D-Light

Try posting up at the U of U and at SLCC.

Yes, facts, including the metaphysical or mental "existence" of even universally (or nearly so) held preferences, sentiments, or opinions are objective. There exists a nearly universally held aversion against assault, rape, murder, theft, and deception. This is an objective fact independent of the individual or group making the assertion. It may be and has been empirically established. Such sentiments may be expressed in the form of moral judgments or declarations, "assault, rape, murder, theft, and lying are wrong". Or they may be expressed in the form of moral prohibitions, proscriptions or imperatives, "You must not assault; or, Don't assault. You must not rape; or, Don't rape. You must not murder; or, Don't murder. You must not steal; or, Don't steal. You must not deceive; or, don't deceive." The key difference between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the dependency (or independency) of the claimant on the claim. In the case of declarations, the veracity or truth of the claim is either objective (independent of the claimant), or it is subjective (dependent upon the claimant). The independence of the claim can be verified empirically, that is to say, multiple individuals may separately verify through observation or other testing whether the declaration is true. This does not mean that its veracity is dependent upon independent testing; rather, it is merely empirically established or verified in this manner. The veracity of the objective declaration is independent of any claimant. An objective claim is factual or true whether or not anyone or everyone claims it to be true. On the other hand the subjective claim or assertion is dependent upon the individual making the declarative assertion or claim. The veracity or truth of the subjective claim or assertion is wholly dependent upon the individual or group making the claim or assertion. The declarative assertion or claim may be deemed "true" for the particular individual making the assertion; this is what is often referred to as a subjective or personal truth. However such "subjective claims, assertions, or 'truths'" may and often are contradicted by objective facts, assertions, or truths, or by another person's "subjective assertion, claim, or 'personal truth'". Subjective assertions, claims, or 'personal truths'" might more accurately be termed, opinions, perspectives, preferences, or sentiments. A subjective assertion, claim, preference, or sentiment is necessarily dependent upon the subject or claimant for its existence and supposed "veracity". Absent a claimant, the claim, assertion, preference, or sentiment would not exist. It is important to understand HOW a subjective claim or assertion is dependent upon the claimant in order to distinguish between subjective claims and objective claims. The following table indicates many of the important differences between Objective claims and Subjective claims. +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Objective | Subjective | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Empirically verifiable | Not Empirically verifiable | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Independent of claimant | Dependent upon claimant | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Truth / Falsehood | Desirable / Undesirable | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Facts and Conclusions | Preferences and Judgments | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Rational / logical | Non-rational / Sentimental | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Laws, Reason, Methodology | Rules, Ethics, Ideals | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Should" is Predictive | "Should" is Imperative | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Must" means Unavoidable | "Must" means Obligatory | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Right" means True/Correct | "Right" means Good/Preferred | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | "Wrong" means False/Error | "Wrong" means Bad/Abhorred | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Descriptive Natural Laws | Imperative Man-made Rules | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | What is - Real | What should be - Imagined | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Universally True by Nature | Agreement & Consensus | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Inherent / Definitive | Imputed / Chosen | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Natural Phenomena | Human caused | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ | Automatic | Volitional | +----------------------------+------------------------------+ The "trick" comes when a person either conflates or redefines the definitions or meanings of words to blur the lines between the subjective and the objective. It is necessary to keep in mind whether what is being set forth is an objective, predictive description, or a subjective, prescriptive directive or imperative. When the words being used are the same for two different meanings, it can seem like the circle has been squared when in fact, it's just sophistry leading one to believe that the subjective has become objective. It is critically important to keep in mind that all imperative declarations or directives are subjective, not objective. It's especially easy to forget that it is a subjective imperative when the what is being commanded is objectively almost (if not completely) universally desired. Thus, the subjective can be made to look objective by conflating the meaning of words and incorrectly using the terminology for the objective with the subjective by using the same words with ambiguous meanings. The subjective always advances a choice, behavior, ideal, or preference whereas the objective always only describes the choice, behavior, ideal, or preference, detailing and describing its particular properties, qualities, prevalence, etc.

Beliefs are real, but that does not mean that the ideas or concepts are real. Drawings are real, but that does not mean that the images in the drawings depict anything that is real.

God is real in exactly the same way that the State, leprechauns, and unicorns are real.

It is why I prefer the term "self-government" or "self-sovereign" or something like that.

The State is like a friendship between unicorns and leprechauns. Unicorns, leprechauns, and the friendship between them has a real, physical existence--we can literally point to it in the form of the relevant neural pathways and networks in the brains of any people who believe in them and their friendship with each other. So, too, the State is made up of "wetware" in the brains of the people who serve as its agents. Just as the power of friendship between leprechauns and unicorns is real, so it the State's power.

Sentimental agreement or agreeing with the sentiments of another, or sharing the same or similar sentiments is what most people mean by sharing the same ideals, values, and preferences. As near as I can tell, such agreement or shared sentiment is the basis of most successful, intimate friendships and relationships and the basis of all peaceful, orderly societies. I favor anarcho-libertarian ethics because I believe that my living by such ethics offers me the most hope of achieving the most interpersonal and material success and fulfillment in my life. I believe all sentiments have their same basic origins in our physiology, but as each person's physiology is unique to them, only general rules apply universally. While there is a generally experienced sentiment for individuality or liberty, and a generally experienced sentiment for community or interconnectedness, the preference for most people with northern european ancestry seems to slightly favor liberty over community, and most people with asian ancestry may have a preference for community over individuality. I believe it is far more complicated than simple genetics causing a preference for one ideal or value over another, and I believe there are physical environmental factors (nutrition, amount of UV exposure, etc.) at play as well as intellectual and cultural, and experiential factors. Thus, while the origins are ultimately in the regions of the brain that might be termed "non-rational", "emotional", or "sentimental", I believe sentiment is a rather complex process (just as rational thinking is) that likely has many influences and may be generalized in some ways, while not being fully understood. To answer the question as to whether it is like a preference for rice over potatoes, yes... but it comes with the notion that one prefers rice over potatoes because of certain expectations associated with rice vs potatoes.

Stefan continues to redefine terms and present arguments in violation of his ground rules on subsequent pages, but these few examples should suffice for demonstrating to any unbiased observer what I was referring to above.

rhetoric - noun - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. The compositional technique I used was comparative contrast. I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords be held up by other robbers, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered attempt to elude the pursuit of other robbers or slavers, is compared or contrasted to but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. However the comparison between robbers in a mugging and war lords on the one hand, or the state pursuing a tax evader to robbers at a mugging seemed to escape you, so I substituted the terms in the predicate in the first sentence into the second with the hope that one would see that war lords are the equivalent of robbers engaged in muggings, and the state pursing individuals into the desolate wilderness to escape robbers and slavers is the equivalent of fleeing the state with similar objectives of robbery and enslavement. Nevertheless, you object to this rhetorical device, so I shall present the argument in the manner you requested. If the same economic and moral principles apply to one group as apply to another group, the two groups are economically and morally equivalent. Robbers operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such robbers prey upon the populace which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the robber runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the robber's objectives. Agents of the state operate in specific geographic regions where they expect to encounter individuals who have sufficiently acquired wealth and present a nominal threat to their personal safety. Such agents which present opportunities for extortion with only a nominal probability of reciprocity. If the amounts are sufficiently small, or the amount of force threatened or employed sufficiently great, the robber is likely to meet little resistance. If the amounts demanded are too great, or the demands occur with too great a frequency, the state runs the risk of driving way potential recurring or new victims. If the victims or potential victims are not in the middle of being victimized, they may be free to flee to another geographic location, but if they are in the middle of a robbery, their flight will almost certainly be prevented before the accomplishment of the state's objectives. As we can see from the above comparisons, the same economic and moral principles apply to robbers as apply to revenue agents of the state. Therefore, robbers and agents of the state are economically and morally equivalent. I hope that satisfies your desire for a more formally presented argument.

I think we'll have to back up quite a bit. I find Stefan's philosophy to be an apology (defense) of Anarcho-libertarian ethics. It is built into his UPB framework. Do I happen to agree with the sentiments? Yes. Do I happen to agree with the reasoning used in an attempt to justify the sentiments? No.

No, he did not. He actually stated that the ground rules he was going to follow, and then violated them. (UPB p. 9, Ground Rules 1 and 8 in particular) He violates these Ground Rules (UPB p. 33-36)

Yes, and I disagree with his contentions that morality is objective. He conflates the imperative (should/must) with the declarative conclusion (should/must as a consequence), thus violating his own ground rule of distinguishing between an "ought" and an "is".

Yep. The Biblical Christian is a Monarchist, who believes in a supernatural ruler over everything to whom they are indentured bond servants who are "free" but only from a different monarch (Satan), not an anarchist.

That sounds an awful lot like projection to me. I point out where you missed/ignored what I wrote (thoughts are mental actions and therefore it may be inferred that they fall under the same principles which apply to other kinds of actions) and you respond by deflecting with an ad hominem and doubling down on your position with more ad hominem deflection. This is not rational discourse, and you are correct that there is no justification for continuing such behavior. If you wish to address the challenges I placed to your argument, please do so. If you're inclined to simply respond with another hypocritically ironic ad hominem attack, please reconsider and refrain from doing so.