How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[cunicula]

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 
There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

[Richy_T]

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 

That makes some sense when there is a lot of money to be had and the conditions are at least livable (I have known several Brits who spent a couple of uncomfortable years in Dubai and came back with their pockets stuffed with money). If you're living as a prisoner for a pittance and hanging off the outsides of a skyscraper cleaning windows with a rag and a spray-bottle, there's more to it. Myanmar currently has 90,000 internally displaced people and a large ethnic group that the government refuses to recognize as citizens (not illegal immigrants by my reading either). Plus a lot else besides.

There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

Personally, I'd describe aspects of what you're telling me as downright evil.

[Rudd-O]

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 

That makes some sense when there is a lot of money to be had and the conditions are at least livable (I have known several Brits who spent a couple of uncomfortable years in Dubai and came back with their pockets stuffed with money). If you're living as a prisoner for a pittance and hanging off the outsides of a skyscraper cleaning windows with a rag and a spray-bottle, there's more to it. Myanmar currently has 90,000 internally displaced people and a large ethnic group that the government refuses to recognize as citizens (not illegal immigrants by my reading either). Plus a lot else besides.

There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

Personally, I'd describe aspects of what you're telling me as downright evil.

The people doing business as "government"  in Singapore are fairly fucking evil, from what I've read that they do.

[JoelKatz]

Secondly, Libertarian/AnCap morals don't seem like real morals. If you can turn it into a 'recipe' or 'principle' or "set of instructions", then you could train a non-understanding person or computer to follow those instructions correctly. Since a computer is not a conscious being, it is incapable of being either moral or immoral. Therefore it follows that these disciples' views are actually amoral.

This is a ridiculous argument. You might as well argue that if I punch you in the face, that's not immoral because my fist is not capable of acting morally. Computers are just like our fists -- they do what we tell them to do. They are not moral agents, but when we command them morally, then *we* are acting morally and when we command them immorally, then *we* are acting immorally. You are erroneously looking at the actions of the agent rather than the actions of the master that commanded the agent.

[myrkul]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

[JoelKatz]

Perhaps my example was too simplistic. By 'program' I meant create and then unleash an autonomous system that would not be subsequently changed. This is analogous to AnCap's or Libertarianism's non-aggression principle, which someone once created, but now it always stays the same. To 'run' the NAP program you just follow simple instructions. The 'programmer' would be some philosopher who probably died long ago.

In that case, the morality of the action would rest with whoever or whatever created the autonomous system. Since the autonomous system is autonomous, it is not a moral agent. But I can program a robot police officer to shoot the innocent or shoot in defense. The former would be moral on my part and the latter immoral. It matters not that the automaton then executes the operations amorally.

Any moral agent who followed Libertarian principles would be acting morally or immorally because they would be choosing to follow those principles. Any automaton who followed them would be acting amorally, however the creator of that automaton could be acting morally or immorally. There is no requirement that moral *principles* be incapable of reduction to algorithms. (And if there were, it would be almost impossible to come up with any moral principles at all. "Thou shalt not kill" couldn't be a moral principle.)

However, you inadvertently allude to another point: the morality of "just following orders" (just like a good, obedient soldier.) Arguably it's actually worse if a human blindly follows someone else's code, than a computer (or human body-part) where at least there's a responsible person in charge. Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think. They are abdicating responsibility for their actions, and couching their actions in terms of "being morally righteous because XYZ philosopher said so, here's the link".

It's terrible if a human *blindly* follows someone else's code. Humans are moral agents and are responsible for the choices they make. They aren't automatons. But there's nothing inherently wrong with following a moral code if one has determined, to the best of one's ability, that that code is in fact moral and they are willing to change things if evidence points otherwise.

[FirstAscent]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws, which you choose to willfully ignore by, well, willfully ignoring them. You run an endless circular argument as a result of your delusions that your thoughts are entirely sound. In perpetuity, you cannot accept the flaws within your system, and thus, in your eyes, your arguments appear sound.

You enshroud yourself with other like minded peers equally self deluded in the morality of your system which depends on individuals to all think in a like minded way, failing to acknowledge the utter ignorance and/or greed of many participants that would inevitably exist within your dream society, who would effectively be the ultimate and constant monkey wrench which would cause your system to fail, or more likely, never get off the ground, which in fact, is the truth right here and now, and in the past.

[myrkul]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

[FirstAscent]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

Didn't I just mention that you willfully ignore the flaws presented to you, and engage in circular argumentation to delude yourself into thinking your arguments are sound?

[myrkul]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

Didn't I just mention that you willfully ignore the flaws presented to you, and engage in circular argumentation to delude yourself into thinking your arguments are sound?

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning. 

[Richy_T]

Perhaps my example was too simplistic. By 'program' I meant create and then unleash an autonomous system that would not be subsequently changed. This is analogous to AnCap's or Libertarianism's non-aggression principle, which someone once created, but now it always stays the same. To 'run' the NAP program you just follow simple instructions. The 'programmer' would be some philosopher who probably died long ago.

However, you inadvertently allude to another point: the morality of "just following orders" (just like a good, obedient soldier.) Arguably it's actually worse if a human blindly follows someone else's code, than a computer (or human body-part) where at least there's a responsible person in charge. Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think. They are abdicating responsibility for their actions, and couching their actions in terms of "being morally righteous because XYZ philosopher said so, here's the link".

Edit: just to flesh it out a bit more, it's important to distinguish between the morality of the philosopher versus the morality of his disciples. I contend that although the (probably deceased) Libertarian philosophers may have been extremely moral, their disciples might not be. Like I said, blind computer-like idolatry seems amoral.

The NAP does not guide every single action, it merely gives a limit to some actions. It is proscriptive, not prescriptive. The idea that people who hold it as an important principle are some kind of automatons is laughable.

[FirstAscent]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

Didn't I just mention that you willfully ignore the flaws presented to you, and engage in circular argumentation to delude yourself into thinking your arguments are sound?

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning.  

These discussions go all the way back to the knife juggler, private roads, private thug forces, he with the most guns wins, nuclear bombs, tyrants, tax collection, greed, the environment, climate change, inundation of contracts, he with the most money to pay lawyers wins, ignorant neighbors, colluding neighbors, enslavement, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on. Your solutions to each of these are inadequate, and far from being ideal. They've all been covered. And you never offered a satisfactory solution to any of them.

The fact is, your system only looks appealing to someone who willfully remains ignorant of facts which get in the way.

[Richy_T]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

That's how I got here, I didn't understand how come I was swinging left-to-right and back again then couldn't seem to agree with any of it. Then I took a critical look at the underpinnings of my beliefs and found that I was favoring those which maximized liberty. Once I started to cut away the woolly thinking, it was an eye opener.

[Richy_T]

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

He has asserted flaws. Which is apparently all the argument needed.

[FirstAscent]

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

He has asserted flaws. Which is apparently all the argument needed.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

[Richy_T]

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning. 

Don't you know? A free society just can't succeed. Despite the fact that time and time again, every time a society manages to make itself more free, unprecedented levels of prosperity and advancement ensue (at least until the statists wrest control again).

[FirstAscent]

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning. 

Don't you know? A free society just can't succeed. Despite the fact that time and time again, every time a society manages to make itself more free, unprecedented levels of prosperity and advancement ensue (at least until the statists wrest control again).

Oh, so you admit that your "free societies" never last because control is wrested from them just when things are getting good. That's a flaw.

[Richy_T]

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

He has asserted flaws. Which is apparently all the argument needed.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

Unfounded assertions may be dismissed out-of-hand.

[cunicula]

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

[FirstAscent]

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

He has asserted flaws. Which is apparently all the argument needed.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

Unfounded assertions may be dismissed out-of-hand.

Not this again. It's like you saying sea levels don't rise when heat is absorbed by the ocean because I only asserted it, rather than write a 1,000 page introduction to physics.