Philosophy

[frke]

I just saw the "The Philosophy of Liberty" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM) and had an observation.

First off, I respect what you are all doing.  In this world there have to be people pushing back an supporting our liberties, so thank you.

Ok, so I recognize the basic argument from Nozick's book Anarchy, State, and Utopia; you own yourself, you own your labor, and therefore the product of your self and your labor.  But where the philosophy loses me is when that becomes an absolute right to, well, anarchy.  Ill put it this way, by what authority do you assert your right to self, time, labor and property?  It is natural law.

Natural Law - by natural law, I do not mean some metaphysical Platonic form floating around somewhere to be discovered, nor is it something inscribed on a rock by the hand of God.  Natural law is simply the law if there were no government.  But unless you are going to make arbitrary assertions about what natural law is you need to have some theory.  Nozick does this by imagining someone in the state of nature (anarchy).  At that point, the law is as simple as this: might makes right.  Weaker people band together to form mutual defensive compacts, which later become societies.

That means that the state is premised on the rule 'might makes right.'  Put differently, if you want to assert a natural right to something else, you have to have the naturally occurring power to stop what you oppose.  Since you don't the state is not illegitimate so far as natural law is concerned.  The state may do things that coerce your support and be illegitimate for that reason, but that doesn't make it illigitimate per se, nor do I think Nozick was willing to go that far.

Just my thoughts.  Cheers.

[Dreepa]

Welcome to the forum!

[Caleb]

I don't know about Nozick. For me, the government is illegitimate precisely because it is based on the moral principle of "might makes right".

I think you lost me when you said that "natural law is simply the law if there were no government." I don't think that is how natural law has ever been interpreted. Every philosophy must accept certain axiomatic assertions as fact. Natural law rests on the principle of self-ownership. Everything else can be derived from that one axiom. You can't ask "why?" to the principle of self-ownership, because it is an axiom. It is the starting point. (Well, you can ask "why?" but you won't get an answer, other than perhaps "Because no one else can claim ownership of me.") It may be axiomatic, but it's also fairly self-evident. Everyone knows in his heart that slavery is wrong. That's why slaveowners in the past tried to put forward arguments to justify it. You don't need to justify something that is obviously right. No one tries to justify why he puts food in his mouth from time to time, because we take it as self-evidently justified. A person only tries to justify himself when his conscience has condemned him.

Welcome to the forum.

Caleb

[Braddogg]

No one makes a moral argument for the existence of the state that says:

1. Might makes right.
2. The government is powerful.
3. Therefore, the government is moral.

That's because people realize "Obey the state" is an argument from consequences, not an argument from morality.  "Might makes right" describes an IS, not an OUGHT.  The strong CAN control, but that does not mean the strong SHOULD control.  It is, fundamentally, not a moral argument.

[Fragilityh14]

"you know as well as we do that fairness in only question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thucydides, the Great Historian

It's not a particularly optimistic world view, however I think it realistically portrays "Natural Law"

[Dreepa]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_tmG4Aqg0Mw

[EthanAllen]

Libertarians are generally split into two camps:

1. those that believe there is no objective morality - pragmatists, utilitarians, consequentialists, and contractarians.

They believe there is no universal moral standard or ethic.  Instead, they based liberty on its practical consequences.  They regard moral rules as created by contracts or governments.

2. those that believe there is an objective reality separate from just our personal views or values  - moralists, the natural lawyers and natural rightists.

Pragmatic arguments usually work well in economics because most folks share the same economic values.  Most of us prefer being wealthy to being poor so the factual and practical economic arguments about liberty are persuasive, because it can be shown both in theory and in historical fact that economies with more economic freedom have more prosperity than economies that are highly taxed and restricted.  So we can well argue for protecting property rights because it leads to the consequences that most folks want, without getting into the moral aspects of property rights.

The problem with pragmatism, including utilitarianism and other variants, is it does not tell and cannot tell us what liberty is.  That is its greatest failing.  Pragmatism is ultimately based on personal preferences, because that is all it recognizes.  And where folks have different preferences, pragmatism cannot tell us on which side liberty lies. For example, does an offensive T-shirt initiate force on unwilling viewers?  Or is it free speech which should not be restricted?

Since pure pragmatism cannot tell us what liberty is, what happens is that pragmatists, utilitarians, consequentalists, and contractarians sneak in morality through the back door.  They use a moral foundation while denying that it's there.

The moralists in contrast provide an explicit and straight-forward foundation for liberty. From what I've read, the moralists are split into three groups:

1. those who follow Aristotle and base it on natural ends.
2. those who follow German philosophers and base it on discourse.
3. those who follow John Locke and base it on human nature. 

Most moralist libertarians probably consider themselves Lockeans, yet in their moral theory, they follow Aristotle.

Ayn Rand's moral theory is based on the Aristotelian idea that there is some objective and natural end for human beings, such as life, "human excellence" or the full use of human potential or human flourishing.  Freedom is required for a person to fully achieve this end.  The problem, as with pragmatism, is that different people have different views about what flourishing or excellence means.  Moreover, the need for freedom is not sufficient to establish morality or rights.  The mere desire to live does not create a right to life.

The second approach via the German philosophers uses the notion of discourse.  The need for freedom of speech in order to have discourse supposedly implies that persons ought to be  free.

And finally, the third approach of morality was stated but not fully derived by John Locke.  In his Second Treatise on government, Locke stated:

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...."

It is most likely that it is this Lockean sense of natural law that you are referring to - no?

[CaveDog]

Put differently, if you want to assert a natural right to something else, you have to have the naturally occurring power to stop what you oppose.  Since you don't the state is not illegitimate so far as natural law is concerned.

Clearly we can observe that most every creature in nature has some mechanism of self defense. Regardless of whether assailed by a superior force or not, most any creature believing an action against it harmful will act to preserve itself by one method or another.

Nature delegates an equal right to the less powerful to resist regardless of whether they prevail. That being the case we can't rightly say that "might makes right" is a natural law. If it were so then the less powerful would by design have no ability to resist superior force. Since that is in reality not nature's design then we can't presume it's nature's intent, therefore the assertion that the inability to prevail over the power of the state in and of itself confers legitimacy to the state is flawed in the context of natural law.

[EthanAllen]

Put differently, if you want to assert a natural right to something else, you have to have the naturally occurring power to stop what you oppose.  Since you don't the state is not illegitimate so far as natural law is concerned.

Clearly we can observe that most every creature in nature has some mechanism of self defense. Regardless of whether assailed by a superior force or not, most any creature believing an action against it harmful will act to preserve itself by one method or another.

Nature delegates an equal right to the less powerful to resist regardless of whether they prevail. That being the case we can't rightly say that "might makes right" is a natural law. If it were so then the less powerful would by design have no ability to resist superior force. Since that is in reality not nature's design then we can't presume it's nature's intent, therefore the assertion that the inability to prevail over the power of the state in and of itself confers legitimacy to the state is flawed in the context of natural law.

How can you miss not seeing a difference between a belief ("believing an action against it harmful") and an instinct where there is no reasoning capabilities (sentience) present in all creatures but humans?

[EthanAllen]

Put differently, if you want to assert a natural right to something else, you have to have the naturally occurring power to stop what you oppose.  Since you don't the state is not illegitimate so far as natural law is concerned.

Clearly we can observe that most every creature in nature has some mechanism of self defense. Regardless of whether assailed by a superior force or not, most any creature believing an action against it harmful will act to preserve itself by one method or another.

Nature delegates an equal right to the less powerful to resist regardless of whether they prevail. That being the case we can't rightly say that "might makes right" is a natural law. If it were so then the less powerful would by design have no ability to resist superior force. Since that is in reality not nature's design then we can't presume it's nature's intent, therefore the assertion that the inability to prevail over the power of the state in and of itself confers legitimacy to the state is flawed in the context of natural law.

How can you miss not seeing a difference between a belief ("believing an action against it harmful") and an instinct where there is no reasoning capabilities (sentience) present in all creatures but humans?

This seems to me to be a disctinction without a difference, and its not one supported by evidence.  Certainly, we don't really know what goes on in the minds of other creatures, but an appearance of  reasoning is obviously present in some mammals, at the least. 

We only deem humans worthy of rights because they are suppose to have reasoning skills.

[grasshopper]

  Oh'Oh. somebody shook a tree!   Here I go.
  We have natural rites!  Yup, the rite to Life Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.  We also have a Bill Of Rites here in the United States of America and a Declaration of Independence which clearly explain that some sort of "Very Basic Control" (my words) are necessary to Regulate a Free Society.  Regulate means to make it common and smooth, not what it has become today, to stop from happening and to place burdens on and to put up road blocks and to make things so complicated that we have to have a lot of "Jobbing" (used in the Declaration Of Independence" to explain a lot of "ticks" sucking the life blood out of the masses, or the "People")
  So, if you see where I'm coming from, now you can see where I'm going with this. 
   Come on, ask!
   I'll give you a hint.....
   1.  Taxation without representation  = Boston Tea Party
   2.  Gun confiscation                       = Lexington & Concord
   3.  (you guys chime in)

[EthanAllen]

I am clearly a human who exhibits language skills far superior to the occasional bark.

[Sam Adams]

You can't ask "why?" to the principle of self-ownership, because it is an axiom. It is the starting point. (Well, you can ask "why?" but you won't get an answer, other than perhaps "Because no one else can claim ownership of me.")

Caleb,

Perhaps I can shed a little light from three different angles.

1. We could take "I think, therefore I am" one step further and conclude, "I am, therefore it is natural for me to have ownership of myself" (particularly since I can't prove that anyone else exists.) :-)

2. "Natural law" is what exists without external (unnatural) interference, a.k.a. force. It is natural for me to do the things required to live (eat, obtain personal property like tools, etc.). The minute someone tries to stop me from eating or tries to take my stuff, he is in violation of natural law. It is natural to negotiate a trade, but not to steal.

3. Those who believe there is literal truth in the Old Testament would tell you that self-ownership (natural law/free will) was a gift from their creator.

Of course, we could always fall back on, "I'm the boss of me because I say so!

[EthanAllen]

"Natural law" is what exists without external (unnatural) interference, a.k.a. force. It is natural for me to do the things required to live (eat, obtain personal property like tools, etc.). The minute someone tries to stop me from eating or tries to take my stuff, he is in violation of natural law.

Just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor. But doesn't the right to labor imply the right to labor somewhere? And if all somewhere are already legally occupied where can I access the earth directly to provide my sustenance without being forced to pay a tribute to someone?

[Caleb]

It doesn't seem to me that you can have *both* an absolute right to land and an absolute right to one's labor. If you think about it, one definition of land property might be "a boundary within which only a particular owner or owners may make use of the land".  By definition, that would infringe on others' use of that land. Once all land is owned in that way, then there becomes a large class of people who are completely excluded from any use of land at all, and thus have absolutely no right to their own labor. So it seems to me that you can either acknowledge absolute ownership of labor (so long as you don't infringe on another's labor), or absolute ownership of land (so long as you don't infringe on another's land). But not both.