AndreChinnery Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My first question is, how do I justify the NAP? I got in an argument with a neo-nazi, I told him that a government has no right to use coercion upon others to advance their own agenda and plan. I explained the NAP, and he simply asked me to justify it, I was stuck there what makes it valid? Most would agree that authoritarianism and genocide is wrong, but he doesn't think so. He justified it through Utilitarianism. My second question regards to Justice and capitalism. I study philosophy at school, we are doing a chapter about justice and the good society. One book I'm reading in complementary to the text book is "Philosophy Key Themes by Julian Baggini and Gareth Southwest." They talk about justice. They define justice as "everyone receiving their due." He then goes into arguing that the creation of wealth in capitalism has no correlation to the amount of work one puts in, he uses the classic CEO vs worker example how the CEO apparently does no work while the worker slaves away and gets paid a slice of what the CEO earns. He introduces Marxism and how a society now becomes fair if it runs on Marxist principles. I quote: "So we end up with Marx's principle that the only fair way to distribute wealth is to give everyone what they need and ask of everyone only what they can do. This is fair, because everyone does what they can so no-one is having an easier time of it than anyone else. Also, everyone gets what they need, no-one suffers just because their needs are greater." I was hoping that some more experienced and wiser philosophers could help me out on these two questions. Yep they teach us that Marxism is a just system in philosophy class (this is a private school too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Justifications should be logically consistent and universal if they are to be valid. The nazi accepts it is right to force his will on others while simultaneously denying others the right to force their will on him (as it's logically impossible). Therefore his justification breaks with universality and as such cannot be valid. He is wrong. As for the Marxist thing, just replace "wealth" with "vagina's" to see how deranged and evil it is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuojat Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Non agression principle say that it is immoral to iniate the use of force on someone. This is justified principle based on self ownership, if i try to use violance againts you when youve done nothing wrong then i am exersising my self ownership (and effects thereof) to rub you of yours. I am using my body and my skills and energy to nullify yours while you arent imposing anything on me. It is the affirmation of MY wish over yours while we both are human and i am (i assume the nuo nazi would) not want you to use/affirm your own self ownership. In other words: Your self ownership is invalid because i trump it with my own! (which has the exact same value so...) This is how i understand it and how i apply it. When it comes to marxism... so much has alewaydy been said by economists of all kinds and in so many podcasts that i wont bother putting it all here but i will say this: "Everyone deceives theyr FAIR due." In this case fair is definaned as the arbitary whims of whomever has political power. So the word fair is sleecy in a way here, sopistry if you will. The market prices mechanism of people trading and exhaning good already palce the value of peoples work and goods value in there for all to see. Noone need SET this fairness. "So we end up with Marx's principle that the only fair way to distribute wealth is to give everyone what they need and ask of everyone only what they can do. This is fair, because everyone does what they can so no-one is having an easier time of it than anyone else. Also, everyone gets what they need, no-one suffers just because their needs are greater." Which is a word salad not an arguement. Also what people need differs, from time to palce and wants and desires failures and successes. Havign easier or harder time doest mean anyhting by itself. And lastly "everyone gets what they need" is merely assumed her and also it is assumed that somehow peoples need should overlap and override theyre wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Why would any board or founder give a CEO so much money if they did not believe they were making more than that amount in that position? Are they just super charitable? Have these authors ever worked with a CEO before? Also, I'm always suspicious of a moral theory that's basis is that something is "fair". What does that mean? "Distributing wealth" is a euphemism for theft, and I can't understand how theft could ever be called "fair". If they are going to use euphemisms and vague language, it makes it hard to know exactly what their argument is, which is probably exactly the reason for them being there. I think that whenever the arguments are explicit, it is much easier to point out how wrong they are, which is why so many people are so vague with their philosophical theories. And I'm not sure what you could say to the neo-nazi. I mean, he's practicing the NAP in his conversation with you. Obviously, he's a proponent of NAP just based on his actions, just that he's not very consistent about it. You could point out the stupidity of utilitarianism... FDR225 Utilitarianism: The Swiss Army Knife at your Throat (Part 1) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_225_Utilitarianism.mp3 FDR226 Utilitarianism: The Pseudoscience of Subjectivity (Part 2) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_226_Utilitarianism_Part_2.mp3 FDR2807 Brad Pitt: Overpaid? Underpaid? http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2807_Overpaid_Underpaid.mp3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Justice in capitalism..... hmmmm... I think voluntary interactions is justice, I am not sure how having the ability to initiate force against other people to assert your prefences could be considered justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Your parents pay for private schools and they have the nerve to try and indoctrinate you with Marxism? Do your parents know about that? About your questions: you can only justify human action, a justification / non-justification only makes sense in that context. So, when the Nazi bashes someone's head in, how does he justify it? He doesn't care. So why would he care how you justify the NAP, then? It's just a rhetorical device he's using. Next time, when the Neo-Nazi asks you that, you tell them, it's because you're going to shoot him if he attacks you or anyone else. That's your justification, in a language he understands. Seriously though, he is the one who would have to justify his actions, first, since the only actions the NAP justifies are retaliatory.The second one rests on Marx's use of labor theory of value (LTV), which no living, breathing, thinking economist or philosopher in the world subscribes to anymore, if he's worth his salt. Read up on labor theory of value, from your favorite economist, be it Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and I'm guessing Stef has a few comments on that, too, for example, FDR 193. Or watch Stephan Kinsella address this, here. Generally speaking, I'd be careful not to get into a fight with your teachers. They can seriously hurt your career. Better tell them what they want to hear. Better tell your father that they are teaching you how wonderful Marxism is at the private school he's paying a fortune for you to attend to. He can tell other parents and they can complain to the school. This teacher should be fired, and if gets into trouble, he should not know it came from you until after he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 You own yourself, and your property. This is justice. Any other arrangement is unjust, by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't think I'd argue, let alone speak, with a neo nazi. That's kind of weird. On the second question, I haven't read the book, but "everyone receiving their due" is the stolen concept fallacy. You talk about a very high level abstraction as if its real world derivation and implications are obvious, and never actually explore the argument on a lower level or even connect it to reality. Where the switch occurs is in discussion the solution to the problem, which will deal with low level solutions. It gives the impression that what was being talked about previously has lower order concepts and behaviors and that these solutions are connected to the theory. Of course what is really occurring is that the measurements of a low level solution are abstracted into a high level concept, and it is presented in reverse to give the appearance of a perfect fit. If that sounds confusing, it is like an infomercial where they spend half the ad talking about a made up problem, and the rest of the ad selling their solution to said problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts