal lord and savior", I only care about her being able to count my change without ripping me off, as do the people running that store. If all stupid people were to suddenly disappear tomorrow then most smart people would be worse off as well - the prices for hot blond prostitutes would skyrocket! So this universe is big enough for all "rational economic actors", even the idiots - the more of them the better.

I always thought Galt would have failed because once he was found, the self-destructive behavior of humanity would kick in, they'd kill him (and his compatriots) for not listening and the the world would collapse.

It is very difficult for governments to deny the logic of civil disobedience for the purpose of self-determination. They can spin an armed freedom fighter as a "terrorist", but a person who refuses to comply and simply tries to walk away from them is much more difficult to demonize, especially if he has a blog and a YouTube channel. ("The camera is the new gun.") We are also fortunate enough to live in a world where the greatest current superpower was founded through a movement not much unlike the libertarian movement of the present day, and it would be difficult for them to throw their national mythology down the memory hole in order to vilify us for essentially doing the same thing.

Pressuring them to leave our seasteads alone or to recognize New Hampshire as a Hong-Kong-like "special administrative region" where it is possible to opt out of Federal programs and taxes would be difficult, but definitely attainable. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step - and then another, and then another, and then another...

Edited by Alex Libman, 10 April 2010 - 09:08 PM.

[shifter]

I'm curious Alex, Lets forget about animals like bugs, ants and mice and even kittens (who you probably have smiled with glee as it suffered in your blender)... You can admit it

Primate animals (not talking humans) are quite intelligent. They also have their own hierarchy and society and live much as we used to a long time ago. Do you believe they have rights? Any rights at all?

Something like, do they have the right to exist? The right to go about their daily lives without having to worry about humans shooting at them or destroying their homes?

If you walked in on their territory and punched one of an orang-utan mothers child in the face, does she have the right to be upset with you?? Is she entitled to not be happy? Or was it your God given right to do whatever you please and she should just accept it because your a human and was your fundamental right to punch that orang-utan child’s face if you felt the urge. And if you wanted to abduct it for the sole purpose of chucking it into a tree shredder, that’s fine right? Because you’re human and it's not and was your right to do as you please.

I'll let you in on a little secret. St Thomas Aquinas's views are outdated and do not reflect the current times we live in. In fact, if he were around today, he would never had made it to sainthood. People would look at him and think he was a psychotic bastard. Maybe you like to go back to Medieval or Colonial style times, but I think in Civilisation, compassion and empathy for others including animals has brought us much further ahead in our knowledge then the 'I don't give a damn' attitude back then. Look how we treated our own kind hundreds of years ago...

You’re probably the sort who condones the hunting of animals to extinction. Soon there will be no more tigers, no elephants, no rhinos and no whales. Obviously doesn't matter because in a survival of the fittest, they didn't make the cut.

Sorry but if you can defend or even attempt to justify the above as right and acceptable to do then I think your views give you a disturbing psychotic trait and if ONLY there was an island we could put your kind into so you can be as self important as you want to be and leave the rest of us civilized humans to evolve without your defective psychotic gene in the pool.

Now I don't disagree with everything you say!!!! Some things you say make sense. But if humans are going to evolve and become more intelligent and enlightened, then there needs to be room for COMPASSION, or we'll end up back into the dark ages. Both sides will need to give a little in the end.

Edited by shifter, 11 April 2010 - 02:26 AM.

[Ghostrider]

Animals don't have rights because humans don't give them rights. This has nothing to do with economics or certainly not moral justification. We eat animals because we feel like it. It all derives out of necessity (caveman had to eat) and preference ("God put animals here for us to eat."). If you put 10 virgin nuns in a prison with 100 male prisoners, they would not remain virgin for long...it's the same case regarding animal rights. It's easy to come up with a justification for why something is allowed, but ultimately, it's just the will of those in power.

[Alex Libman]

I'm curious Alex, Lets forget about animals like bugs, ants and mice and even kittens (who you probably have smiled with glee as it suffered in your blender)... You can admit it

No, but I did kill a mouse once. Once! And it was self-defense. I tried to explain to it that my trailer and all the food in it belonged to me, but it wouldn't listen... It's not a pleasant experience to have rodents in your house - all your food must be locked up pretty well, and you still have to double-check everything to make sure the rats didn't touch it, or else you can get very sick or even die, like tens of millions of human beings have died from animal-spread diseases in just the recoded history alone!

Primate animals (not talking humans) are quite intelligent. They also have their own hierarchy and society and live much as we used to a long time ago. Do you believe they have rights? Any rights at all?

No rights at all, but I would certainly like to see all primates become the property of human owners who will take good care of them.

Something like, do they have the right to exist? The right to go about their daily lives without having to worry about humans shooting at them or destroying their homes?

They are not "their homes" in any economic sense, because entities that are incapable of understanding and respecting the property rights of others cannot have property rights themselves. If left alone wild animals will steal food from humans (because humans are able to cultivate land and raise its productive output, sometimes by the factor of thousands), multiply indefinitely, and start to invade human settlements, as happens in places like India from time to time with devastating results. You cannot have self-owning entities that cannot function as "rational economic actors" competing for economic resources with humans - someone has to be their master.

If you walked in on their territory and punched one of an orang-utan mothers child in the face, does she have the right to be upset with you?? Is she entitled to not be happy? Or was it your God given right to do whatever you please and she should just accept it because your a human and was your fundamental right to punch that orang-utan child’s face if you felt the urge. And if you wanted to abduct it for the sole purpose of chucking it into a tree shredder, that’s fine right? Because you’re human and it's not and was your right to do as you please.

Rights don't come from "God", they come from science. My Right to homestead wild animals and make them my property, for face-punching purposes or otherwise, is based on the civilizational benefits this arrangement brings about. A society that must bow down to every monkey that crosses its path will have a very hard time developing agriculture, much less modern cities, while a society that treats monkeys as absolute property will gain an edge in scientific experiments, for which monkeys are the ideal subjects due to their evolutionary proximity to humans, leading to much better economic growth. There will someday be monkeys on thousands of terraformed planets, moons, and space-stations, but only because they are the property of man!

I'll let you in on a little secret. St Thomas Aquinas's views are outdated and do not reflect the current times we live in. [...]

Um, Thomas Aquinas?! Where did that come from?! Please read the conversation backlog before making wild assumptions and accusations against me. If you're interested in what philosophers have shaped my views the most you can check on the appropriate thread.

You’re probably the sort who condones the hunting of animals to extinction. Soon there will be no more tigers, no elephants, no rhinos and no whales. Obviously doesn't matter because in a survival of the fittest, they didn't make the cut.

Privately owned animals are very unlikely to go extinct, only ones on unowned ("socialized" / "government") land do - tragedy of the commons. Animals have value to humans, and as they become more rare the value and the prestige of owning living specimens of that species increases drastically. Private zoos have been quite successful at breeding all species in captivity, whereas "public" zoos continue to fail because they are run by corrupt bureaucrats who are not incentivized to succeed and only get more funding the more they fail.

As the human economy and scientific abilities continue to grow exponentially while the number of species on this planet remains constant, the cost of preserving species in private zoos, aquariums, terrariums, etc will continue to decline. And we can definitely preserve DNA samples for all species and clone them out of extinction if anything goes wrong, just as we may soon be able to clone already extinct species back into existence, and even make millions of new species that never existed before!

Sorry but if you can defend or even attempt to justify the above as right and acceptable to do then I think your views give you a disturbing psychotic trait and if ONLY there was an island we could put your kind into so you can be as self important as you want to be and leave the rest of us civilized humans to evolve without your defective psychotic gene in the pool.

You are the one who is exhibiting violence and irrationality in this conversation.

Now I don't disagree with everything you say!!!! Some things you say make sense. But if humans are going to evolve and become more intelligent and enlightened, then there needs to be room for COMPASSION, or we'll end up back into the dark ages. Both sides will need to give a little in the end.

Government-enforced "compassion" through the barrel of a gun, which is what "animal rights" is all about, will not benefit anyone in the long term. Governments don't really care about cute little animals, they care about manipulating your emotions (ex. the anger you might feel at someone like Michael Vick) in order to legitimize their existence and strengthen their grip on power. If the governments could gain more strength by paying for millions of animals to be sadistically tortured then they would do that instead, as have been the case in Ancient Rome and many other cultures, and the current governments continue to more than double the number of animals slaughtered for food by subsidizing their cost.

Read the arguments that I've presented throughout this thread [url="http://www.bing.com/search?q="alex+libman"+"animal+rights""]and elsewhere[/url] (and that have been covered in much more scholarly detail in other libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist literature) and you will find that there are much better ways to protect animals than by violating the actual Rights of humans through government force!

Animals don't have rights because humans don't give them rights. This has nothing to do with economics or certainly not moral justification. We eat animals because we feel like it. It all derives out of necessity (caveman had to eat) and preference ("God put animals here for us to eat."). If you put 10 virgin nuns in a prison with 100 male prisoners, they would not remain virgin for long...it's the same case regarding animal rights. It's easy to come up with a justification for why something is allowed, but ultimately, it's just the will of those in power.

That shows a complete misunderstanding for the concept of Natural Rights, and can be compared to saying that objective laws of mathematics don't exist and if humans were to suddenly decide that 2 + 2 == 3 or 5 tomorrow then that would be just as good as deciding that it's 4...

If humans start punishing other humans for hurting animals that wouldn't mean that animals have "rights"! If humans stop punishing deviant humans for hurting other humans that wouldn't mean humans no longer have Rights! Both cases would be examples of societies where Human Rights are being violated, and trying to build a competitive civilization based on those incorrect legal theories would be just as constraining as trying to fly to the moon without understanding basic arithmetic!

Edited by Alex Libman, 11 April 2010 - 03:49 AM.

[RighteousReason]

/me high-fives Alex Libman and walks out

[Ghostrider]

Animals don't have rights because humans don't give them rights. This has nothing to do with economics or certainly not moral justification. We eat animals because we feel like it. It all derives out of necessity (caveman had to eat) and preference ("God put animals here for us to eat."). If you put 10 virgin nuns in a prison with 100 male prisoners, they would not remain virgin for long...it's the same case regarding animal rights. It's easy to come up with a justification for why something is allowed, but ultimately, it's just the will of those in power.

That shows a complete misunderstanding for the concept of Natural Rights, and can be compared to saying that objective laws of mathematics don't exist and if humans were to suddenly decide that 2 + 2 == 3 or 5 tomorrow then that would be just as good as deciding that it's 4...

If humans start punishing other humans for hurting animals that wouldn't mean that animals have "rights"! If humans stop punishing deviant humans for hurting other humans that wouldn't mean humans no longer have Rights! Both cases would be examples of societies where Human Rights are being violated, and trying to build a competitive civilization based on those incorrect legal theories would be just as constraining as trying to fly to the moon without understanding basic arithmetic!

So you really thought that I seriously gave a reason for why raping nuns should be moral? You have been debating objectivity (http://en.wikipedia....ty_(philosophy)) vs. moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia....oral_relativism) for several pages now. There's been tens of thousands of philosophical dissertations written on this topic. Point is regardless of whether there is moral objectivity (and I do agree with you that there is) or not, regardless, most humans, even if they know what they should do, will instead do what is convenient AND tolerated by the rest of society. In a desperate situation, I guarantee that you would act immoral if necessary.

By the way, I do agree with your points, but I have not read this entire thread.

Edited by Ghostrider, 11 April 2010 - 09:44 AM.

[Alex Libman]

/me high-fives Alex Libman and walks out

Bah, minarchist cooties! I do not consent to virtual-high-fives from all Objectivists! How do I know you didn't virtual-high-five someone like Peikoff or Geller the night before? Heck, I've even seen Ann Coulter claim to be "a graduate of the Gail Wynand school of Objectivism" after a few drinks too many... Humbug! Only people who've been fired from a job because their client googled their name and found them arguing for decriminalization of kiddy porn are true capitalist libertarians!

[...] Point is regardless of whether there is moral objectivity (and I do agree with you that there is) or not, regardless, most humans, even if they know what they should do, will instead do what is convenient AND tolerated by the rest of society. In a desperate situation, I guarantee that you would act immoral if necessary. [...]

"Rights" are a scientific concept based on universal economic laws, "society" is a fragmented and transient abstraction. You can say that each "society" is a theory or a subspecies in evolutionary competition, not a monolithic fact. A society where it is necessary to act immorally (by objective standards of morality) will be at a severe competitive disadvantage and will end up on the dust heap of extinction if there are better societies to compete with it. So I might act immorally if I have to, but I'll be planning my escape to a society where I wouldn't have to at the same time, and/or at least troll a few online forums to whine about that fact.

Edited by Alex Libman, 11 April 2010 - 12:50 PM.

[RighteousReason]

/me high-fives Alex Libman and walks out

Bah, minarchist cooties! I do not consent to virtual-high-fives from all Objectivists! How do I know you didn't virtual-high-five someone like Peikoff or Geller the night before? Heck, I've even seen Ann Coulter claim to be "a graduate of the Gail Wynand school of Objectivism" after a few drinks too many... Humbug! Only people who've been fired from a job because their client googled their name and found them arguing for decriminalization of kiddy porn are true capitalist libertarians!

i would fire your ass too for that ... in fact let's just say i retract any previous high-fiving O_O

talk about not knowing where one's hand has been. eek

Edited by RighteousReason, 11 April 2010 - 03:35 PM.

[Rejckt]

What about mosquitoes? Can we kill those? They make me itchy...

[shifter]

I mentioned St Thomas because you echo his thoughts and reasoning
http://www.all-creat.../hraaquinas.htm

(I am not religious by the way).

I also do not go against the idea of using animals in research. I work with research animals! I simply think that while the animal is alive (no matter the purpose, be it food, fur, skin research etc), that it be treated with respect, and that its death be as quick and painless as possible. So you can have your abattoirs, your fur and skin farms, your research labs etc but its not costly economically or detrimental to society if those animals lived well and died quick! I simply find it disturbing that somebody could actually take pleasure in the suffering of lower life forms especially if its totally unnessessary.

It would be more detrimental to society if we adopted a 'lets abuse animals whenever we feel like it and who cares if they suffer'. Yeah, the neighbour that wants to snap your pet cats neck in half is usually a wife beating arsehole. Real helpful for a prosperous society I'm sure.....

Perhaps these men will be good candidates for your new world order http://www.pet-abuse...es/14498/MT/US/


And Egypt was very prosperous back in the day while they treated cats as Gods. And yes, the cats came first before humans! If your house was on fire and they saw a cat and yourself, they would rescue the cat before you!!

[Athanasios]

Primate animals (not talking humans) are quite intelligent. They also have their own hierarchy and society and live much as we used to a long time ago. Do you believe they have rights? Any rights at all?

Side note here:

In 'Dragons of Eden', Carl Sagan wrote that he thought it likely that the reason some primates are incredibly intelligent up to the point that it was blatantly obvious for humans was because 'humans' killed off any that displayed intelligence enough to be a threat or rival. That leaves some primates just at the edge of an intelligence explosion that leads to human level of thinking.

I found this intriguing but do not know if it has been further confirmed or refuted since then. If true, it would likely impact our view of them in terms of morality.

Edited by cnorwood, 11 April 2010 - 05:15 PM.

[Alex Libman]

i would fire your ass too for that ...

You would fire me for objecting to how the government can throw anyone for decades in prison (and restrictions on "former sex offenders" mean you'll never be treated like a human being again) for copying a few 1's and 0's, which may be art or may be consensual, which can be easily planted on anyone, and which the governments wants to use as an excuse to end all Internet anonymity as we know it?

What about mosquitoes? Can we kill those? They make me itchy...

Are you down south? We have fewer of them bloodsuckers here in New Hampshire. Fewer government employees that is! And probably fewer mosquitoes too.

I mentioned St Thomas because you echo his thoughts and reasoning

I don't see any similarity in reasoning, but his conclusions on animal rights do fall within the realm of pragmatic necessity. Abrahamic religions didn't last and long and spread as far as they did by being incompetent.

It would be more detrimental to society if we adopted a 'lets abuse animals whenever we feel like it and who cares if they suffer'. Yeah, the neighbour that wants to snap your pet cats neck in half is usually a wife beating arsehole. Real helpful for a prosperous society I'm sure.....

That's the biggest problem in the world today - magical thinking about your infinitely-competent and incorruptible government deity that can make all people good. Reality doesn't work that way! Trying to prohibit what people can do with their property is like trying to repair a watch with a chainsaw - the side-effects are far, far, far more devastating than the problem you are trying to solve! (Which I elaborated about previously on this thread.)

And Egypt was very prosperous back in the day while they treated cats as Gods. And yes, the cats came first before humans! If your house was on fire and they saw a cat and yourself, they would rescue the cat before you!!

Correlation (based on one of the handful of societies we know from that time-period) does not imply causation.

[...] In 'Dragons of Eden', Carl Sagan wrote that he thought it likely that the reason some primates are incredibly intelligent up to the point that it was blatantly obvious for humans was because 'humans' killed off any that displayed intelligence enough to be a threat or rival. [...]

Carl Sagan said lots of stupid things - that dolphins understand X words of English, many environmentalist predictions that turned out wrong (as all of them tend to), etc. Even if this theory is correct, it does not affect the logic of Rights that I've explained above.

Edited by Alex Libman, 12 April 2010 - 12:13 AM.

[Athanasios]

Carl Sagan said lots of stupid things

I do not see how this is relevant.

Even if this theory is correct, it does not affect the logic of Rights that I've explained above.

I have not found your description very compelling. This may be partially due to the lack of your description being concise and partially due to my rejection that the is ought problem is easily overcome.

[Rejckt]

Alex Libman: No i'm from New York City... We don't get many mosquitoes, but I still don't like them. The city's gone to shit politically, we're in a huge deficit and well... Everything's starting to cost more while funding to public institutions are starting to decrease. Plus, they're going to hold our NYS tax returns just because of this =/

[eternaltraveler]

Thats quite a dissertation of a reply.

And what all-powerful and infallible central institution will be trusted with the authority to decide the difference, and then to enforce those regulations?

who on earth said anything about any all powerful organization doing anything? i didn't, nor did I imply it directly or indirectly. I simply think you are wrong in your assertion that PDAs are likely to enforce your exact interpretation of what is right and wrong. No central government is required. Even in a supposedly wholly anarcho capitalist society many are likely to disagree with you and act on their own interpretations of what is right and wrong even as you do the same.

Furthermore the long term point of view you espouse, though logical if you assume it playing out over evolutionary time-scales, is also increasingly irrelevant as humans have a finite period left as the dominant form of life (decades, centuries, whatever). My approach is to survive this transition.

Take cannibalism, for example

who cares about consensual cannibalism? Whatever floats their boat. I disagree about the cost being so high. The supply might be low, but the demand is also likely to be low.

I see one major logical flaw found in almost all of your posts. You assume a society of idealists that share your ideals. This is a virtual impossibility. Those with resources enough to buy floating islands or build space colonies are almost never idealists. You dont get rich by being an idealist. You get rich by being a pragmatist and playing whatever cards you get. Take this karma nonsense. Walmart has some terrible karma, and everyone knows it and no one cares. Or oil companies. And whats this nonsense talking about a world wide anarcho capitalist society? I thought you were going to run off to some floating island or space. Or are you suggesting that in a few years your floating island will be so wildly successful that the whole world will copy it before humans cease to be the dominate form of life?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the government is pretty much a waste of resources and does indeed steal from productive people. Where we disagree is on how your system will work. You make a long list of assumptions in that regard that are quite frankly based on absolutely nothing other than your own feelings.

for example

As technology advances, ever-fewer people will base their opinion about you on the car you drive or the clothes you wear, and ever-more on how well you answer any accusations made about you on a reputation gossip site, or the automatically-calculated "karma" rating of your investment portfolio.

who says?

but it means being able to take responsibility for one's actions and exist without violating the Rights of others

I assume you mean taking responsibility for one's actions means facing the full consequences of ones actions? Wild animals all pay the full price of their missteps. If thats all it takes to be a rational economic actor than numerous animals fulfill that criteria by default. Pick any animal that doesn't bother people.

The rub of the situation is many animals are rational actors within their own domain, to others of their kind. They simply don't respect the rules of other kinds. Nor do we. Nor will non human intelligences once they are generated. I hope you'll enjoy being reorganized into computronium.

Negative Rights are not a matter of degrees, it's like pregnancy - either you are or you ain't

says who? Not you as you already assign different degrees of negative rights to non self owning entities based on a naive understanding of what it means to have the potential to be self owing in the future. Severely mentally retarded people and people in persistent vegetative states have no more of this potential than a chimp or a puppy. They all will require very advanced technology to modify them on a fundamental level to become so and you know it. I understand that you don't wish to acknowledge this because this will open you up to yet another avenue of attack. But the defenses you've made on this point are simply illogical, and undermine your whole argument. I recommend revising them.

not to be short. I assure you we are in broad agreement. however your insistence on absolute right and wrong as solid as the laws of mathematics is quite frankly a pile of crap. You always have to make at least one a priori assumption (yours is that evolutionary success=good, my argument against this is humans do not have evolutionary time scales remaining to operate so it doesnt even matter if evolutionary success with this approach is improved, another a priori assumption would therefore be a better foundation. I choose freedom and survival of those I care about and myself as = good.

a concisish response would be good

As always I'm very busy so will respond when I can.

BTW despite the debate which might seem contrary, I think sea steads and space colonies designed under the system you favor are in fact a very good idea. I differ in my opinion on exactly how they would play out, however I do think they have a high probability of playing out favorably(greater freedom, more innovation, increases in survival probability).

[Alex Libman]

I have not found your description very compelling. This may be partially due to the lack of your description being concise and partially due to my rejection that the is ought problem is easily overcome.

My description isn't concise because I'm not being paid to write a dissertation here - I present my opinions on each thread where they are relevant, and I will try to answer any criticisms or questions that you present. Some of the specifics in my defense of Natural Rights may be slightly original, but they're mostly based on the work of other libertarian / capitalist philosophers who've come to the same conclusion. (It's like a dozen civilizations discovering the Pythagorean theorem independently - it comes easily because it's logical and there is more than one way to prove it.) Even individualist philosophers can't all write our own philosophy books, at least not without paying their dues through many decades of debate first, and what I'm doing here is a part of that process.

As I already talked about previously, the subjectivist is-ought "problem" is only a problem if you aren't sure you exist or if you aren't sure that you want to exist. If that's the case then you are free to not exist, but where do you get your will to interfere with the people that consciously and deliberately do? (More thorough objectivist debunkings of Hume can be found all over the Internets.)

[Athanasios]

I will try to answer any criticisms or questions that you present.

My criticism is that you do not seem to start out with an assertion of morality and use deductive reasoning to lay out your moral system or argument. If you do not do this, then an argument seems to fall back on reasonings that appear to be picked out of thin air based off of many assumptions. Many times this leads to circular reasoning. Maybe you have done this elsewhere here on ImmInst and I am missed it, or maybe you have a link to someone who does do this for your system?

Eternaltraveler seems to be pretty good at picking out statements you make in an attempt to form a ground up logical structure. He is either much more talented at this than I or is quite familiar with the moral system you are attempting to argue. Either is very likely. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell if you actually agree to the statements he ascribes to you and all the logic that follows from those statements.

To put it another way:

Essentially, all of the 'good' of an anarcho-capitalist ideal can come from a consistent moral theory which does not rely on the naturalistic fallacy. Any moral questions not tied to economics are basically thrown under the bus or worked backwards from the question leading all sorts of assumptions, circular reasoning, and lack of basis. If you then use the argument for all non-economic problems of either nihilism or relativism, you invoke a whole 'nother can of beans. This include shades of gray where the ties to economic cause and effect are very light and barely existent.

Edited by cnorwood, 20 April 2010 - 03:18 PM.

[Lallante]

To believe in atheistic natural rights but NOT to believe in any kind of animal rights requires some rather hilarious cognitive dissonance.

[Alex Libman]

(Sorry, this thread fell through the cracks.)

My criticism is that you do not seem to start out with an assertion of morality and use deductive reasoning to lay out your moral system or argument. If you do not do this, then an argument seems to fall back on reasonings that appear to be picked out of thin air based off of many assumptions. Many times this leads to circular reasoning. Maybe you have done this elsewhere here on ImmInst and I am missed it, or maybe you have a link to someone who does do this for your system?

Ayn Rand does a pretty good job with Objectivist philosophy. A number of more recent Anarcho-Capitalist philosophers (ex. Stefan Molyneux) have improved upon her epistemology and some other aspects of her philosophy, and I'm attempting to as well, but she probably remains the most definitive example for now.

To believe in atheistic natural rights but NOT to believe in any kind of animal rights requires some rather hilarious cognitive dissonance.

Clearly either you don't read my posts, or you don't understand what they say...

[medicineman]

(Sorry, this thread fell through the cracks.)

My criticism is that you do not seem to start out with an assertion of morality and use deductive reasoning to lay out your moral system or argument. If you do not do this, then an argument seems to fall back on reasonings that appear to be picked out of thin air based off of many assumptions. Many times this leads to circular reasoning. Maybe you have done this elsewhere here on ImmInst and I am missed it, or maybe you have a link to someone who does do this for your system?

Ayn Rand does a pretty good job with Objectivist philosophy. A number of more recent Anarcho-Capitalist philosophers (ex. Stefan Molyneux) have improved upon her epistemology and some other aspects of her philosophy, and I'm attempting to as well, but she probably remains the most definitive example for now.

To believe in atheistic natural rights but NOT to believe in any kind of animal rights requires some rather hilarious cognitive dissonance.

Clearly either you don't read my posts, or you don't understand what they say...

Objectivists debunking Hume?????

Here is a big LOL.

[Alex Libman]

Read her work. Ayn Rand wiped the floors with the so-called "subjectivist four letter words": Kant, Hume, and Marx. A "big LOL" is not an argument to the contrary. Of course if you insist that you don't exist, that you don't want to exist, or that objective reality (i.e. science) does not exist then, fine, go kill yourself. That is as far as your philosophy will take you.