New Hampshire Underground

In the interest of better understanding anarcho-capitalism I explored a bit the issue of natural laws, what exactly they are or how can they be defined and what is their relation to morals.

At first I understood non-coercion as actually a part of the inescapable natural law. But then I realized, through some discussions (with Kevin mostly) and thinking that this is a fallacy. To cut to the chase, what I ultimately concluded was the following.

Nature is everything that is not artificial, not by a human.

Natural law is the sum of all factors beyond human control.

Law of human nature is the sum of all factors pertaining to human interaction which are not under control of the humans involved.

These definitions are, however, merely conceptions of what these natural laws should be, but they obviously do not describe their practical consequences. This can only be done by a scientific process. We observe a particular action by a human individual in the particular context and then note the results that follow. Once we have a pattern we can begin to formulate a theory that fits the above conception of "natural law" (we take as law only those factors which aren't under control of humans observed). One such theory I think we can easily formulate is the following:

Every act by a human individual in any given moment is in pursuit of the maximum subjective value perceived in that moment.

This applies even when a human is acting irrationally and emotionally. An outside observer could say that someone is acting against his well being, but he can't claim that this someone isn't pursuing what he in that particular moment perceives as most valuable, even if his act involves putting a needle in his vein in order to drug himself (to pose an extreme example).

I would not say that this description of natural law is the only one. Natural law is what it is and can never be described directly, only through a given case in a given context (like the case of undertaking an action, like above). Other ways to describe natural law as it applies to humans is to say that every human individual is capable of thinking, making choices etc. - as other inescapable factors that constitute a human being.

It seems easy to conclude that capitalists and anarcho-capitalists are right when we say that that by the virtue of living as intelligent, self aware and capable of choosing, every human individual is entitled to freedom of action in pursuit of maximum value he perceives and is entitled to the product of this pursuit (property). This philosophy seems to perfectly fit the natural law as described above.

Where things get tricky is when we speak of morals though. A description of the law of gravity can be that "a rock falls". This is a valueless description. But if we would say "it is wrong for this rock to fall on that field" we are doing a value judgment based upon our individual moral standards.

Similarly for natural law applying to humans, we anarcho-capitalists say "coercion is wrong" or "destruction of value is wrong" and we say that it is wrong because the natural consequence of doing coercion or destruction is bad, negative etc.. But the thing is, saying that this consequence is "bad" is a mere value judgment of the individual judging. Someone might theoretically say that a consequence we consider utterly "bad" is actually good. This is if we take that morals are relative to the individual holding them.

So what our whole anarcho-capitalist movement is based upon is the mutual agreement on the moral judgment of coercion as "wrong". But by virtue of agreeing to this moral standard we can't bring ourselves to "coerce" anyone into believing otherwise. :)

And now, finally, the question. What if this leads us into a trap? We are considering "non-coercion" as so fundamental a principle that the result may be de-emphasizing all other moral standards. Someone observing us from the outside might conclude that we morally tolerate everything as long as it's not involving coercion. So suddenly someone killing his dog is morally right (tell that to animal rights people) or a bunch of people consenting to a battle to the death or whatever. I'm deliberately picking extreme examples to illustrate the inherent danger in considering non-coercion as the only moral standard, not that we are doing it. The question is, doesn't this risk exist? Isn't emphasizing non-coercion as the moral that is more fundamental than all others lead to a slippery slope towards finding all other morals as pretty irrelevant?

Thanks

Not bad.
But nature includes humans and their creative outcomes... not true separation exists except as a mental construct.
There is also no mutual agreement amongst the masses of 'non-coercion'. It is simply a moral judgement.
History has ended the debate that coercion can, and has, been used to increase maximum subjective value.

IMO... what anarcho-capitalism is more about is explaining that economic control through outside directive is highly limited in its scope.

Could be so.. I actually later concluded though that, while it is indeed a moral judgment, non-coercion is usually most likely to be agreed upon in a society devoid of coercive monopolies. It has to do with that nature always follows the path of least resistance. Humans make their choices based in pursuit of maximum value yet coercion in effect destroys value of not only the one being coerced, but also the one coercing (value put in freedom, since one who initiates force is likely gonna be sought for, apprehended and forced to pay retribution).

So in other words, using coercion in a free market would in most cases be too expensive (hence facing too much resistance) and therefore the likelihood of it happening is so much smaller than the likelihood of it happening in the system today, which in fact institutionalizes coercion as a norm.

We don't really need to prove that Laissez Faire Free Market is 100% perfect, having 100% no coercion. It is enough to compellingly prove that it is much more likely to work better than the current system.

Of course, the reason why this is so, I'd say, is that unlike most other systems, ours actually takes human nature into account and deals with it seriously, allowing a human to really be a human to the fullest extent that he/she can muster.

Cheers :)

I'd like to add something here.

When I clean up the forest of all of the sub-ideologies, connotations, suppositions, disagreements.. whatever and look right to the core of what my recent paradigm shift made me believe it all comes down to this:

The only axioms are proven laws of human nature and the only moral I seek agreement on is non-coercion. This is voluntaryism.

So fundamentally, morally, whatever.. I am a voluntaryist. I see market as naturally arising from human behavior and I see individualistic economic systems as naturally arising from them (such as capitalism) and then less individualistic ones built on top of them (socialism, communism, etc.) as long as they can arise without coercion.

Therefore, human nature requires a market to interact in. A market requires principles of capitalism to function. Socialism requires the principles of capitalism to function etc. It's a layered pyramid, from more fundamental to less fundamental - from more individualistic to more socialistic. And it ALL coexists because there is no coercion.

This means that it might actually hurt my cause to keep talking about "capitalism" or "anarcho-capitalism" as much as I should talk about non-coercion and human nature. It's like going back to the basics, back to the core, back to Earth and then carefully examining the answers nature gives by itself.

I'm not fond of the term anarcho-capitalism or even capitalism. I use those terms in the right context, depending on who I'm talking to but you have to take into consideration who your listener is whenever you communicate because words mean different things to different people.

I think you should choose your words carefully but I wouldn't focus on "coercion is bad" necessarily. The way I look at it is that someone who claims authority over another person has the burden of proof in claiming such authority. If you look at it logically, government fails dramatically to justify such a claim of authority. People have come to accept certain belief systems simply because they're so ingrained in our culture but that's insufficient to prove such belief systems as valid. In the same way that I was raised a Southern Baptist and later rejected the belief system as irrational, I also was raised a statist and have rejected that belief system as irrational. Taking a rational viewpoint forces us to reconsider the things we have grown up to take for granted. This leaves us in a place where the answers are not simple anymore, but that's a reality we must deal with. That's what an anarchist philosophy is all about. You can even avoid the word "anarchy" if you feel it's best to do so depending on your listener, but the principle remains. A world full of anarchists would not be morally perfect. It would just be a world with a much greater disdain for aggression and therefore peaceful. There will always be disputes about who is right or wrong in a conflict, but these disputes will be better resolved in a world that frowns on aggression in a more consistently rational way.

That's quite true. I agree on adapting terminology depending on whom we speak to, although I may still have a "default" terminology that I apply to myself when I can easily explain what I mean by it.

To be honest, I feel the need to explore issues from the very bottom and then carefully build it up from there. So I try to observe the most fundamental concept I can think off and then see what these concepts in themselves make up. The consistence of fundamental concepts are the new less fundamental concepts. I feel this to be consistent with the way the whole universe is made up. You have atomic particles making up atoms which make up moleculs which make up materials which make up objects which make up various constructions (including living organisms) etc. etc.

I apply this same principle to everything else. That's why I first defined nature above and then, since social systems are about humans, turned to defining human nature and determining what constitutes it in order to be able to see what these properties result in on a social scale (two or more people interacting). By the same process I would conclude that since we are all humans and we all have no other than individual human perspectives, the universe relative to us begins with us individually. Otherwise the universe, to us, does not matter. This is why I find an individual to be the most fundamental human unit and would therefore place individualistic ideologies like capitalism and anarcho-capitalism as fundamental to even socialism, if socialism is to be just.

And this clearly leads to the conclusion that if an individual does not want to be harmed he must agree not to harm others - non-coercion. It also means that if a human wants to maximize his mental reward (pursue maximum values) he must engage in trade therefore establishing a market. This may be a bold statement, but at this point and with this reasoning I find it perfectly logical: socialism cannot justly exist without capitalism underneath it and if someone tries to impose socialism *before* accepting the capitalist base first he is likely trying to coerce others into behaving the way he/she wants. And when I say "capitalism" here I mean a bug-fixed capitalism that anarcho-capitalism really is (everything except the government and democracy). ;)

EDIT: Just a little clarification here. What I essentially mean is that socialism must answer to the free market, not vice versa. Establishing a coercive monopoly is a violation of this principle because market with a coercive monopoly in it, is no longer a free market. I can see statist socialists screaming at this, but frankly I don't give a ****. Someone must be wrong. I feel this conclusion to be based on human nature and it is therefore largely inescapable. :)

I think this is fairly consistent with what you say about the burden of proof for authority. Indeed, if everything starts with an individual then it follows that this individual according to his values has to be the one to first *authorize* whatever *authority* he wants or needs. Otherwise, authority is baseless. And those who did authorize authority have to ask themselves WHY exactly and of what benefit is this to them.

Many may find answers they find surprising.

So if I put voluntaryism as a fundamental principle here this is only because nothing else really pursues true change in the way we humans interact. Coercion has been tried time and time again in various forms and it always ultimately led to destruction of values. Obvious anti-dote then seems to be non-coercion. I'm sticking to this principle so much because it is pretty much the single switch between the currently prevailing paradigm and a new one we're trying to spread. But then again I guess saying non-authority is just another way of putting the same thing.

Uh.. a long post again. :)

Thanks

I think that's on the right track. If I were to try to explain it in shorter terms, I'd say that coercion is accepting the premise that might makes right. If two people are having a reasoned debate, the moment one of them loses his temper and beats the other into submission, then reason has been abandoned. So reason ends where force begins.

Some socialists will argue that you have might makes right if you don't have a government because we need someone to protect the rights of the weak. Well, that is an unfortunate problem of reality, that we don't all share the exact same amount of ability to do force, but the serious flaw in that proposed solution is that it makes an exception for government and that brings us back to the justification for government authority. What makes them morally superior so that they aren't just a big thug with all the power? What people must face if they think about it, is that ultimately the only thing backing up government authority is force so we're right back to might makes right and reason being abandoned. So socialists are acknowledging a legitimate problem, but not proposing a legitimate solution. And I think why they keep coming back to that solution is because they want a perfect world and cannot face the reality that the world we live in is not perfect and never will be. We have to acknowledge reality so that we can move forward and make it the best world we can.

Acknowledging these facts of reality doesn't instantly solve all the worlds problems. What it does do is put us the right path to those solutions.

Well said. That might makes right seems quite a true characterization of pro-government ideas.

That we don't advocate some sort of a perfect society, but merely a better way, is also a crucial point. It's so easy to get into an endless argument about the specifics of how will a free market address this or that situation where a socialist might feel like he's having the edge because he keeps pointing out all the negative human traits that tend to make us do stupid things, including initiation of force, fraud etc. And then it's easy to forget to say "but hey man, I never said it wont have any problems, I just don't think government is the solution".

Well, of course, many would disagree and I guess there comes a point to simply agree to disagree. I remain convinced that evidence proves them wrong. We've had centuries of governments, from smallest to biggest, and every time we've had oppression of basic freedoms, a whole lot of violence, not to mention war, poverty etc. Just the same the history of free markets has shown that they tend to produce prosperity proportionate to the amount of freedom that they are allowed.

Heck, you know what I've read in some article about governments war against tax evasion? I'll quote (translated from Croatian):

"Grey economy takes away a pretty big share of social product. The state is trying to, in a variety of ways, lessen its effect, but in that job is often unconvincing. The existence of the grey economy maintains a greater level of the overall social prosperity, that is, secures social peace. In its approach to tax evasion and tax avoidance, the state has a difficult task of deciding between higher tax incomes and social peace secured by the hidden grey economy.. In case anyone can read Croatian here is the source: http://www.ijf.hr/pojmovnik/izbjegavanje_i_utaja_poreza.htm It comes from an Institute for Public finances (which is apparently a public institution).

When I've read this I felt outraged. I thought to myself, gosh.. this is so incredibly crazy. It basically implies that even the state knows that freer markets bring more prosperity yet keep hampering on it for the sake of keeping their "tax income". It's like deliberately and with full awareness oppressing the overall prosperity of the individuals in the market.

Socialists can argue all they want how, if governments so far failed to solve certain problems, it just means they weren't implemented properly, but to me this seems more and more like arguing how the hammer can be successfully used to paint pictures if you just use it right despite the fact that a brush could do so much of a better job. "We just have to use it right and it'll be good.".. Yeah, for how many freaking centuries more are we supposed to wait for someone to use government "the right way"? Really, it's time for it to stop.

Cheers

'Might makes right' is a pro-government idea?

No, obviously, but that's what their ideas come down to. A given set of rules is enforced by the coercive might of the police force regardless of whether you consider those rules morally right or wrong. It is imposed as "right".

It stems from that whichever set of rules has a majority vote must be the right set of rules, and "majority" is again just another form of "might". Unfortunately, it is in practice even worse as the majorities merely choose who makes laws rather than what exactly will those laws be.

True, but an individual could 'enforce' their moral 'right' just as easily... most likely with the death sentence being the only punishment.

The 'Might' of the majority is a herd mentality. Its generally controlled by greed/fear... and has been used for eons. Ancient hunters would slaughter whole herds of bison by controlling the fear and leading them to a cliff.

That's why the basic agreement required of all those with whom we might build a voluntaryist free market is that to the moral of non-coercion. If we can't convince people of that much then we might as well just accept the status quo or merely try to minimize government the way libertarians want it (I wont deny it would be better than what we have).

However, although I still am in search of the best possible way to express this, I think that non-coercion is a semi-universal belief already. I wont go so far to claim that it is an absolute objectivist thing. It certainly is a subjective moral value. However it is one subjective moral value which, considering human nature, is most likely to prevail.

In other words I find it more natural for someone to believe in non-coercion and stick with it than not to. I find it more likely for someone, once really faced with the issue, to accept to do to others as he wishes others to do unto him - and if (s)he does not want to be harmed this translates to non-coercion. :)

Cheers

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 21, 2008, 08:48 AM NHFT
True, but an individual could 'enforce' their moral 'right' just as easily... most likely with the death sentence being the only punishment.

The 'Might' of the majority is a herd mentality. Its generally controlled by greed/fear... and has been used for eons. Ancient hunters would slaughter whole herds of bison by controlling the fear and leading them to a cliff.

I see no basis for anyone's right to punish. This is another notion that presumes some kind of superiority to another person, i.e. you did something wrong IMO and I am now going to assign a punishment. One can argue a basis for self-defense and restitution on the basis of individual rights, but not punishment. And how can you think an individual can enforce their views of right and wrong just as easily as an organization of consolidated power? Besides that, an individual is directly connected to the responsibility for his actions. He might incorrectly justify his actions, but he will still be directly tied to them whereas with government, almost everyone involved feels unconnected to the harm being done. Politicians are enacting the will of the people. Cops and military are just following orders. Judges are making decisions based on the law. Voters are performing their social responsibility and picking from an extremely limited set of choices which then circles back and justifies the politicians. The nature of collectivism disconnects all the actions being taken from any sense of responsibility by the people actually taking the actions.

And yes, absolutely, the authority of government ultimately comes down to nothing more than might because no one has ever established a basis for that authority. It comes down to the idea that because we supposedly must have "something" we will make it so with consolidated might. Lately we just use more elaborate justifications than the divine right of kings.

I consider the Non-Aggression Principle (essentially the same as what you're referring to as non-coercion) to be the only moral principle. Everything else is personal preference.

The logic behind this is simple: Describing something as immoral implies that it's something that one believes ought to be prevented, stopped, or perhaps punished after the fact. The NAP states that initiating force is immoral, and any use of force except in response to initiation is initiation itself, and thus immoral. So attempts to use force to prevent, stop, or punish any other acts beyond initiation of force itself are immoral, because such acts are an initiation of force.

There was an elaborate debate about this on the FSP forum between myself and a few other NAP supporters, and Jason Sorens, in these threads, that you might find interesting:—

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=14942.0
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15005.0

But then again, a cynic might say that your desire to prevent violence is personal preference.  ;)

Quote from: Caleb on April 21, 2008, 10:45 AM NHFT
But then again, a cynic might say that your desire to prevent violence is personal preference.  ;)

I seem to remember that this sort of moral relativism—that all morals are just personal or cultural beliefs—came up somewhere in the pages of debate I linked to there. And the argument that came up was that non-aggression could be established, perhaps, as a universal moral principle since it already nearly is accepted, to some extent, and in some form or another, by every society. (No one really accepts it completely, or consistently, of course, which is why we still have the mess that we do, heh.)

[And actually, my desire is to prevent aggression. I have no desire to prevent violence (that's just another word for force), and would in fact encourage people to use such if aggression is being committed against them.]

Ok, I'll fix it. A cynic might say that your desire to prevent aggression is personal preference.

You can't appeal to, "well, a lot of people share my preference" to make it a moral absolute. If everyone in the whole world loves chocolate ice cream, that doesn't make chocolate ice cream a moral absolute.

Yeah, what Caleb is saying is in big part why I am hesitant in taking the non-aggression principle as an absolute objective or universal moral. I'll clarify a bit.

As I see it (and have expressed in the original post), the laws of nature are all the factors which are beyond human control. This obviously also means that everything that IS under human control no longer belongs to the realm of laws of nature and therefore cannot be considered objective before they are considered subjective. Consider the simple scenario where you believe that throwing yourself off the building wont actually hurt you, and do this and then die. Laws of nature, as something you can't control, caused you to die - they were unchangeable by your thought alone. So while you can change your thoughts you can't change reality.

Non-coercion principle, by the mere fact that one can change his mind about it is hardly an absolute reality. However, just as one who thought that throwing himself off the building wont harm him yet he ended up dead so changing your mind about non-coercion and acting upon such a belief will end with adverse consequences for you more likely than not.

This is why I'm saying it's a subjective moral, but one which is more likely to be accepted by majority of people as they come to understand the inescapable consequences of doing otherwise.

Cheers

Quote from: gu3st on April 21, 2008, 11:37 AM NHFT
This is why I'm saying it's a subjective moral, but one which is more likely to be accepted by majority of people as they come to understand the inescapable consequences of doing otherwise.

I think that's what it comes down to. What rights can you have without the right to life? Self defense is something that comes naturally to just about every living thing on this planet. Caleb believes in life after death. I don't. I abhor violence, but if it comes down to defending my life, I'll be really surprised if an animal instinct doesn't kick in. At that point, I'm not going to be analyzing the morality of the situation. There's that old expression- better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. The principle applies. That's why I see self defense as part of natural law.

If you can choose not to defend yourself then it doesn't fit the "factors not under human control" definition of laws of nature and in that sense isn't natural law. BUT, considering that pretty much everyone does defend themselves, and we're probably talking about 99.99% of humans (I guess the only exception is Gandhi and his little cult of total pacifists :D ) then it may be considered a de-facto natural law.

Even so though, self-defense includes merely defensive force, not initiation of force. I think that less people would refrain from initiated force than refrain from defensive force. Still, that merely compels me to treat it as a subjective moral rather than a natural law. I still believe that the likelihood of someone initiating force in a stateless society is much much lower than the likelihood of it happening in a state-governed society - because, ya know.. that's what state actually is - inevitably. There's simply no argument there. :)

And of course, another reason is that initiating force puts you in a greater state of risk for your life and liberty too (as you mentioned), which is another incentive not to initiate force (same one as the incentive to defend yourself).

Cheers

Humans are NOT separate from nature... they are a subset.
'Fight or Flight' is a well known reactionary response to perceived danger.

The iniation of force is generally based on emotional factors... and in higher thought is subject to risk/reward assessment. The 'Art of War' is still read by business majors.

Quote from: Caleb on April 21, 2008, 11:15 AM NHFT
Ok, I'll fix it. A cynic might say that your desire to prevent aggression is personal preference.

You can't appeal to, "well, a lot of people share my preference" to make it a moral absolute. If everyone in the whole world loves chocolate ice cream, that doesn't make chocolate ice cream a moral absolute.

Sure I can. ;)

Like I said earlier, I consider "immorality" to be nothing more than a disagreeable action that someone engages in that warrants counteraction—things such as defense, and perhaps prevention and/or punishment. And "morality" of course would be nothing other than not engaging in such action. So long as you don't do bad stuff, you're living morally. Doing good stuff is good of course, but not required. There are no positive obligations.

And, as you know, I'm an atheist: I believe morality comes from human beings and human beings alone, nothing more.* No one is telling us what to do other than ourselves; there is no higher power or "absolute" anything guiding us. And so, how do we discover absolute or universal morality? We look for those things that are universally believed in to be disagreeable acts that warrant counteraction. If any such thing could be established to truly be believed by every single person alive, I could and would consider such a thing to be a moral absolute.

Of course, in most circumstances, the only way to establish such a thing would be to literally query every single person alive as to whether or not they believe in it—if you find one person who doesn't, then it's not universal. (This same exhaustive-search craziness came up in that thread, too, with respect to Jason trying to prove that there was no such thing as a six-year-old who had the mental capacity of an adult. I'm starting to think everything came up in that damned thread...)

However, forget about that! You can establish non-aggression as being something believed in by every single person alive simply by looking at the definition. Aggression means initiating force against someone: It means killing someone against their will, or harming them or taking something from them against there will, and so on.

And if something is against their will, obviously they think it's disagreeable, and warrants counteraction—otherwise it wouldn't be against their will, and thus couldn't be considered aggression.

It's all very tautological.

Now of course, there are many, many societies, including our own, in which acts of aggression by certain classes (e.g., the State and its agents) against another are tolerated, but this doesn't mean they're accepted—people against whom such actions are being committed certainly find them disagreeable, and certainly would like to take counteraction, they simply don't out of fear or resignation.

Everyone believes in non-aggression. Where people seem to fall down is that the vast majority don't apply it consistently. Everyone believes in non-aggression with respect to themselves. For most, with respect to others... well, see the previous paragraph about tolerating what the State and its agents do.

---

* If you're familiar with the field of lexicography, there are two camps of sorts: Proscriptive lexicographers and descriptive lexicographers. Proscriptive lexicographers believe there is a "correct" way in which people ought to speak the language. Descriptive lexicographers believe that their job is simply to catalogue how people actually speak. Perhaps you could describe my approach to human morality as "descriptive morality" instead of "proscriptive morality."

Morality is universally subjective but can be objective within a certain context. For instance, I see property and slavery as being objectively paradoxical to each other. It doesn't mean you can't be for one or the other, but you can't be for both 100% because they are mutually exclusive in principle. So morality I think can be defined objectively within the context of civilized society, though even that is based on our terms of what civilized society is.

Example: If your goal is to reach destination X and you're on a flat plane with nothing obstructing your path, then in that context, you can objectively say that going toward X is "better" than going away from X. Someone might logically argue that X isn't the goal and whether it is a subjective goal. However, if you can agree on the goal (the subjective context) then you can come to objective conclusions based on rational thinking. For instance, you cannot both go toward X and be going away from X in this context. That is a paradox.

Non-aggression wouldn't make much sense for a professional assassin... they operate on risk/reward.
Thus 'non-aggression' is not a universal.

Maximizing one's perceived value may be. As even the most charitable individuals do so mostly for some emotional public response  or some perceived gain in an afterlife.

Quote from: John Edward MercierHumans are NOT separate from nature... they are a subset.

I agree. I don't think being able to manipulate some things in nature makes them less part of nature itself. It's just one of the natural properties of human beings. But given the context of what human being can or cannot do it seems logical to say that laws of nature are those which we are subject to whether we want it or not, those which we cannot affect in any way. Everything that we can manipulate, however, introduces the human factor to those natural laws and such actions can therefore no longer be considered natural, but human induced consequences.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145And if something is against their will, obviously they think it's disagreeable, and warrants counteraction—otherwise it wouldn't be against their will, and thus couldn't be considered aggression.

That's a very good point. I suppose this is an effective argument in favor of the conclusion that everyone "subjectively" agrees with non-coercion which makes it a de-facto objective truth as well.

Quote from: dalebertMorality is universally subjective but can be objective within a certain context.

I agree. It also fits with what J'raxis said above. I suppose just like you first have to have an individual before you can have a social group (therefore making individualism more fundamental to socialism) in this case we first test a theory for subjective thinking and then see if it can be made objective. It appears that non-coercion can.

It's actually the same strategy used to determine the distinction between natural laws (hence inescapable) and human decisions (hence always relative to the individual applying them). Can an individual human subjectively change a given factor that affects his thought and action? If the answer is no then that factor is a natural law. If the answer is yes then the "truth" in question is relative to the human individual.

Quote from: John Edward MercierNon-aggression wouldn't make much sense for a professional assassin... they operate on risk/reward.
Thus 'non-aggression' is not a universal.

Well, there you successfully question the objectivity of the truth of non-aggression. I think at that point it may be worth asking whether he is really disagreeing with non-aggression? The very reason acting aggressively is seen by the assassin as a "risk" may indicate that he does not want to be aggressed upon, but given his circumstances is willing to risk that by aggressing on others. In this sense we could say that non-aggression IS an objective principle - it's just that some people choose to break it and suffer the risks/consequences associated.

I still, just to be clear, haven't entirely made up my mind whether to consider non-coercion as objective/universal/natural law or just a subjective moral held by most people. Just exploring the issue. But I feel I'm getting closer to seeing it as an objective "held by all" moral, mostly based on what J'raxis says above..

By definition a Law of Nature would be a universal constant, or at the very least one that has not been disproven and has substancial support.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 24, 2008, 09:36 AM NHFT
By definition a Law of Nature would be a universal constant, or at the very least one that has not been disproven and has substancial support.

I think when people are talking about natural law, they're referring to concepts that developed naturally as part of the evolution of the human race as a social creature. That's what I mean by it. Ideas like the right to life, liberty, and property developed as very effective traits key to the success of our species. They are not laws of nature per se like gravity or the conservation of mass, but they developed naturally and have inherent logical value as a favorable trait to be chosen by natural selection. In time, I would expect non-aggressive, cooperative people (who nonetheless stand up for their own rights) to survive better than criminals leading to more civilized and therefore prosperous societies in the future because it makes sense. There are species that developed to be incredibly self-sufficient where it doesn't necessarily make sense for them, like alligators. Intelligence is only part of the equation for human success. Cooperation is another big part, and respecting rights is a key part of more effective cooperation.

'Natural Law' is a misnomer of social morality based in philosophy.
The term suggests a universal constant, but has been debated with inclusions and exclusions for quite some time. The basic of greed/fear is understood, but beyond that the dynamic is to obtuse to accomodate a universal constant.

Cooperation is important, but its fluid.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 25, 2008, 08:04 AM NHFT
The term suggests a universal constant, ...

No, the term itself only suggests that it's natural. I specifically said it's not universal or constant and can only be objectively examined within a certain context. I don't know. You didn't quote, but the timing of your response makes it appear that it's a response to me but perhaps it's directed elsewhere. I agree that it's fluid, particularly when applied to real situations. That's why it will always be debated and that's why there will always be a need for effective dispute resolution if we want to live in a peaceful society. It's also why I'm against unnatural law. While natural law is open to debate, unnatural law is very clear and easy to define by it's arbitrary nature of "It's the law because I say so or because condition x, which I pulled out of my ass, has been satisfied."

A Law in science is a universal constant... its not supposed to be fluid.
The term was more likely used first by someone wishing to establish their hypothesis as being unquestionable. They more likely gathered circumstancial evidence based on observation of their immediate scope of knowledge... and should have termed it Natural Theory... but went for the big one.

I wonder if it is possible to redefine human interactions in terms of ethics, rather than morals, since I agree that morals are often both subjectively and religiously laden.

Is it possible that what we need to discuss are human ethics?  I am choosing the word ethics because it does not carry the connotative overburden of either of those stated characteristics, nor the additional one of being value-laden and emotive for most humans: ethics seems to be a slightly more neutral word to employ when discussion human actions and interactions.

Given that the word ethics is acceptable, how does one human construct an ethical frame of reference from which to operate?  Since in any logical analysis of human action, we each can only approach thinking about human action as an individual, and from an individual, viewpoint, then, it seems to me, the most we can hope to accomplish is to define that set of ethics which best enhances our individual life.  

If, as an individual, I am capable of observing the logical flow of events which follow the actions of other humans, I can begin to develop a set of ethics, and that set, fundamentally, may include such ethical precepts as:
do not practice incest for practical reasons of genetic complications;
do not practice cannibalism for practical reasons of disease control, as well as so my offspring will enhance my life through added joy and delight;
do not practice club-swinging as it is far less effective now that we have human language;
gain knowledge through sharing ideas;
gain access to more value through cooperative efforts, such as group hunting, than through constant competition on an individual level;
gain material value through cooperative exchange, so that you can exchange with the other individual again later.  I cannot do that if I kill him or eat him;
do not initiate coercive force because the intended victim may be able to kill you prior to you killing him;
do not initiate force because if you do, you will be shunned by other humans who have already learned that lesson and added that precept to their ethics.  When you are shunned, your level of utility in gaining value is severely reduced and restricted.

I offer these ideas for discussion, not as definitive statements on human ethics.

I should add that I am an anthropologist, of human evolution and thought, and as such, have spent a rather inordinate amount of time considering the evolutionary course of humans, especially the macro-development of human action and interaction with the introduction of such concepts as spoken language, written language, global communication, and the inherent sharing of all ideas which expand with each development, and each expansion's relationship to how humans then shaped society and their ethical precepts.
ff

Wouldn't that fall back under 'perceived maximum value' being the most likely candidate for a universal constant?

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 25, 2008, 09:04 AM NHFT
A Law in science is a universal constant... its not supposed to be fluid.
The term was more likely used first by someone wishing to establish their hypothesis as being unquestionable. They more likely gathered circumstancial evidence based on observation of their immediate scope of knowledge... and should have termed it Natural Theory... but went for the big one.

But "natural law" isn't referring to a scientific law. It's referring to laws of morality. I don't care to argue what someone else's motives might be in using the term. I'm only clarifying what I and many others mean when they use the term.

By calling man-made rules "laws", the proponents of the rules are attempting to give them more authority/legitimacy than they deserve.

I think anarchists ought to stop giving them more weight than they deserve by calling them laws and ought to call them rules or something like that that carries less of a connotation of legitimacy.

QuoteBy calling man-made rules "laws", the proponents of the rules are attempting to give them more authority/legitimacy than they deserve.

That's true nowadays. The original idea behind the term "natural law" was that it referred to the laws that underlay successful human societies. In other words, actual natural laws, exactly as in Physics.

Hayek and Von Mises, for instance, proposed that government couldn't interfere with market pricing without lowering economic productivity. Insofar as you can do controlled experiments on humans, this one has been demonstrated pretty well... I'd call it a "natural law" until someone shows an example of a successful command economy.

Feralfae, using the term "ethics" instead of "morals" could perhaps be a bit better strategy considering the connotations you speak of, although I don't really connote that term too negatively. But in any case, when I speak of morals I really speak of ethics and vice versa. The two terms are, in my mind, largely synonymous.

The ethical precepts you named seem to be among the things most people do learn and adopt, and would act on them regardless of whether there was a law that said something to the extent of "do no harm" or not. They come naturally. While we might not be able to claim that these precepts are "natural law" we can say that they are the most likely outcome of that which can be claimed as "natural law" - such as the fact that we live as self-aware, decision making beings capable of action who want to protect ourselves from harm and always pursue maximum mental reward (individual values). IMHO, those principles are what I consider "natural law" whereas I consider ethical standards such as non-coercion at least a mere outcome of these natural facts.

John Edward Mercier, I agree with you that natural law might even more precisely be called a "natural theory", in so far as I would consider all currently adopted "truths" as possibly challenged in the future. However, this possibility exists even for some "laws" of physics, yet we still call them laws since we at this point in time find them to be supported by evidence we find in the results of our probing and testing (the scientific process). That said, I still wont call non-coercion a natural law as such, but I find it to be the very usual outcome of natural law describing us as humans: human nature - the universal traits that we posses, which define us as species.

Ron Helwig, I agree with the motion to stop calling man-made laws as "laws". "Rules" sounds fine, but when greater descriptiveness is appropriate I think they can easily be called a list of wishes on how one wants others to live, which happen to be forced by the army funded by money stolen from ignorant people. :P

Quote from: gu3st on April 25, 2008, 06:59 PM NHFT
Feralfae, using the term "ethics" instead of "morals" could perhaps be a bit better strategy considering the connotations you speak of, although I don't really connote that term too negatively. But in any case, when I speak of morals I really speak of ethics and vice versa. The two terms are, in my mind, largely synonymous.

The ethical precepts you named seem to be among the things most people do learn and adopt, and would act on them regardless of whether there was a law that said something to the extent of "do no harm" or not. They come naturally. While we might not be able to claim that these precepts are "natural law" we can say that they are the most likely outcome of that which can be claimed as "natural law" - such as the fact that we live as self-aware, decision making beings capable of action who want to protect ourselves from harm and always pursue maximum mental reward (individual values). IMHO, those principles are what I consider "natural law" whereas I consider ethical standards such as non-coercion at least a mere outcome of these natural facts. :P

Gu3st,
Interesting, and yes, for those humans who hold no religious precepts, (and who are not sociopathalogically inclined to find cannibalism moral)   :P ::) , the words morals and ethics may be considered interchangeable. 
Yet, considering the universal nature of the human characteristics we are discussing, and given even the most casual observation of humans, I believe it is necessary to find a word which most closely holds a meaning and connotations which most effectively convey the concept we intend to discuss, without diffusing that concept with other considerations, for which other, more apt words might apply.  Thus, while, subjectively, the words may be interchangeable for you, let us not presuppose that these words are interchangeable amongst most humans. 

Is it not therefore probable that, since there are more than two humans here holding a discussion in this forum, the most precise use of words available to us will enhance the utility of our discussion?

Yes, the ethical precepts I listed have been adopted by humans over the course of human evolution, by the observing and synthesizing nature of the human brain  (a delightful problem-solving device if I ever operated one!).  For many reasons, all of which I am sure come readily to your mind, human observation, and thus the synthesizing of data, have increased astronomically in the recent history of humans. 

Relatively typing, concepts of individual rights, and thus human rights, are being shared globally at this time.  Concepts of the inherent equal worth of female and male, and the possibility of global peace, are being resurrected from that recent human cultural memory loss associated - at a most fundamental level of humanity's foundational culture - with the loss of the Goddess.  (I type here of a few thousand years, but this is relative.)

Back to ethics: those ethical precepts humanity holds must also have been synthesized into an obvious solution to a human problem: a cultural or social problem, if you will. 

And, just as one can see that the human taboo on incest grew out of many generations of human observation, to finally result in an ethical precept, so, too, is the non-aggression taboo taking hold, and slowly being integrated as an ethical precept.   

And although they did not do very much at all to restore the equality of men and women, or, actually, that part of the message was most probably suppressed by a patriarchal culture, one thing Moses, Lao Tsu, Buddha, Jesus and Krishna all did was continually reiterate the message of non-aggression.  This long-introduced ethical precept is slowly being absorbed as humanity's observations synthesize into, first, that non-aggression taboo, and then, the conscious articulation of the ethical concept of non-aggression.

(Humans catch up with their prophets slowly.   :)

feralfae
ps:
got this from the epistomologist when I was discussing this thread with him:
"The problem with ethics and morals is that the words do not convey sufficiently precise meanings for diverse data bases (minds) that use the words for different purposes.  The meanings lead to too many other words with nebulous meanings.  Those and other such words, such as right and wrong, can be defined as that which is contradicted, and that which is not contradicted, or logical and not logical, or that which follows from the data, and that which does not follow from the data.  One of the difficulties people have is training their mind to recognize that concept.  Either a concept contains no contradiction as stated or manifested, or a contradiction can be identified in its spoken/written expression or manifestation.

After a person recognizes the controlling demarcation of a concept being contradicted or not contradicted, everything becomes "easier", or more quickly synthesized by the brain."
Okay, his explanation is a lot clearer than was mine. ff

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 25, 2008, 09:04 AM NHFT
A Law in science is a universal constant... its not supposed to be fluid.
The term was more likely used first by someone wishing to establish their hypothesis as being unquestionable. They more likely gathered circumstancial evidence based on observation of their immediate scope of knowledge... and should have termed it Natural Theory... but went for the big one.

Mathematical and logical laws are universal constants. Since scientific laws are discovered—a flawed process to begin with, since it basically means humans poking around in the dark—they're very rarely constant. What was discovered to be true at one point is refined over time, often altered, and sometimes even discarded outright. Scientific laws should be, and would be, constant, if we had complete knowledge of the Universe, but we don't, so they're not.

Quote from: feralfae on April 26, 2008, 12:12 AM NHFT
got this from the epistomologist when I was discussing this thread with him:
"The problem with ethics and morals is that the words do not convey sufficiently precise meanings for diverse data bases (minds) that use the words for different purposes.  The meanings lead to too many other words with nebulous meanings.  Those and other such words, such as right and wrong, can be defined as that which is contradicted, and that which is not contradicted, or logical and not logical, or that which follows from the data, and that which does not follow from the data.  One of the difficulties people have is training their mind to recognize that concept.  Either a concept contains no contradiction as stated or manifested, or a contradiction can be identified in its spoken/written expression or manifestation.

This is why I define terms when I get into these types of debates. I define morality specifically to mean those things one considers to be disagreeable, and that one believes ought to be answered with force. This is in actuality just a refinement of what most people do in fact mean by morality, but spelling it out makes sure everyone's on the same page. Some people do in fact think something can be labeled "immoral" without acting upon such immorality, but most "immoral" things are those which people, if they can, try to prohibit, prevent, or punish.

With that definition of morality in mind, it becomes clear that what I'm talking about is different from your idea of ethics, since (I hope, at least) the things you listed as good ethical values aren't things you would hope to enforce, but merely recommend people do.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 27, 2008, 01:55 AM NHFT

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 25, 2008, 09:04 AM NHFT
A Law in science is a universal constant... its not supposed to be fluid.
The term was more likely used first by someone wishing to establish their hypothesis as being unquestionable. They more likely gathered circumstantial evidence based on observation of their immediate scope of knowledge... and should have termed it Natural Theory... but went for the big one.

Mathematical and logical laws are universal constants. Since scientific laws are discovered—a flawed process to begin with, since it basically means humans poking around in the dark—they're very rarely constant. What was discovered to be true at one point is refined over time, often altered, and sometimes even discarded outright. Scientific laws should be, and would be, constant, if we had complete knowledge of the Universe, but we don't, so they're not.

I think this more of a human condition of need for consistency. The Law of Gravity... could have easily been called the Theory of Gravity as it is today, but the need for constants drives us to impose them as law... to only later have to backtrack.
A natural law would be more inherent to being, while ethics/morals are more inherent to society.
That's why I think the position that Perceived Maximum Value being so individualistic may actually fit into natural theory.

I thought the reason some scientific theories are called "laws" is simply because they're older, and were discovered in a time period when scientists were far more confident (some might say arrogant) about their discoveries. The law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, Kepler's laws, &c., but by the nineteenth century people were calling them theories: the theory of evolution, theory of relativity, &c..

All good points. :)

I agree, the key terms of a discussion are worth defining as different words might have at least slightly different meanings to different people.

Quote from: J'raxisI define morality specifically to mean those things one considers to be disagreeable, and that one believes ought to be answered with force.

So you believe non-coercion is part of "morality" (since use of defensive force against initiated force is allowed)? Assuming you agree with the non-coercion principle, doesn't that make non-coercion the only moral? Because, if you believe initiating force is wrong and therefore allow force to be used only in response to it (defense) then there can be no other moral. :)

Furthermore, if I understood that right, you find morals to be more fundamental to ethics. So acting upon any ethical principle as long as it does not go against the single moral above is ok, right?

Ultimately, though, I think that both morals and ethics fall under the umbrella of individual values. As different from each other we may find different things have different amounts of value to us and by the same token find different things to have negative (wrong) or positive (right) value, but most humans agree that initiated force is a negative one (whether you call that a "moral" or an "ethic") making this one a nearly universal one (and the fact that it is so stems from the inevitable nature of what human beings are according to our current "theory" of human nature ;) ).

Have to disagree. Historically, and currently, humans use maximum perceived value to define morality... not non-coercion. In fact, they define coercion as anything they must do that is negative to their maximum perceived value irregardless of the other parties involved.

Quote from: gu3st on April 27, 2008, 06:15 PM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxisI define morality specifically to mean those things one considers to be disagreeable, and that one believes ought to be answered with force.

So you believe non-coercion is part of "morality" (since use of defensive force against initiated force is allowed)? Assuming you agree with the non-coercion principle, doesn't that make non-coercion the only moral? Because, if you believe initiating force is wrong and therefore allow force to be used only in response to it (defense) then there can be no other moral. :)

That's exactly what I believe, and what I've been trying to explain to several people in these debates.

Quote from: gu3st on April 27, 2008, 06:15 PM NHFT
Furthermore, if I understood that right, you find morals to be more fundamental to ethics. So acting upon any ethical principle as long as it does not go against the single moral above is ok, right?

If ethics is simply being used to mean things that one believes are right to do, but don't permit the use of force to enforce, then yes. They'd be subordinate to morality, in that you can't hold an ethical value that could conflict with a moral value: To wit, you couldn't believe in an ethic that permitted a violation of the NAP. Any other ethics are permissible. But ethics are really just a subset of personal preferences (or values if you wish to call them that) in my way of looking at things.

Quote from: John Edward MercierHave to disagree. Historically, and currently, humans use maximum perceived value to define morality... not non-coercion. In fact, they define coercion as anything they must do that is negative to their maximum perceived value irregardless of the other parties involved.

I agree actually with that people pursue maximum perceived value as I think that's actually a part of human nature. I think that, no matter what we call a particular kind of value being pursued this is always the case. Now it's a matter of defining what kind of value falls where..

Whenever something is negative to the maximum perceived value, but *has to* be done, then indeed coercion is happening. If there is no coercion then it is actually being done in the pursuit of some maximum value. I guess by saying "irregardless of the other parties involved" you mean coercion does not necessarily have to be executed by any person(s)?

Quote from: J'raxisIf ethics is simply being used to mean things that one believes are right to do, but don't permit the use of force to enforce, then yes. They'd be subordinate to morality, in that you can't hold an ethical value that could conflict with a moral value: To wit, you couldn't believe in an ethic that permitted a violation of the NAP. Any other ethics are permissible. But ethics are really just a subset of personal preferences (or values if you wish to call them that) in my way of looking at things.

I see. Hm now I am again reminded of the critique that holding non-coercion as a sole moral standard could make one appear to be fine with many of the other things people consider to be wrong. But then.. it's just a matter of a definition. What others might see as other morals you see as ethics.

I am not sure which way should I adopt, if it even matters.. since the gist of it I definitely agree with, regardless of what terms are used: non-coercion is fundamental and if not universal in a sense of being a part of the natural law/theory then at least nearly universal as an outcome of it.

Looks like we all pretty much agree on that.

We only need to get people to see this and recognize this principle in their own values for them to begin considering governments in a new light and question its necessity.

Thank you gu3st,
I would agree that if the principle, or concept, of absolute non-aggression were accepted as the "Prime Directive" for all humans in our interactions with each other, we would have taken a giant step forward in the evolutionary process of humans.  If that same non-aggression principle can be expanded to include non-coercion, i.e., no initiation of force or fraud, then we humans would be on a very good path indeed. 

I suppose I would continue to call, as I always have in my discussions with others, this particular Prime Directive (of non-coercion) an ethical directive, but I understand the definition of the word morals as it is used within the context of this discussion.

When I had this very discussion a few years ago whilst a simple and very poor doctoral fellow, we agreed on the meaning and called it ethics, and I introduced the term Prime Directive, which comes from the commentary on the Talmud as well as from Star Wars, and seems entirely appropriate to describe the non-coercive principle as well as those other principles articulated in two earlier works which both had much to observe on human nature.  But, for purposes of this discussion on this thread, the word morals seems to be the commonly accepted term.
ff

Maximum Perceived Value most likely would be inherent to all living things... but most noticeable in organisms that have more complex interactions, as its a base function not particular to higher thought.

Cases in point from the forum...
Parking and not paying the meter... reason the authority claiming right to the space is perceived to have stolen the property. No question of the ethics involved in using a property perceived to be stolen... only that which is negative to the user.
Roads have fallen under the same failure in ethical rational.
Nearly forgot... Bike Paths. The user doesn't pay... the money is transferred to the construction/maintenance through government with no thought as to how it came to be.

This is where the maximum perceived value to the individual is justified by defining the other party is being unethical, while determining their actions to be ethical.

Though I can't be sure that other species rational ethics in their transactions, obviously it seem to be of high importance to humans... more likely stemming from being a complex social species.
For NAP to apply a paradigm shift would need to occur that I believe to be beyond the scope of the species at this time. Mostly due to materialism.

Quote from: gu3st on April 28, 2008, 07:14 AM NHFT

Quote from: J'raxisIf ethics is simply being used to mean things that one believes are right to do, but don't permit the use of force to enforce, then yes. They'd be subordinate to morality, in that you can't hold an ethical value that could conflict with a moral value: To wit, you couldn't believe in an ethic that permitted a violation of the NAP. Any other ethics are permissible. But ethics are really just a subset of personal preferences (or values if you wish to call them that) in my way of looking at things.

I see. Hm now I am again reminded of the critique that holding non-coercion as a sole moral standard could make one appear to be fine with many of the other things people consider to be wrong. But then.. it's just a matter of a definition. What others might see as other morals you see as ethics.

Indeed. There are a few other things that I would consider to be "wrong," in the sense that they would make me criticize someone, and most likely disassociate myself from them if they refused to alter their ways. But there is nothing other than aggression that I would consider worthy of using force against them to make them change.

Although, I should point out that there are very few things that actually fall in that category for me. I don't really care if people coöperate or compete—I like working with coöperative people, but I approve of and admire successfully competitive people. I don't care one whit about people's sexual preferences, regardless of race, religion, gender, number, species, marital status, blood relation, age, or anything else. If it's consensual, so be it. I don't care what people eat, be it unusual animals (e.g., dog, cat, rat, insects), or even human. For that last part, if it's consensual, so be it. I take other people's freedom of choice and their freedom to consent seriously—no matter how outlandish it may seem to some people. (In fact, one thing I do consider to be wrong is judging or condemning people for consensual behavior.)

Quote from: feralfae on April 28, 2008, 09:06 AM NHFT
I would agree that if the principle, or concept, of absolute non-aggression were accepted as the "Prime Directive" for all humans in our interactions with each other, ...

I like that. The Prime Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive) basically says "don't interfere with other cultures," and that's a good way of thinking of the Non-Aggression Principle:—

Don't interfere with other people's freedom.

I love the "prime directive" label for our non-aggression/non-coercion principle as well, partly due to being a big Star Trek fan. ;)

Although, I gotta mention.. as I discovered the voluntaryist ideas I became more critical of even Star Trek itself, since it portrays a Federation which is led by the government and contains a de-facto ruling elite. In some TNG episodes there are clearly signs of political pull being used to accomplish certain things and even people forced to alter their lives because of some political decision "for the greater good" even though they did nothing wrong.

But I might talk more about this in a separate topic..

Quote from: John Edward MercierMaximum Perceived Value most likely would be inherent to all living things... but most noticeable in organisms that have more complex interactions, as its a base function not particular to higher thought.

I agree. It's a very basic, almost instinctual principle. I think, however, it is all the more important to recognize it for those who are capable of reasoning (humans) since otherwise we don't see the inherent function of a free market. If we begin to understand that we are always pursuing greater value, no matter how it's perceived, putting two people together automatically creates a free market as both, in their different value pursuits will seek to trade with the other. I mean, from lack of understanding that basic principle people are more likely to perceive free markets without government to be inherently violent and chaotic.. as if most people would perceive mental distress, risk of being ostracised and fear of retribution to be their maximum value. That doesn't quite compute.

Quote from: John Edward MercierNearly forgot... Bike Paths. The user doesn't pay... the money is transferred to the construction/maintenance through government with no thought as to how it came to be.

I'm not sure to what exactly you're referring to, but I assume it has to do with people missing to perceive their own unethical behavior and factor it in their value judgment. And that's a fair conclusion, though it can't be applied to everyone at all times. I did consider the issue of not paying taxes yet using roads etc. in order to see whether I would be doing something unethical in that situation, and I would concede to paying for that particular service I use, but NOT to a full blown tax charging me for things I NEVER use. I eventually concluded that my forced paying of the VAT to the government (Value Added Tax) more than covers for the "cost" of my occasional use of the pavements.

And indeed, I still see their taxation as utterly unethical. It is not about charging for the services I use, or else I'd be getting an offer where I could pick and choose which services I need and how much they cost and then pay directly for them. And even then, if it'd be a coercive monopoly, they'd be in the wrong.

Quote from: John Edward MercierFor NAP to apply a paradigm shift would need to occur that I believe to be beyond the scope of the species at this time. Mostly due to materialism.

Well, every now and then I encounter an argument to that effect - "humans are not ready". All I can say is fair enough, if you believe so. I for one believe that if  those who apparently are ready and already have adopted this paradigm said that other humans aren't ready so why bother.. then humanity will never be ready.

So true or not, I choose to not make that assertion into an obstacle. There are quite a few people on this forum, in NH and elsewhere who apparently are ready and they are human - that's cue enough for me. The movement must go on.

Quote from: gu3st on April 29, 2008, 12:45 PM NHFT
I love the "prime directive" label for our non-aggression/non-coercion principle as well, partly due to being a big Star Trek fan. ;)

Although, I gotta mention.. as I discovered the voluntaryist ideas I became more critical of even Star Trek itself, since it portrays a Federation which is led by the government and contains a de-facto ruling elite. In some TNG episodes there are clearly signs of political pull being used to accomplish certain things and even people forced to alter their lives because of some political decision "for the greater good" even though they did nothing wrong.

They seemed to have this weird amalgamation of libertarianism and socialism in their own system. (Of course, with things like their pattern replicators, you really don't have economic scarcity for consumer goods, so there wouldn't be much use for capitalism anyway.) A lot of the original sociopolitical message and ideals seemed to be lost after Roddenberry died and the show was taken over by others who didn't really "get" it. The wars and political intrigues, that CIA-like black ops organization, even minor stuff like mention of "illicit" substances, all started with DS9, and with Voyager they took on this very maternalistic and almost imperialistic attitude (remember this episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omega_Directive)?).

Quote from: gu3st on April 29, 2008, 12:45 PM NHFT
But I might talk more about this in a separate topic..

Caleb can come along and split it off if he wants to. He likes doing that. ;)