How do you know murder is wrong?

[anthony]

18 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Shakes head. Maybe it's a uniquely American idea, title of a Thomas Paine book, The Rights of Man.

You may trot out many luminaries of Rights and Law I haven't studied, or know only by excellent reputation. There is one I've dug into a little further, and who does personally appeal.

Frederic Bastiat:

"In The Law, he wrote that everyone has a right to protect "his person, his liberty, and his property". The State should be only a "substitution of a common force for individual forces" to defend this right. "Justice" (defense of one's life, liberty, property) has precise limits, but if government power extends further, into philanthropic endeavors, government becomes so limitless that it can grow endlessly. The resulting statism is "based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator." The public then becomes socially-engineered by the legislator and must bend to the legislators' will "like the clay to the potter":

I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law – by force – and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

Bastiat posits that the law becomes perverted when it punishes one's right to self-defense (of his life, liberty, and property) in favor of another's right to "legalized plunder," which he defines as: "if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."^[11] Bastiat was thus against redistribution."

[...] Wikipedia

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

.......

 

Bastiat posits that the law becomes perverted when it punishes one's right to self-defense (of his life, liberty, and property) in favor of another's right to "legalized plunder," which he defines as: "if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."^[11] Bastiat was thus against redistribution."

[...] Wikipedia

Bastiat is Ground Zero reading for libertarians.  Also for basic economics. It was Bastiat  who identified "the broken window fallacy"..

[anthony]

19 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Shakes head. Maybe it's a uniquely American idea, title of a Thomas Paine book, The Rights of Man.

We have very differing ideas. For me, it looks impossible to 'work backwards' from rights to morality. And more, rights, as I think are seen by many, are a substitute for morality or a morality in itself - what we cannot do (to others). But if accepted that an ethics is a guide to what one should do (for oneself), we see the error.. There are very few main categories of harm which one person may inflict on another, and therefore CANNOT do; there are almost endless things and acts from which to deliberate over and choose, for what one CAN do for oneself. How to further demonstrate that rights are not "a morality" (although a code, morally essential to one among other men)? We only have to look at the large range of ethical systems accomodated in a free country. With individual rights and rule of law, it does not matter in the least if you are Scientologist, Buddhist, Rastafarian or Objectivist. And if ever one's system of morality brings one to irrational acts which are self-damaging, that's your own look-out; hard justice in reality will be the pay back for irrationality. The purpose of rights is not to save one from himself. They are the limit of action for anyone who may wish to intrude on others' freedom, but what is overlooked is that to be free, one must also be free to make one's own errors (and correct them). If one acts rationally, the same freedoms apply, and he should benefit from the same 'justice' and usually its just rewards.

[Brant Gaede]

18 hours ago, moralist said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Brant.

This latest California gas tax increase has no expiration date and will generate $5,200,000,000 MORE revenue per year in perpetuity. Also it will add even more to those billions every year because it's indexed to the inflation rate.

$5.2 billion is a lot of screwing.

But it will affect others a lot more than it could ever effect me. I'm protected because as a producer, I simply raise my rates fo cover the increase material transportation costs just like every other business does when their taxes increase.

The cost of government built into every product and service makes everything cost more.

Greg

Yep, a lot of screwing. But isn't the gross national product of CA something like 2.2 trillion/yr?

Wouldn't the previous dollar tax have generated over 40 billion bucks? 40 + 5 = 45 billion.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

We have very differing ideas. For me, it looks impossible to 'work backwards' from rights to morality. And more, rights, as I think are seen by many, are a substitute for morality or a morality in itself - what we cannot do (to others). But if accepted that an ethics is a guide to what one should do (for oneself), we see the error.. There are very few main categories of harm which one person may inflict on another, and therefore CANNOT do; there are almost endless things and acts from which to deliberate over and choose, for what one CAN do for oneself. How to further demonstrate that rights are not "a morality" (although a code, morally essential to one among other men)? We only have to look at the large range of ethical systems accomodated in a free country. With individual rights and rule of law, it does not matter in the least if you are Scientologist, Buddhist, Rastafarian or Objectivist. And if ever one's system of morality brings one to irrational acts which are self-damaging, that's your own look-out; hard justice in reality will be the pay back for irrationality. The purpose of rights is not to save one from himself. They are the limit of action for anyone who may wish to intrude on others' freedom, but what is overlooked is that to be free, one must also be free to make one's own errors (and correct them). If one acts rationally, the same freedoms apply, and he should benefit from the same 'justice' and usually its just rewards.

Two different arenas, private and public. Morality is something YOU do, the law is something WE do. I don't know why that should be so mysterious.

[Brant Gaede]

Rights are workable backward to (some) morality for rights are all about morality, as in right actions.

True, this may be looking in the rearview mirror. This is a minor issue. What isn't minor is the pretense that rights are merely legalities or only concern social efficiencies.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rights are workable backward to (some) morality for rights are all about morality, as in right actions.

True, this may be looking in the rearview mirror. This is a minor issue. What isn't minor is the pretense that rights are merely legalities or only concern social efficiencies.

--Brant

I'm reluctant to wrestle with this, because I think so highly of you, and I hope you prevail in all matters. I look forward to reading the planned essay you mentioned. Meanwhile, although "social efficiencies" sounds awful, civil society is desirable, by which I mean peaceful intercourse, common defense and domestic tranquility as the framers explained it in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, a mere legality made possible by majorities of white male landowners in large states. Ratification was extremely narrow in New York. Whether we examine organic documents like the Declaration of 1776, or U.S. Constitution as amended, or any act of Congress signed into law by a sitting President and not repealed, such instruments created legal rights and duties that were elaborated by officers and bureaucrats.

I dislike the entire structure, because it amounts to a show of hands, and stepwise expansion of voting rights did not improve matters. The current state is guided by a majority of voters who receive money from government as public employees, politicians, appointees, contractors, scientists, medical providers, prosecutors, cops, firemen, broadcast licensees, retirees, university staff and students, low-income families, active duty military, etc. I assert that 2/3 of all computer and communications device sales were made to government agencies and the aforementioned mob of "public policy" recipients who voted themselves a share of leveraged payola.

One last point, please, about theory. Scrap democracy and it remains that there is a separate source of legal rights, which is the enduring source of civil society and domestic tranquility (but not common defense). Bills of exchange, holder in due course, and banking did not arise from legislation.

[Brant Gaede]

The source and maintenance of legal rights comes from those affected by them.

Human rights come from human nature and are a human (abstract) invention--that is, a political philosophy.

Human (biological, cognitive) nature is the standard reference.

Human society starts with the family, goes to tribe, then nation.

Or:

Society

Individual

Society is the human default. The effort required to avoid banishment is little compared to the effort to be a true individual in a society. The society has to sanction this. Just as rights are an invention so too is the concomitant individualism. Neither is arbitrary. Both are rooted in the biology of the brain. The biology of society is of the body and sheer physical survival and reproduction as demanded by the DNA and its complicated life universal.

Concomitant individualism is a sub-category of individualism. The main category is sheer physical apartness and not worth a reference except for a little semantic clarity.

The logical extension of Rand's individualism is anarchy. It's pre-social, but if society is there tear it down. All society has a government. Libertarians--some of them--want some kind of voluntary governance for actual government is force. Her Howard Roark was out of society from the get go, but his get go was also his adulthood. From this essential contradiction Rand made her ideal man. He was The David without the furrowed brow. But Roark was not perfect; The David was. Roark was heroic unto himself. David slaying Goliath benefited his society, not just his view of himself. It was an integrated whole.This contradiction resulted in a plethora of Randian heroes who weren't really heroic. They were reduced to Randian individualism. In Atlas Shrugged Dagny and Hank were heroic and they describe the first part of the novel with the stupendous climax of the first run on The John Galt Line. The rest of the story was their finding the light, or true way, and descending from society into her idea of individualism. You can say they switched to a different society, but that's when the novel says "THE END".

Well, such is my (imperfect and truncated) essay. It's all I've time for.

--Brant

John Galt: "I've done nothing . . . ."

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The source and maintenance of legal rights comes from those affected by them.

Human rights come from human nature and are a human (abstract) invention--that is, a political philosophy.

Human (biological, cognitive) nature is the standard reference.

Human society starts with the family, goes to tribe, then nation.

Or:

Society

Individual

Society is the human default. The effort required to avoid banishment is little compared to the effort to be a true individual in a society. The society has to sanction this. Just as rights are an invention so too is the concomitant individualism. Neither is arbitrary. Both are rooted in the biology of the brain. The biology of society is of the body and sheer physical survival and reproduction as demanded by the DNA and its complicated life universal.

Concomitant individualism is a sub-category of individualism. The main category is sheer physical apartness and not worth a reference except for a little semantic clarity.

The logical extension of Rand's individualism is anarchy. It's pre-social, but if society is there tear it down. All society has a government. Libertarians--some of them--want some kind of voluntary governance for actual government is force. Her Howard Roark was out of society from the get go, but his get go was also his adulthood. From this essential contradiction Rand made her ideal man. He was The David without the furrowed brow. But Roark was not perfect; The David was. Roark was heroic unto himself. David slaying Goliath benefited his society, not just his view of himself. It was an integrated whole.This contradiction resulted in a plethora of Randian heroes who weren't really heroic. They were reduced to Randian individualism. In Atlas Shrugged Dagny and Hank were heroic and they describe the first part of the novel with the stupendous climax of the first run on The John Galt Line. The rest of the story was their finding the light, or true way, and descending from society into her idea of individualism. You can say they switched to a different society, but that's when the novel says "THE END".

Well, such is my (imperfect and truncated) essay. It's all I've time for.

--Brant

John Galt: "I've done nothing . . . ."

In practice hardly anyone ends up as an atomic individual.  In order for a human infant to survive it needs to be nurtured, protected and fed, usually by its biological parents,  but not always.  There are a handful of verified tales of feral humans who were born of a human mother but were never nurtured by another human or a human family.   

99.9999 percent of us  grow up as a dependent part of a family from which we get the Precious Human Gift --- Language.  Without which we are not truly human functioning persons.  It is possible but difficult for a person to get past needing nurture to grow up singly with virtually no other human support.  99.9999 percent of us for better or for worse  are part of a community until physical autonomy is possible.  Past that most of us, the vast majority of us grow up connected to other humans.  Yes,  we are individuals  burt we are social individuals which can turn out happy or miserable. None of the  cognitive tools we need to be functioning human beings can be attained alone,  atomic and disconnected from other humans. Yes we are individual and unique,  but not socially atomic and unjoined to others and ourselves.  We are eusocial, and we function best in communities.  We are social animals but we are not hive animals or herd animals. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

35 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

None of the cognitive tools we need to be functioning human beings can be attained alone

I question this.

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I question this.

Produce a documented instance of a cognitively functional human who never learned learned language from  nuturing person.

Documented cases of feral children  are extremely rare.  Most infants with no nurturing other will die for lack of care and lack of food/water. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The effort required to avoid banishment is little compared to the effort to be a true individual in a society.

Sort of a shocking statement. Goes to show how little I know about life, repeatedly banished, ignored, punished, shunned, fired.

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Most infants with no nurturing other will die for lack of care and lack of food/water. 

Don't move the goal posts. The issue was cognitive tools. I don't believe cognition can be taught, nor tools installed.

[anthony]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I  We are eusocial, and we function best in communities.  We are social animals but we are not hive animals or herd animals. 

 

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”[Aristotle]

Seems Aristotle here was influenced by Nietzsche. ;) One can see why Rand would disagree, I imagine, vehemently. Society precedes the individual...?

But a "society" is OF individuals! It is as to say: an individual precedes an individual. Mmm.

(Rather I think, a *civilisation* which precedes each man chronologically, would be the objective formulation).

Man then, is "contractual" - not "social" - Rand put it somewhere. He associates with others by free and mutual choice, trade of values, and his responsibility to other men is only what he has consented to carry out. Self-sufficiency doesn't detract from or contradict the advantages and pleasures of living in communities, Bob. You make a similar false alternative as did Aristotle. An individual is neither "eusocial" nor dependent.

Contrarily, a proper and moral relationship with others fosters self-sufficiency for them all. Well-meaning respect for other men/women will be the inevitable effect.

"Eusocial" has to be the most unattractive and loaded fabricated word in the language.

 

[anthony]

12 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Two different arenas, private and public. Morality is something YOU do, the law is something WE do. I don't know why that should be so mysterious.

The law is the defender of morality, of a moral person, which is where the two concepts meet - evidently, because it brings transgressors, the immoral, to book. It is then, -liberating- not controlling, for those rational. This all gets increasingly complex the further down into the nuts and bolts of its applications, but no concept falls beneath being regularly questioned, the Law least of all. What is its identity? What is its purpose? For whom is it of value? That's *why* philosophy, to get at the fundaments before the complexities of real specifics, while keeping both facts and concepts in mind.

[anthony]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In practice hardly anyone ends up as an atomic individual.  In order for a human infant to survive it needs to be nurtured, protected and fed, usually by its biological parents,  but not always.  There are a handful of verified tales of feral humans who were born of a human mother but were never nurtured by another human or a human family.   

99.9999 percent of us  grow up as a dependent part of a family from which we get the Precious Human Gift --- Language.  Without which we are not truly human functioning persons.  It is possible but difficult for a person to get past needing nurture to grow up singly with virtually no other human support.  99.9999 percent of us for better or for worse  are part of a community until physical autonomy is possible.

A rendition of reality only the naturalists (Humeans) who cannot connect fact to value - a child, to his parents' selfishness and free choice - could come up with. As if we are born 'atomistically' without inherent worth to ANY one and our initial dependency on parental nurture and education becomes and justifies a life long dependency on others and "community".

(Come to think of it, you are right - for those many of the altruist persuasion).

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”[Aristotle]

Seems Aristotle here was influenced by Nietzsche. ;) One can see why Rand would disagree, I imagine, vehemently. Society precedes the individual...?

But a "society" is OF individuals! It is as to say: an individual precedes an individual. Mmm.

(Rather I think, a *civilisation* which precedes each man chronologically, would be the objective formulation).

Man then, is "contractual" - not "social" - Rand put it somewhere. He associates with others by free and mutual choice, trade of values, and his responsibility to other men is only what he has consented to carry out. Self-sufficiency doesn't detract from or contradict the advantages and pleasures of living in communities, Bob. You make a similar false alternative as did Aristotle. An individual is neither "eusocial" nor dependent.

Contrarily, a proper and moral relationship with others fosters self-sufficiency for them all. Well-meaning respect for other men/women will be the inevitable effect.

"Eusocial" has to be the most unattractive and loaded fabricated word in the language.

 

,,,  deleted

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Don't move the goal posts. The issue was cognitive tools. I don't believe cognition can be taught, nor tools installed.

Normal human beings, human infants grow a brain that is language capable. 

Nature installs  that "tool".   Humans are not blank slates.  We have wired in genetic capabilities (or most of us do) which might or might not be developed and perfected  according to the conditions in which we live,   In particular  if  a human infant  does not receive its "cradle language"  from its nurturer(s)  in the first five years   that infant will never develop a fully capable  intellect.   Our language capability is one of the major  talents humans are endowed with genetically and it is one of the major differences  between our kind (homo sapien sapien) and the other primates  (chimps and bonobos in particular because they are most like us genetically). 

Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

A rendition of reality only the naturalists (Humeans) who cannot connect fact to value - a child, to his parents' selfishness and free choice - could come up with. As if we are born 'atomistically' without inherent worth to ANY one and our initial dependency on parental nurture and education becomes and justifies a life long dependency on others and "community".

(Come to think of it, you are right - for those many of the altruist persuasion).

We are born interfaced to our mother's  circulation system by the placenta.  We do not get to be "stand alone" individuals until the umbilical chord is cut.  And even then we are dependent for 2 to 3 years on the care given to us by our nurturing people (usually the parents and members of the extended family)

Our social nature is largely the result of our genetic makeup,  but the details of how our nature develops is very continent  on environment and experience which includes choices we make (call that "free will"  if you wish). 

Even identical siblings who are nature's very own clones  do not develop exactly the same way in all details.  However twin studies show a higher degree of similarity than between non-identical siblings  an between stranger.  Genes account for some of what we are.  Environment, experience and choice account for the rest.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”[Aristotle]

Seems Aristotle here was influenced by Nietzsche. ;) One can see why Rand would disagree, I imagine, vehemently. Society precedes the individual...?

But a "society" is OF individuals! It is as to say: an individual precedes an individual. Mmm.

(Rather I think, a *civilisation* which precedes each man chronologically, would be the objective formulation).

Man then, is "contractual" - not "social" - Rand put it somewhere. He associates with others by free and mutual choice, trade of values, and his responsibility to other men is only what he has consented to carry out. Self-sufficiency doesn't detract from or contradict the advantages and pleasures of living in communities, Bob. You make a similar false alternative as did Aristotle. An individual is neither "eusocial" nor dependent.

Contrarily, a proper and moral relationship with others fosters self-sufficiency for them all. Well-meaning respect for other men/women will be the inevitable effect.

"Eusocial" has to be the most unattractive and loaded fabricated word in the language.

 

Our form of being social  resembles contractual relations.  Humans survive best when they supply each others needs through specialized labor and humans promote the security and survival  of a community of humans (hence the individuals within the community)  by providing mutual defense and aid for each other.  I imagine  "social" is a dirty word among  Objectifolks    How about  "$social" ; will that sit better with you? 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

A rendition of reality only the naturalists (Humeans) who cannot connect fact to value - a child, to his parents' selfishness and free choice - could come up with. As if we are born 'atomistically' without inherent worth to ANY one and our initial dependency on parental nurture and education becomes and justifies a life long dependency on others and "community".

(Come to think of it, you are right - for those many of the altruist persuasion).

If you believe that heavy objects will fall to the ground if not supported, you too are a "naturalist".
I believe the cosmos and everything in it  is physicals from the smallest to the largest things in it,  from the furtherest to nearest things in it.  We are all children of the Big Bang.  And since we have heavy elements within our bodies,  we are as the late Carl Sagan said (billyuns and billyuns of times) -- Star Stuff. Everything we are or will be was born billyuns of years ago in the Big Bang.

Tell me, sir,  if you were not raised in the "community" of your nurturing folk during the first 3 years of you life,  would you have a language?   I doubt it.

[anthony]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Our form of being social  resembles contractual relations.  Humans survive best when they supply each others needs through specialized labor and humans promote the security and survival  of a community of humans (hence the individuals within the community)  by providing mutual defense and aid for each other.  I imagine  "social" is a dirty word among  Objectifolks    How about  "$social" ; will that sit better with you? 

 

All you say is covered by Capitalism, free markets and self-interest. Some men and women (in a social context) "promote", "supply" and 'provide' security, defence and aid (etc)--from their chosen, contractual responsibility, also.

I.e. They volunteered for a line of work for which there is a demand, and in which they saw high worth, enjoy, and are presumably well recompensed for.

Why make it sound altruistic, implying service and duty? These careers are self-interested.

Social isn't a dirty word in its place - the adjective relating to "society". Why do you believe so? "Eusocial" you always deliberately misuse humanly, loaded with "self-less" connotations, but is a biological term meant for certain insects and animals. Can the insect be "selfish"?

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If you believe that heavy objects will fall to the ground if not supported, you too are a "naturalist".
I believe the cosmos and everything in it  is physicals from the smallest to the largest things in it,  from the furtherest to nearest things in it.  We are all children of the Big Bang.  And since we have heavy elements within our bodies,  we are as the late Carl Sagan said (billyuns and billyuns of times) -- Star Stuff. Everything we are or will be was born billyuns of years ago in the Big Bang.

Tell me, sir,  if you were not raised in the "community" of your nurturing folk during the first 3 years of you life,  would you have a language?   I doubt it.

Poetic, but in essence, untrue. The children of the Big Bang broke the determinist causal chain.

If you imply that being made of and sharing some elements will determine our physical actions, like other bodies in space, you may as well believe in supernatural Destiny. It is mystical.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Poetic, but in essence, untrue. The children of the Big Bang broke the determinist causal chain.

If you imply that being made of and sharing some elements will determine our physical actions, like other bodies in space, you may as well believe in supernatural Destiny. It is mystical.

Not a bit.  I am a physical materialist.,  I have no room in my thinking for ghosts, gods, gremlins, spirits, fairies, angels, spooks or souls.  The Cosmos is made of various forms of matter which are manifestations of physical fields  all dwelling in a manifold of at least four dimensions.   And I never said a word of "determining physical actions".   You said it. Our orbits through various physical phase spaces is not strictly determined. 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

All you say is covered by Capitalism, free markets and self-interest. Some men and women (in a social context) "promote", "supply" and 'provide' security, defence and aid (etc)--from their chosen, contractual responsibility, also.

I.e. They volunteered for a line of work for which there is a demand, and in which they saw high worth, enjoy, and are presumably well recompensed for.

Why make it sound altruistic, implying service and duty? These careers are self-interested.

Social isn't a dirty word in its place - the adjective relating to "society". Why do you believe so? "Eusocial" you always deliberately misuse humanly, loaded with "selfish" connotations, but is a biological term meant for certain insects and animals. Can the insect be "selfish"?

Point to one place where I advocate self-immolation.  You won't find it.  What does "sound altruistic"  means as opposed to just plain "altruistic"?  Eusocial means we operate best within a social  co-operative  structure or arrangement.  Life is not easy for hermits.