For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person. Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart. The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Is the United States a "Christian Nation"?
My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Falsehood of Social Tragedy
The apologists for state violence always fall back on some form of social tragedy. Social tragedy is always used as a way to show the state as a source of security for some extreme circumstance. Some common examples are:
1) What happens if you are in need of some medical service you can't afford?
2) The poor will be without school.
3) The poor will be without food
4) The poor will be without housing
5) The elderly will have nowhere to go
Each of these statements is supposed to incite some sort of warming of my heart, which is supposed to lead me to changing my mind and advocating statism in these areas. But the state's apologists make significant errors that go unnoticed on the surface.
The statist makes the mistake of assuming having these things is a right and not a good. I will use schools as an example to discredit this assumption.
Education is what we should all seek, whether it happens in a classroom environment, experience in the world, or a library. Schools are buildings that have to be built and institutions that have to be managed by teachers and principals and others to provide instruction. There is no right to possess the labor of others. There is a right to seek it and obtain it as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights, but there is no right to force others to provide it to you. Educational statists who argue it is a tragedy the poor will not be able to attend school ignore the real tragedy of statism. The state provides schools by seizing money from people under penalty of the law. They essentially say "give us your money, or you will be thrown in jail. If you refuse to pay, and resist being thrown in jail, we will increase the amount of violence against you until we either force you to go to jail, or you are killed."
In my opinion, anyone claiming life's circumstances as a tragedy, and as a valid reason for statism argues for the worst tragedy of all; violence committed by one human against another.
If we truly want more houses for people, more health care options, schools... whatever it is, why not work to actually create more of it, rather than arguing for violence? Therein lies a second tragedy in statism. People, instead of working towards their stated goals of more homes and so forth, instead simply seek political solutions, which by definition is always a state solution, and therefore a violent solution. Of course, it's easy at this point to make the case that the politicians will use their new-found power to enrich themselves (for instance, bureaucrats eat up 70c of every 1$ spent on welfare themselves).
We live in a world of scarcity. People have to create everything we consume... our food, computers, houses, hospitals... all of it. These things do not come out of thin air like they do on Star Trek. Man has two options in getting economic goods; the economic and the political. The economic means is the method of creating. Selling whatever you can to trade for goods... whether it's your brains, your labor, or something someone passed on to you. The political means is the method of violence. It is the means of forcing other people to do what you want.
--Apologists for statism always point to some tragic thing that has happened or would happen without the state... and curiously it is always an attempt to show people as being the victim of scarcity. They ignore the much larger tragedy of statism, as statism requires the tragedy of people thinking actual violence committed against some humans by other humans is ok.--
Is it a tragedy that health care is not affordable to everyone? Well, it's sad to see people suffer, but health care services have to be produced. Their scarcity is a part of life.
Is it a tragedy that many pretend throwing someone in a rape room (jail cell) because they refused to give money to, or obey the wishes of someone else, is ok? I would say it most certainly is.
We all must deal with the reality of scarcity on this planet. Becoming smarter and producing more efficiently, finding new ways of doing things... these are all economic means which lead to the alleviation from scarcity. The political means, in practice, does not lead to the alleviation of scarcity. It leads to the spread of violence, immorality, and when there is nobody left to coerce, poverty.
So let's not be deceived when these apologists for violence try to use some form of social tragedy to strengthen their position. The deck is stacked in our favor; the emperor has no clothes.
1) What happens if you are in need of some medical service you can't afford?
2) The poor will be without school.
3) The poor will be without food
4) The poor will be without housing
5) The elderly will have nowhere to go
Each of these statements is supposed to incite some sort of warming of my heart, which is supposed to lead me to changing my mind and advocating statism in these areas. But the state's apologists make significant errors that go unnoticed on the surface.
The statist makes the mistake of assuming having these things is a right and not a good. I will use schools as an example to discredit this assumption.
Education is what we should all seek, whether it happens in a classroom environment, experience in the world, or a library. Schools are buildings that have to be built and institutions that have to be managed by teachers and principals and others to provide instruction. There is no right to possess the labor of others. There is a right to seek it and obtain it as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights, but there is no right to force others to provide it to you. Educational statists who argue it is a tragedy the poor will not be able to attend school ignore the real tragedy of statism. The state provides schools by seizing money from people under penalty of the law. They essentially say "give us your money, or you will be thrown in jail. If you refuse to pay, and resist being thrown in jail, we will increase the amount of violence against you until we either force you to go to jail, or you are killed."
In my opinion, anyone claiming life's circumstances as a tragedy, and as a valid reason for statism argues for the worst tragedy of all; violence committed by one human against another.
If we truly want more houses for people, more health care options, schools... whatever it is, why not work to actually create more of it, rather than arguing for violence? Therein lies a second tragedy in statism. People, instead of working towards their stated goals of more homes and so forth, instead simply seek political solutions, which by definition is always a state solution, and therefore a violent solution. Of course, it's easy at this point to make the case that the politicians will use their new-found power to enrich themselves (for instance, bureaucrats eat up 70c of every 1$ spent on welfare themselves).
We live in a world of scarcity. People have to create everything we consume... our food, computers, houses, hospitals... all of it. These things do not come out of thin air like they do on Star Trek. Man has two options in getting economic goods; the economic and the political. The economic means is the method of creating. Selling whatever you can to trade for goods... whether it's your brains, your labor, or something someone passed on to you. The political means is the method of violence. It is the means of forcing other people to do what you want.
--Apologists for statism always point to some tragic thing that has happened or would happen without the state... and curiously it is always an attempt to show people as being the victim of scarcity. They ignore the much larger tragedy of statism, as statism requires the tragedy of people thinking actual violence committed against some humans by other humans is ok.--
Is it a tragedy that health care is not affordable to everyone? Well, it's sad to see people suffer, but health care services have to be produced. Their scarcity is a part of life.
Is it a tragedy that many pretend throwing someone in a rape room (jail cell) because they refused to give money to, or obey the wishes of someone else, is ok? I would say it most certainly is.
We all must deal with the reality of scarcity on this planet. Becoming smarter and producing more efficiently, finding new ways of doing things... these are all economic means which lead to the alleviation from scarcity. The political means, in practice, does not lead to the alleviation of scarcity. It leads to the spread of violence, immorality, and when there is nobody left to coerce, poverty.
So let's not be deceived when these apologists for violence try to use some form of social tragedy to strengthen their position. The deck is stacked in our favor; the emperor has no clothes.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
In Defense of Praxeology as a Science
Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation. The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier. The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world. Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them. An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying a purpose. If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)