5 ms·

Hey, please get that gun out of my face! If you don't like the way an exchange plays, make your own exchange that has better rules and that operates transparen

by javert 14y ago

Hey, please get that gun out of my face! If you don't like the way an exchange plays, make your own exchange that has better rules and that operates transparently, or patronize one that does. Besides being morally wrong (this is supposed to be a free country), regulation harms innovation, results in winner-picking, and results in regulatory capture. Nothing good can come of it.

rayiner 14y ago
Societies need to be regulated. When Moses came down with the commandment: "thou shalt not steal" that was regulation. That was a restriction on what otherwise free people could do in organized society. That was a regulation that involved a "gun in your face." I'll start taking libertarians seriously when they can come up with anything more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations.
- javert 14y ago
  I'll start taking libertarians seriously FWIW, I'm not a libertarian. more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of government should only be to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force. That's the fundamental principle that is relevant to our discussion--not something to do with property. (Granted, some libertarians would argue, incorrectly, that property is fundamental.) For a full explanation, see "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of government should only be to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force. I don't see how you get from "no duty to others" to "government should protect citizens from initiation of physical force." It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing. If people have no duty to others, why may they not use physical force to achieve their own happiness? This is after all the state of nature. The wolf owes no duty to the deer, and no government restrains him in his use of force to achieve his happiness. Taking physical force off the table is inconsistent with the idea that people have no duty to others. For a great many people, physical force is their competitive advantage. They were born big and strong. They would rule the world instead of the bankers and the politicians if it were not for the government restraining them. Yet the government does restrain them, and that often relegates them to the lowest rungs of society. Imposing that restraint on them is certainly imposing on them a duty. It forces them to sacrifice for the rest of society.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - javert 14y ago
      It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing. Actually, given what I said, you're right to say that. When I said "If X, then it follows that Y," I left off the fact that not only X, but also X->Y, relies on a vast amount of inductive generalization from the facts of reality (including facts about human beings, value pursuit, etc.). Although I put it in the form of a deductive statement, the argument is not actually deductive. I think the examples you gave are extremely relevant, good examples, that are based in reality and need to be dealt with (and can be). Of course, we're not going to induct an entire philosophical system in the comments of HN. I would urge you to check out the book I referenced earlier. If you put enough effort into it, you will find that a rational philosophy (including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics) not only can be discovered, but has been.
      - lmm 14y ago
        You end up with a self-consistent philosophy, but there are plenty of those around. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism, and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions.
        javert 14y ago
        You end up with a self-consistent philosophy Wow, people's view of Ayn Rand is really getting better :). but there are plenty of those around. Plenty of those around? I disagree. Even if you're willing to make liberties for what we count as a philosophical system, there are actually only a few options at most. For example, existentialism, Marxism, Kantianism (not even sure I'd count that), various religions (which are really just a primitive kind of philosophy). Historically, there are three highly unique philosophical "giants." Basically every other philosopher falls into one of these three camps. They are: Aristotle, Plato, and Kant. Aristotle was the this-worldly, holding that knowledge is induced from reality. Plato was other-worldly, holding that knowledge comes about through revelation from a higher realm. Kant was anti-worldly, holding that actual knowledge is impossible. Rand is the only modern, system-building philosopher who is heavily Aristotelian. Thus, she deserves a serious look from people who are curious as to whether an objective philosophy is possible. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism Utilitarianism is just an ethical doctrine (not a philosophy). Nit picks aside: there are various justifications for it, all of which fall short, because they tell you to sacrifice yourself. I've never seen a supporter of this position who thinks that the is-ought gap can be bridged, so as far as I'm aware, in any justification of utilitarianism, ethics is just a game, anyway. So yes, people will say "modern utilitarianism is objectively as good as any solution," since no ethical sytems is any "better" than any other. But what if that's not the case? Common sense and history would suggest that some ethical systems are much better than others. and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions. Given humanity's history, any moral system that aligns well with people's intuitions is probably a bloody and destructive one, and so people should be keeping a lookout for something fundamentally different. Intuitions are just non-explicit ideas that people have been raised with; they don't count towards establishing truth or goodness.

by javert 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Societies need to be regulated. When Moses came down with the commandment: "thou shalt not steal" that was regulation. That was a restriction on what otherwise free people could do in organized society. That was a regulation that involved a "gun in your face." I'll start taking libertarians seriously when they can come up with anything more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations.

javert 14y ago
I'll start taking libertarians seriously FWIW, I'm not a libertarian. more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of government should only be to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force. That's the fundamental principle that is relevant to our discussion--not something to do with property. (Granted, some libertarians would argue, incorrectly, that property is fundamental.) For a full explanation, see "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of government should only be to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force. I don't see how you get from "no duty to others" to "government should protect citizens from initiation of physical force." It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing. If people have no duty to others, why may they not use physical force to achieve their own happiness? This is after all the state of nature. The wolf owes no duty to the deer, and no government restrains him in his use of force to achieve his happiness. Taking physical force off the table is inconsistent with the idea that people have no duty to others. For a great many people, physical force is their competitive advantage. They were born big and strong. They would rule the world instead of the bankers and the politicians if it were not for the government restraining them. Yet the government does restrain them, and that often relegates them to the lowest rungs of society. Imposing that restraint on them is certainly imposing on them a duty. It forces them to sacrifice for the rest of society.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - javert 14y ago
    It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing. Actually, given what I said, you're right to say that. When I said "If X, then it follows that Y," I left off the fact that not only X, but also X->Y, relies on a vast amount of inductive generalization from the facts of reality (including facts about human beings, value pursuit, etc.). Although I put it in the form of a deductive statement, the argument is not actually deductive. I think the examples you gave are extremely relevant, good examples, that are based in reality and need to be dealt with (and can be). Of course, we're not going to induct an entire philosophical system in the comments of HN. I would urge you to check out the book I referenced earlier. If you put enough effort into it, you will find that a rational philosophy (including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics) not only can be discovered, but has been.
    - lmm 14y ago
      You end up with a self-consistent philosophy, but there are plenty of those around. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism, and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions.
      - javert 14y ago
        You end up with a self-consistent philosophy Wow, people's view of Ayn Rand is really getting better :). but there are plenty of those around. Plenty of those around? I disagree. Even if you're willing to make liberties for what we count as a philosophical system, there are actually only a few options at most. For example, existentialism, Marxism, Kantianism (not even sure I'd count that), various religions (which are really just a primitive kind of philosophy). Historically, there are three highly unique philosophical "giants." Basically every other philosopher falls into one of these three camps. They are: Aristotle, Plato, and Kant. Aristotle was the this-worldly, holding that knowledge is induced from reality. Plato was other-worldly, holding that knowledge comes about through revelation from a higher realm. Kant was anti-worldly, holding that actual knowledge is impossible. Rand is the only modern, system-building philosopher who is heavily Aristotelian. Thus, she deserves a serious look from people who are curious as to whether an objective philosophy is possible. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism Utilitarianism is just an ethical doctrine (not a philosophy). Nit picks aside: there are various justifications for it, all of which fall short, because they tell you to sacrifice yourself. I've never seen a supporter of this position who thinks that the is-ought gap can be bridged, so as far as I'm aware, in any justification of utilitarianism, ethics is just a game, anyway. So yes, people will say "modern utilitarianism is objectively as good as any solution," since no ethical sytems is any "better" than any other. But what if that's not the case? Common sense and history would suggest that some ethical systems are much better than others. and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions. Given humanity's history, any moral system that aligns well with people's intuitions is probably a bloody and destructive one, and so people should be keeping a lookout for something fundamentally different. Intuitions are just non-explicit ideas that people have been raised with; they don't count towards establishing truth or goodness.