labmath2

I called into the show to discuss this and i am not sure people listened to it since i did not see any comments on the podcast. I am considering calling into the show again to finish what i think is an unresolved conversation, but i want to be sure there is no mistake on my part. Stefan defines universally preferable (universal preference) twice in the book (page 30 and page 33-34). During the conversation, Stefan seems to imply that the first one on page 30 is simply a more complete verson of the other. The conversation breaks down when we get to the statement truth is universally preferable to falsehood (in the list of the 8 things you must accept before engaging in debate, cant remember the exact page right now). I admit on my part the initial question was poorly phrased. I think that statement (truth is universally preferable to falsehood) exemplifies the major problem in the book, and that is meaning shift. Once you read page 30 of UPB, all instances of the phrase universally preferable or universal preference must not be interpreted normally, you must apply the definition on page 30. This is important because every use of the word is a call back to every argument that lead up to it. If the definition provided when you were building up to the conclusion is not retained, then those arguments no longer apply. If universally preferable is defined as required for or necessary to achieve a particular goal, example you need to eat to live restated as, to live eating is universally preferable, then all future uses must adhere to this definition. The statement truth is universally preferable to falsehood is difficult to understand if we apply the previous meaning. We would get some version of truth is necessary to falsehood or truth is required for falsehood. If i am being generous, i will accept truth is required or necessary as oppposed to falsehood. Even that leaves the question of what its required or necessary for. Now while the intended meaning of the statement, which is that to engage in debate is to prefer truth to falsehood and to believe the other person also prefers truth to falsehod, is true, it is not what the statement actually mean (edit: actually people engage in debate for all sorts of reasons besides truth, but for the purposes of this i will concede the point) By the time you get to murder cannot be universally preferable behavior, universally preferable has completely changed meaning. Now if Stefan had started by arguing that immorality is that which everyone cannot prefer at the same time, he is free to do that, but then he would have to show a very different proof of validity. While that is the fundamental reason for the call, i will go even further here. Now i want you to consider the first argument (which i have made so far) separately from the one i am about to make. I haven't thought about this as much as the previous one, but even the statement murder cannot be universally preferable (universally preferable used in a standard way) is questionable. Take person A the perpetrator and person B the victim and consider their perspectives. What does it mean to prefer murder? It can mean two things (if we parse the language), it can mean to prefer to be a perpetrator or a victim. The second preference isn't actually to prefer murder, but to prefer be the victim of murder (which is certainly a contradiction). The minute you prefer to be a victim of something (compared to prefering to not be a victim), then you can no longer be a victim of that thing. Is it possible for everyone to prefer to be perpetrator of murder? I think the answer to this determines if murder is universally preferable (standard definition) or not. If the counter argument is that everyone cannot engage in murder at the same time i would agree. Thus it would mean it is immoral to do what everyone cannot do at the same time. To end with a snarky, half joking half serious, comment, it is immoral to do what babies cannot do (if babies count as persons). Edit: when fixing the typos it occured to me i actually conceded at least one point. Ethics as a discipline can be defined as any theory regarding preferable human behavior that is universal, objective, consistent - and binding. Naturally, preferential behavior can only be binding if the goal is desired. - page 30. Can some preferences be objective, i.e universal? - page 33 That is the question. Combining these two quotes (if preferences are merely pathways to goals), are there goals that should be desired?

If you are fine with the system i don't suppose we have much of a disagreement. I was under the impression people were not fine with voting for welfare state but were happy to vote to limit immigration.

I addressed this point earlier, but i did it in a chunk with response to dsayers, so i can see why you might have missed it. If the contract states you will abide by the rules put forth by the association and you agree to it, is it still immoral if you disagree with this particular rule they just announced and if so why?

Use a different word if its more convenient, but the point is that there will need to be some notion of what the limitations of contracts are. On the will, lets assume the lawyer decides to take all the property for himself, can the beneficiaries of the will sue him? If so, why? I realize now the deed is a bit confusing. Istead, lets say you inherit a stock (share in a company), does that mean you are not bound by the rules that all other stock holders are? What about inheriting a company with investors? These are just cases that enter my sleep deprived mind. The last part was a response to someone else.

There is one assumption that dsayer's argument is based on. For stealing to be a performative contradiction, i must both accept and reject property rights. Lets do a thought experiment. Lets assume i am an objectivist who rejects the existence of the state. Yet every year something interesting happens, i file my taxes. Why do i file my taxes? I do so because i do not want to go to prison. Prison is also legal fiction its the forced kidnapping of a person. The further you question me, you will eventually find that i am acquiescing to an idea in people's head known as the state. Since other people believe it, it has real consequences. Lets turn to another person, the man who is doesn't have any moral framework. When he steals, he isn't benefitting from it because he believes in property rights, he benefits because everyone else believes in property rights. He has also acquiesced to the society around him. If he was born into a society where the believes were different (like world of kings and pharaohs) he would simply learn what works to his benefits and what doesn't in that context. If someone really did believe in property rights, then they would be engaging in performative contradiction.

Let me grant for a moment that being threatened makes you not morally culpable for your actions (i have yet to see the logical proof for this), then the government sitiation becomes convoluted. Let us reexamine the hitler example for a moment. Hitler wants people that will do his bidding, so he becomes a politician and eventually leader of germany. He never personally pointed a gun at another person (to my knowledge) so is he morally culpable? You bring up the brainwashed kids, but that solves nothing. Hitler did not personally brainwash those kids, neither did he personally point guns at those who did. Hitler passes a law or issues a decree. Then the police and military enforce it at gunpoint. Leaving aside police for now, lets say you are military and deserting gets you shot. Who shoots you? Other military members. Teachers are employed to teach the curriculum, in thus case nazi propaganda. Parents can choose to expose their children to nazi propaganda, but what happens when those children become adults? Nowhete here does Hitler personally threaten nor brainwash children, so how can he be morally culpable. So who is culpable, the brainwashed kids, the parents, the teachers, the military, or is it still Hitler?

That is true, yet it does not address my point. Are countries valid entities and if so are governments also valid entities? If governments are valid entities and you are morally free to vote your interests, then so are the socialists.

This is where contract law would need to address. I imagine some contracts are enforcible even after death, like a will. I do not know what people will pactice in a free society, but it is possible to make the contract part of the deed of the house. Which means inheriting the house also means inheriting the contract. If such a contract is immoral, i would like to know why. As for not agreeing, if the contract stipulates you will agree with decisions made by the association, then it is part of the contract, even if you disagree with one specific instance.

No, but you are violating your homeowners association contract. Which means they can enforce the terms of the contract. Unless you believe such contracts are immoral or invalid.

The video brings up a very interesting question, at what point does person A become responsible for person C's action and why? When a threatened to shoot c if he did not assault b, you meely stated that dyng was not an option for c. You have to state the operating principle and logical proof for this (or state that its true by definition). If i pay someone to commit murder i an not responsible, why? What if instead i kidnapped his daughter then demand he commit murder? Please respond in the form of principle plus logical workout or simply state that its true by definition.

Do principles apply even when following them makes you worse off? If countries are immaginary creations that legitimize initiation of force, then does promoting an idea that is predicated on the legitimacy of a country make you inconsistent? If you act in self interest now by supporting restriction on muslim immigration, what makes you different from the Bernie Sanders voters doing it for thier own profit?

Are all enforced rile initiation of force? Think of a homeowner's association passing an anti drug rule and forcing violators to pay fines. Would that be immoral?

Is it true by definition that you are not morally culpable when treatened to perform an action or is can it be logically derived from another principle?

From your post it seems like she capitulates a lot to fit your needs. How do you know if she isn't doing things just to keep you around instead of for self improvement? You should both call in to the show if you can.

Phrasing from a more free society perspective, are free societies more likely to be family oriented or individual oriented. Considering how far we have come technologically, are we likely to see the reemergence of a strong family unit if people were free to make their own choices (absent the state)? Would enough individuals be willing to make the choice someone like Stefan made in being a stay at home dad (or mom)? What impact would going one way as opposed to the other likely have on a free society?

I am listening to Sam Harris podcast, Evolving Minds, and and Johnathan Haidt makes an interesting point about women's rights. Now i am paraphrasing so i might not do the argument justice, but here goes nothing. For most of human history, the family was the unit of political action, so that men and women had very different roles/rights (if men were voting it would be more accurate to think of them as voting not for themselves, but for their family which would be framework of most political action). Today, the individual is the unit of political action, therefore it would be unjust/unfair to not give women the same rights as men (I think your view on this might differ depending on if you are conservative or progressive. Although i think support for individual as political actor is strong considering political actions are now about artificial groups born of similarity between members like race, gender, sexual orientation, and strong desire to preserve trees). I have considered some of the implication of the unit of political action being the individual vs the family, and i intuitively think it should be the family. which do you think it should be and what are the downsides and upsides to it being the family?

How can you be so sure of the intention of the protesters? Do you believe people should have a right to assembly and free speech? Are the protesters threatening Trump supporters at these venues? Are you arguing that violence is a just reaction to protests in general or only in this instance?

IS your argument that violence is okay? can you be more clear?

Can FDR post links about others being violent at Trump rallies. I have only seen the videos where Trump supporters attacked protesters (including the one where some man punched someone that as being escorted out).

If rabbits reproduce into extinction without predators, does that not mean they need predators for continued existence?

If i am following this correctly, austrian economists nthink you cannot predict the future of markets, you can only ascertain the current conditions. While its explanatory power for current state of affairs is useful, its limiting. Others think you can come up with systems to make prediction. Using the weather analogy. Its great to know why its raining, its beter to know when it will rain. The problem now is what counts as predictive power. What level of accuracy would it take for austrians to admit some level of predictive power in some other system? To go back to the weather analogy, how good would you have to be at predicting rainfall (time between prediction and rainfall and percent accuracy) for others to take you seriously.

If it were true, it would simply be an extension of first amendment not covering speech that incites violence.

Not an argument.

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[1]Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[citation needed] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Please don't downvote me, but i would like to know why rosencrantz was downvoted. His contribution seems valid.