Defining freedom

[Kshartle]

You just had to say that, didn't you?

I felt it neccessary lest we delve into the topic of whether we are enslaved to the mathematics of molecules and whatever matter they come from.

Of course if you think everything is pre-determined then we'll discuss it, or we won't, either way it won't matter hah!

Do you have a quick and easy way to dismiss that concept? I'm sure I've come across it or voiced it. Again I just find the notion so uninteresting I can't remember anything about it. My brain just purges it.

Well, in general, the more animalistic our behaviors are, or the more human animal emotions/behaviors are, the more likely NAP would demand that we don't use animals as property or to our own gain, and perhaps not even materially upset their habitat/ecosystems.  So determinism is probably going to be extremely distasteful (or "uninteresting" at least) to an anarcho-capitalist, because the mere discussion of whether we're motivated more by simple animalistic instincts and less by "choice" and "reason" implies having to question the moral certainty of how we view ourselves above animals... and questioning an one's certainty isn't something an anarchist usually likes to engage in .

It's actually distasteful to me for the reason I said. If it's actually valid then there's no point in discussing it or anything else. Whatever will happen is going to happen. I think it's obvious that I'm deciding to respond to you so the idea that my actions are pre-determined is silly. I don't know if I've ever known how to prove that though. If I did I forgot it because the notion seems silly.

It doesn't have anything to do with the moral certainty of being above an animal. Even if I thought I was an animal or on the same moral plane that shoudln't cause me any heartache over eating them or using them. Unless you think animals that eat other animals are immoral 

Is the lion bad for taking down the gazelle and eating him? If I'm just a slave to nature like the lion, then how can I be bad for eating another animal, even a human? It's the notion that we do have choice and are morally superior to animals that actually cultivates concern for them.

[moda0306]

I felt it neccessary lest we delve into the topic of whether we are enslaved to the mathematics of molecules and whatever matter they come from.

Of course if you think everything is pre-determined then we'll discuss it, or we won't, either way it won't matter hah!

Do you have a quick and easy way to dismiss that concept? I'm sure I've come across it or voiced it. Again I just find the notion so uninteresting I can't remember anything about it. My brain just purges it.

Well, in general, the more animalistic our behaviors are, or the more human animal emotions/behaviors are, the more likely NAP would demand that we don't use animals as property or to our own gain, and perhaps not even materially upset their habitat/ecosystems.  So determinism is probably going to be extremely distasteful (or "uninteresting" at least) to an anarcho-capitalist, because the mere discussion of whether we're motivated more by simple animalistic instincts and less by "choice" and "reason" implies having to question the moral certainty of how we view ourselves above animals... and questioning an one's certainty isn't something an anarchist usually likes to engage in .

It's actually distasteful to me for the reason I said. If it's actually valid then there's no point in discussing it or anything else. Whatever will happen is going to happen. I think it's obvious that I'm deciding to respond to you so the idea that my actions are pre-determined is silly. I don't know if I've ever known how to prove that though. If I did I forgot it because the notion seems silly.

It doesn't have anything to do with the moral certainty of being above an animal. Even if I thought I was an animal or on the same moral plane that shoudln't cause me any heartache over eating them or using them. Unless you think animals that eat other animals are immoral 

Is the lion bad for taking down the gazelle and eating him? If I'm just a slave to nature like the lion, then how can I be bad for eating another animal, even a human? It's the notion that we do have choice and are morally superior to animals that actually cultivates concern for them.

K,

You could go that way with it... basically saying we have no duty to not harm anyone, since we're all just beings of nature fighting for the hottest wife, most food, and most secure shelter.

Or you could go the other way, and say animals are more like US than we think, and they have certain rights, and we have to apply our NAP to them in some ways, including, but not limited to; 1) not eating them, 2) not killing them for sport, 3) not killing them for other products, 4) not destroying their ecosystem, 5) not kidnapping/detaining them, etc.

The way you interpret NAP, factory farms and their proprieters have a right to continue with business as usual, and defend "their property."  The way I might interpret NAP, my friends and I might have a right to sneak onto "their property," set free the tortured hogs/cows, and shoot anybody who tries to get in the way of me "defending" those animals right to life and property (or at least to have their detainment feel more like freedom, and less like a slave ship).

But this may not be the time and place for this discussion to pop back up... though maybe a thread on the "definition of freedom" is the perfect place.
Sure

[Kshartle]

The way you interpret NAP, factory farms and their proprieters have a right to continue with business as usual, and defend "their property."  The way I might interpret NAP, my friends and I might have a right to sneak onto "their property," set free the tortured hogs/cows, and shoot anybody who tries to get in the way of me "defending" those animals right to life and property (or at least to have their detainment feel more like freedom, and less like a slave ship).

NAP is the concept that the use of agressive force by humans against other humans is wrong/immoral.

This example above would not be different interpretations of NAP. These would be entirely different concepts. The first is NAP. The second is the rejection of NAP, not a different interpretation of it.

This goes back to the point that Tech first brought up. Words have meanings. We need to agree on the meaning before moving onto a bigger discussion. NAP is the underlined part so the re-interpetation of it is just an incorrect understanding or using the wrong word to describe the moral support for an action.

[Xan]

Okay, so suppose you have Guy A who believes he owns millions of acres, and you have Guy B who believes that if he lives on a modest plot of land, builds a house, creates improvements, and does so for 20+ years, that it's his.

When Guy A comes to chase Guy B off, is that aggression or defense?  When Guy B defends "his" land, is that aggression or defense?  And remember, since this is the One True Way to arrange society, there has to be a single obvious answer with which nobody can disagree.  Good luck.

[Libertarian666]

Okay, so suppose you have Guy A who believes he owns millions of acres, and you have Guy B who believes that if he lives on a modest plot of land, builds a house, creates improvements, and does so for 20+ years, that it's his.

When Guy A comes to chase Guy B off, is that aggression or defense?  When Guy B defends "his" land, is that aggression or defense?  And remember, since this is the One True Way to arrange society, there has to be a single obvious answer with which nobody can disagree.  Good luck.

The answer is that there will be property registration companies that people will subscribe to that will mediate this type of issue so there will be much less violence than happens now (e.g., "eminent domain").

[Kshartle]

Okay, so suppose you have Guy A who believes he owns millions of acres, and you have Guy B who believes that if he lives on a modest plot of land, builds a house, creates improvements, and does so for 20+ years, that it's his.

When Guy A comes to chase Guy B off, is that aggression or defense?  When Guy B defends "his" land, is that aggression or defense?  And remember, since this is the One True Way to arrange society, there has to be a single obvious answer with which nobody can disagree.  Good luck.

The answer is that there will be property registration companies that people will subscribe to that will mediate this type of issue so there will be much less violence than happens now (e.g., "eminent domain").

Tech what if they don't agree with the property registration company?

Gee we've gone over this so many times.

[Mountaineer]

Gee we've gone over this so many times.

I can just hear God saying a variation of that ... "Gee I told them so many times and some of them still don't get it.  I'm going to send my Son to fix it all for them, but many of them probably still won't even accept the gift"  . 

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Even assuming that anybody gave a damn about what a "property registration company" said about anything, what you'd end up with is a war between followers of Property Registration Company A, with one set of beliefs about property, and those of Property Registration Company B, with another set, which would decide which definition of property that society would go with.  I'm not really seeing how this is any different from the property registration company we have now, the government.

[MediumTex]

KShartle,

If the current you sat down with the you of 10 years ago (or so), do you think that they could have a productive conversation about something like religion or the nature of human experience and the proper understanding of reality?

It seems like early in the discussion you would just tell him that if he wanted to believe in stupid things that was his prerogative, but that you were only going to live according to sound ideas and principles.

What is the mechanism for moving your level of understanding forward if your own point of view is considered by you to be correct simply because you believe it and have verified it to your own satisfaction? 

To me, a good framework for expanding my understanding of the world is to first find someone who thinks differently than me, and then try to engage them in a way that will allow me to answer the following questions:

1. What do they believe?
2. Why do they believe it?
3. How did they arrive at their current beliefs?

***

I just had a funny image in my mind of KShartle as an anthropologist, except he was in the form of Ralph Kramden from "The Honeymooners."

KShartle reacts to an explanation at base camp of the villagers' performance of the Stick God ritual entitled "The Odyssey of the Leaf and Loins."

[moda0306]

The way you interpret NAP, factory farms and their proprieters have a right to continue with business as usual, and defend "their property."  The way I might interpret NAP, my friends and I might have a right to sneak onto "their property," set free the tortured hogs/cows, and shoot anybody who tries to get in the way of me "defending" those animals right to life and property (or at least to have their detainment feel more like freedom, and less like a slave ship).

NAP is the concept that the use of agressive force by humans against other humans is wrong/immoral.

This example above would not be different interpretations of NAP. These would be entirely different concepts. The first is NAP. The second is the rejection of NAP, not a different interpretation of it.

This goes back to the point that Tech first brought up. Words have meanings. We need to agree on the meaning before moving onto a bigger discussion. NAP is the underlined part so the re-interpetation of it is just an incorrect understanding or using the wrong word to describe the moral support for an action.

NAP is based on your logic that humans own themselves, and the only reason NAP would LIMIT itself to humans is because of traits you identify as unique to humans over every other thing on the planet...  that 1) we control our actions, and 2) we understand the affects of our actions from a moral AND functional standpoint.

Even with all the exceptions within there that you try to hand-wave away, if we accept that that is true, but then realize that some animals have some degree of control of their actions, and, more importantly, a moral compass of sorts, then this means that there may be some room for them to "own themselves," and potentially qualify for NAP treatment, or maybe some moral value attributed to them at least that would require us to not use them to our benefit, or destroying vast amounts of their ecosystem/habitat.

Any thoughts on that?

A few other things:

- Do animals have ANY moral value at all?  (You have said before they do... puppy example remember?)

- If not, how can it be "wrong" to harm them unnecessarily?

- If animals have  no moral value, why do extremely mentally handicapped humans have any moral value?  They don't control their actions?

- If animals DO have moral value, where is it derived from?  Some lesser version of self-ownership?  Some other value source?

- If animals DO have moral value, to what degree do humans have a duty not to harm animals?  How do you determine this? Do they have any sort of actual "rights?"

[Kshartle]

What is the mechanism for moving your level of understanding forward if your own point of view is considered by you to be correct simply because you believe it and have verified it to your own satisfaction? 

You are projecting MT.

I have disagreed with you on this point many times. You've argued for belief as proof, I've always rejected it. Nothing is true because I believe it. I've said this over and over. In fact in this thread alone you've put forward that a slave might be free simply because they believe it. I'm sure I can dig through our discussions and find examples where we have disagreed on this point. You are now doing a 180 and atributing this false argument to me (which I have never made).

When I've said 99.9% of humans know something so let's move on....I've made the point that this is not proof of validity but we don't need to waste our time proving every single obvious thing or we'll never get anywhere.

I don't know why you would even suggest that I think I'm correct because I believe something. That's silly.

Suggesting that I believe things because I've verified them.....well......how the heck do you come to a belief? What are your beliefs based on, what you saw on TV? Do you have any beliefs of any kind?

[Xan]

When I've said 99.9% of humans know something so let's move on....I've made the point that this is not proof of validity but we don't need to waste our time proving every single obvious thing or we'll never get anywhere.

As opposed to where we normally get?  Maybe we should try a different tack, where you actually demonstrate how your beliefs are uniquely accurate and objectively better than everyone else's, rather than just stating it as fact.

[Libertarian666]

Even assuming that anybody gave a damn about what a "property registration company" said about anything, what you'd end up with is a war between followers of Property Registration Company A, with one set of beliefs about property, and those of Property Registration Company B, with another set, which would decide which definition of property that society would go with.  I'm not really seeing how this is any different from the property registration company we have now, the government.

You would have nothing of the kind, because that would be very expensive for the property registration companies, which would not be able to tax their users, unlike governments. It would be far more profitable for them to have arrangements among themselves for arbitration by neutral third parties when necessary.

Of course this sensible approach is not available when you have a dispute with a government, which has its own employees "arbitrate" disputes that you have with it. That is the ineradicable inherent flaw in government.

[Xan]

Even assuming that anybody gave a damn about what a "property registration company" said about anything, what you'd end up with is a war between followers of Property Registration Company A, with one set of beliefs about property, and those of Property Registration Company B, with another set, which would decide which definition of property that society would go with.  I'm not really seeing how this is any different from the property registration company we have now, the government.

You would have nothing of the kind, because that would be very expensive for the property registration companies, which would not be able to tax their users, unlike governments. It would be far more profitable for them to have arrangements among themselves for arbitration by neutral third parties when necessary.

Of course this sensible approach is not available when you have a dispute with a government, which has its own employees "arbitrate" disputes that you have with it. That is the ineradicable inherent flaw in government.

Ah, so there's another layer: the Property Registration Arbiter.  Okay....  We'll have a war between followers of different Property Registration Arbiters, which will become our new government.

[Kshartle]

NAP is based on your the logic that humans own themselves, and the only reason NAP would LIMIT itself to humans is because of traitsyou identify as unique to humans over every other thing on the planet...  that 1) we control our actions, and 2) we understand the aeffects have the ability to judge of our actions from a moral AND functional standpoint.

Even with all the exceptions within there that you try to hand-wave away, if we accept that that is true, but then realize that some animals have some degree of control of their actions, and, more importantly, a moral compass of sorts, then this means that there may be some room for them to "own themselves," and potentially qualify for NAP treatment, or maybe some moral value attributed to them at least that would require us to not use them to our benefit, or destroying vast amounts of their ecosystem/habitat.

Any thoughts on that?

You're personalizing NAP to me to discredit it. I don't own it and it's not based on my beliefs. I didn't come up with it.

Which animal has a moral compass? Which animal has communicated an understanding of the concept of right and wrong behavior? Which animal do you think should be put in jail or put to death because it acted immorally?

[moda0306]

Even assuming that anybody gave a damn about what a "property registration company" said about anything, what you'd end up with is a war between followers of Property Registration Company A, with one set of beliefs about property, and those of Property Registration Company B, with another set, which would decide which definition of property that society would go with.  I'm not really seeing how this is any different from the property registration company we have now, the government.

You would have nothing of the kind, because that would be very expensive for the property registration companies, which would not be able to tax their users, unlike governments. It would be far more profitable for them to have arrangements among themselves for arbitration by neutral third parties when necessary.

Of course this sensible approach is not available when you have a dispute with a government, which has its own employees "arbitrate" disputes that you have with it. That is the ineradicable inherent flaw in government.

Ah, so there's another layer: the Property Registration Arbiter.  Okay....  We'll have a war between followers of different Property Registration Arbiters, which will become our new government.

No, their job is to arbitrate, they don't fight... they just (sigh) cooperate.

And if they are accused of being corrupt, there will be a third-party reputation-tracking company... and if that third-party reputation tracking company is accused of corruption, the universe collapses because a free society has become so free it has figured out how do divide by f*cking zero.

[moda0306]

NAP is based on your the logic that humans own themselves, and the only reason NAP would LIMIT itself to humans is because of traitsyou identify as unique to humans over every other thing on the planet...  that 1) we control our actions, and 2) we understand the aeffects have the ability to judge of our actions from a moral AND functional standpoint.

Even with all the exceptions within there that you try to hand-wave away, if we accept that that is true, but then realize that some animals have some degree of control of their actions, and, more importantly, a moral compass of sorts, then this means that there may be some room for them to "own themselves," and potentially qualify for NAP treatment, or maybe some moral value attributed to them at least that would require us to not use them to our benefit, or destroying vast amounts of their ecosystem/habitat.

Any thoughts on that?

You're personalizing NAP to me to discredit it. I don't own it and it's not based on my beliefs. I didn't come up with it.

Which animal has a moral compass? Which animal has communicated an understanding of the concept of right and wrong behavior? Which animal do you think should be put in jail or put to death because it acted immorally?

NAP is based on self-ownership.  I'm not trying to discredit it completely.  Just discuss where it works and where it breaks down.

Orca Whales, dolphins, dogs, and some primates, as well as countless other mammals, show a surprising amount of traits that would indicate a recognition of moral value of another.

I think a dog that bites a child should be put down or at least relocated to a family who is ok staying away from children.  I'm not saying animals are usually so conscious and moral to the point where we should start doling out punishment for them for being so.  But it's a sliding scale.  Trees have no individual consciousness.  Dogs have some.  We have more.  There's probably an alien race out there with more conscious of a state than we have.

[Mountaineer]

Trees have no individual consciousness.  Dogs have some.  We have more.  There's probably an alien race out there with more conscious of a state than we have.

From Romans Chapter 8:
…21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.…

Creation groans:  That makes me think of galaxies colliding, stars going supernova, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and even trees eagerly awaiting the return of Jesus to make everything once again perfect.  Thus, perhaps all animals and trees really do have consciousness. 

I'm currently reading "Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul" [William Joseph Bray].  Bray postulates the only thing that is real is our consciousness and our consciuosness paints the universe into being.  But that is another (very, very strange) topic.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Which animal has a moral compass? Which animal has communicated an understanding of the concept of right and wrong behavior? Which animal do you think should be put in jail or put to death because it acted immorally?

http://youtu.be/B8ISzf2pryI

[moda0306]

K,

Maybe you didn't catch it, but I'd love for you to respond to the following questions:

Quote from: Kshartle on February 14, 2014, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: moda0306 on February 14, 2014, 04:53:21 PM
The way you interpret NAP, factory farms and their proprieters have a right to continue with business as usual, and defend "their property."  The way I might interpret NAP, my friends and I might have a right to sneak onto "their property," set free the tortured hogs/cows, and shoot anybody who tries to get in the way of me "defending" those animals right to life and property (or at least to have their detainment feel more like freedom, and less like a slave ship).

NAP is the concept that the use of agressive force by humans against other humans is wrong/immoral.

This example above would not be different interpretations of NAP. These would be entirely different concepts. The first is NAP. The second is the rejection of NAP, not a different interpretation of it.

This goes back to the point that Tech first brought up. Words have meanings. We need to agree on the meaning before moving onto a bigger discussion. NAP is the underlined part so the re-interpetation of it is just an incorrect understanding or using the wrong word to describe the moral support for an action.

NAP is based on your logic that humans own themselves, and the only reason NAP would LIMIT itself to humans is because of traits you identify as unique to humans over every other thing on the planet...  that 1) we control our actions, and 2) we understand the affects of our actions from a moral AND functional standpoint.

Even with all the exceptions within there that you try to hand-wave away, if we accept that that is true, but then realize that some animals have some degree of control of their actions, and, more importantly, a moral compass of sorts, then this means that there may be some room for them to "own themselves," and potentially qualify for NAP treatment, or maybe some moral value attributed to them at least that would require us to not use them to our benefit, or destroying vast amounts of their ecosystem/habitat.

Any thoughts on that?

A few other things:

- Do animals have ANY moral value at all?  (You have said before they do... puppy example remember?)

- If not, how can it be "wrong" to harm them unnecessarily?

- If animals have  no moral value, why do extremely mentally handicapped humans have any moral value?  They don't control their actions?

- If animals DO have moral value, where is it derived from?  Some lesser version of self-ownership?  Some other value source?

- If animals DO have moral value, to what degree do humans have a duty not to harm animals?  How do you determine this? Do they have any sort of actual "rights?"

[Kshartle]

Moda,

What do you mean by "moral value"?

I don't think I've ever said animals have moral value.

If I know what you mean then I can respond.

[moda0306]

Moda,

What do you mean by "moral value"?

I don't think I've ever said animals have moral value.

If I know what you mean then I can respond.

Some intrinsic value that might demand some duty of care on the part of humans... What makes it immoral to torture them vs no different than chopping down a tree. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda,

What do you mean by "moral value"?

I don't think I've ever said animals have moral value.

If I know what you mean then I can respond.

Some intrinsic value that might demand some duty of care on the part of humans... What makes it immoral to torture them vs no different than chopping down a tree.

I don't think that Kshartle believes that a "duty to care" exists even for humans. That's probably not the right way to put it.

[moda0306]

Moda,

What do you mean by "moral value"?

I don't think I've ever said animals have moral value.

If I know what you mean then I can respond.

Some intrinsic value that might demand some duty of care on the part of humans... What makes it immoral to torture them vs no different than chopping down a tree.

I don't think that Kshartle believes that a "duty to care" exists even for humans. That's probably not the right way to put it.

Scratch that.  Moral duty not to harm in any measure or in any circumstance.

[brick-house]

kshartle wrote:

That sounds like slavery to the collective to me.

Why should you sacrifice? Man isn't a sacrificial animal as Rand used to say.

What is the virtue in sacrifice? If sacrificing for others is virtuous, then their reciept of your sacrifice makes them unvirtuous. This can't be correct, it's a contradiction.

Who is Rand?  Are you referring to the chain smoking "philosopher" that mentored Alan Greenspan?   

For some reason when I saw this response - a scene from the movie Rudy came to mind. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8c6j-LS-ZI