It seems that Stefbot in the end only cares about people becoming Libertarians. An example is Stefbot says "I will do anything too get people to take the red pill". Making a metaphor based off the Matrix, Neo was given a choice. This argument drives many people away from Stefan Molyneux because they feel that he is somewhat forceful in his debates.
I'm right with you, Luke. I consider UPB to be a flawed 'product' that Stef is trying to commercialise, but that everything else he does - including his other books, his psychological counselling, his atheist logic and his espousal of anarcho-capitalism - is both extremely valuable and a major leap forward in ethical behaviour and rationality.
Actually in retrospect, my comment was not sensitive or curious, thank you for pointing that out for me.
I don't know any other place this type of passive aggressive behavior could come from besides an abusive childhood. I'm pretty sure it doesn't spawn from an abusive old age that I have not lived yet, or a non abusive childhood, unless non abusive childhoods result in passive aggressive behavior.
Why do you think I left such an aggressive statement?
Not quite sure! Sounds like someone challenged one of your beliefs so you reacted unconsciously with an emotional response but thats just a guess. What makes childhood abusive is the trauma physical, psychological or other. Adults can also have traumatic incidents that stunts or reverses their growth like soldiers or rape victims with PTSD. So an abusive old age is possible but from what you tell me that is not the case.
When did someone challenge one of my beliefs? I never even said I hold UPB as a belief, but if someone told me "Red is Green" I would tell them that the idea of red went over their head.
Why do you think saying "I think UPB went over your head" is passive aggressive? You really seem to know your stuff so explain to me how that comment is passive aggressive please.
Because you had absolutely no curiosity to his position. You could of asked questions or stated why you thought he was misunderstanding UPB but instead you said " I think UPB went over your head" which is basically a passive aggressive way of saying "You are to stupid to understand UPB" The meaning of your words were very cruel but the wording was not hence it was a passive aggressive statement.
You should look into Hans Hoppe's theory of argumentation ethics. Its basically the same as UPB, although some people may differ on that. They are at least very similar. Stef confuses the issue with talk of physiology in my opinion, but I believe the theory is valid. Essentially the act of arguing assumes a certain ethic, which is already the libertarian ethic, and to argue against it is to engage in self contradiction. Hoppe's explanation may be clearer than Stef's.
The desire and power argument does not talk about which actions one takes, but only about two 'characteristics' of those actions. By your claim, UPB would validate every actual action, because every action is the result of power(ability?) and desire.
Doesn't UPB invalidate theories rather than validate?
I think FDR is a great intro to philosophy and rational thinking for the everyday life. Interest in this seems to be a trade-off between rigidity and appeal and FDR seems to be balancing.
UPB is used to invalidate theories. FDR introduced me to anarcho-capitalism and austrian economics--I think that anarchy is the only moral form of any political theory, so I'm glad that I am no longer discrediting libertarianism with inconsistent ideals. It also introduced me to psychology and self-examination, which has still proven difficult to implement in my life. After I had listened to FDR enough to have a fair grip of the concepts I went on to read Rothbard, Mises, Dawkins, and Miller.
Darwin, Gladwell, Hazlitt, and Hoppe. I found all of their works to be enlightening and am happy to have had the opportunity to be introduced to those writers through the ideas expressed at FDR.
The thought that Stefan causes harm to anarchism is a bit far fetched.
Will politicians gather together on youtube to make movies about how Kim Jing Il causes harm to their profession? That his abuse of fear, might give their fear mongering a bad idea?
Not even Stalin and Mao caused harm to statism, so the idea that some inconsistencies in Stefs philosophy cause any harm is out of touch with reality.
I think I agree. Oftentimes we accuse FDR of generating or incentivizing a sheep-like behavior, but when we compare it to most "movements" out there it looks like it generates much more of the opposite.
And, after all, there's no such thing a bad publicity.
I think the sheep-like behavior is already in people before they come to FDR.
While I agree that some FDR policies are very anti-knowledge, I think the inherent cultiness in people is the cause of that, rather than the other way around.
My take on UPB is that it is a framework for *disproving* ethical truth statements. If a theory of ethics passes UPB, then it is not necessarily valid; it just possesses the potential to be valid. On the other hand, if a theory does not pass UPB, then it cannot be valid.
Yeah, I did think that it wouldn't have hurt to go into those definitions as well. I think that the logic was that he wanted to be as simplistic as possible. Perhaps morality has several technical definitions; but it also has a common definition and I think that he wanted to focus on that.
Certainly he aims for consistency-- who wouldn't? That's the whole point. The theory is remarkably simple. He just says be consistent and this is were most people lose the ability to be consistent (gods, governments, ect.). And while Rothbard doesn't deal with the question of god (presumably due to his social circle?), his disproofs for the ethical validity of the state are certainly consistent.
Molyneux's work, on the other hand, does not posit any ethical truths--it does not say that anything is actually right or wrong. All UPB claims is that *if* an ethical truth statement is to be examined, it must pass the logical requirement of internal consistency as well as consistency with any implicit principles inherent in the act of debating. UPB doesn't claim that murder is wrong; it merely shows that the theory "murder is wrong" is at least internally consistent and therefore could be.
For Rothbard, all rights are mere extensions of property rights; which, in turn, stem from one's ownership of one's own body. And, while he insists that these rights should be protected; he does not pretend that all permissible actions are good actions. In this way, Rothbard's works on ethics are more legalistic--e.g. they focus on actions for which a person can and cannot be reasonably prosecuted.
Rand's are easily the shakiest--she is far too rigid and absolutist, stretching absolute morality all the into the realm of aesthetics (Rothbard hilariously satirized this aspect of her philosophy in his one act comedy "Mozart Was a Red"). Rothbard's logic is fierce. I cannot find fault with any of his claims. He is clear, to the point, and ruthlessly consistent--but he does not deal with morality holistically. Instead, he constantly distinguishes between what he calls morality and rights.
I assume that many of you believe in right and wrong--if so, on what basis? I have read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness; Rothbard's For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty, What Has the Government Done With Our Money, and The Case Against the Fed; and Molyneux's On Truth, and UPB. I found all of them to be useful despite they're great differences in the realms of proof.
Still, the power and desire argument is problematic. For, can't all human actions be described as actions that the actor had the power and desire to commit? The purpose of any ethical methodology is to determine which actions are immoral and which action are good or neutral. It can be reasonable assumed that all actions--good, bad, or ugly--were well within the power and the desire of the actor by the very virtue that they were committed.
"It can be reasonable assumed that all actions (...) were well within the power and the desire of the actor by the very virtue that they were committed."
Indeed, it is a descriptive statement, not prescriptive.
Any theory of morality/ethics that makes sense has to explain why it is in the individual's best interest to follow it, without appealing to any supernatural entities or events of any kind. So it has to be descriptive.
UPB could be a much better book if it just defined "morality".
I think that you may have pushed two separate arguments together here. He says that the rule "men should not eat fish" is inconsistent because it is too specific. And then uses the shark example to show that if ethics is extended to include animals that it would necessarily condemn certain animals (like sharks), and to again show that show that ethics requires the ability for choice. Rothbard makes a similar point in TEOL if I remember correctly.
Yes, and if I say "humans should not kill humans" it is too specific, but if I say "it is wrong to kill humans" I'm condemning all kinds of living and nonliving entities or events that kill humans and have "no capacity for choice".
I believe murder is wrong because it is not practical for people to kill other people if they want to achieve commonly shared preferences such as peace, a long life, wealth, etc.
I eat fish, but whether sharks also kill fish or not has no bearing on the moral status of this action.
Saying murder is wrong is not the same as saying it is not practical or does not achieve our mutual goals and preferences. Untimely death certainly does contradict every human's general preference of life over death; but preference alone cannot justify calling something wrong. Many things are preferred by certain people or groups, but the absence of those things is not always an evil. Murder must be wrong for a more fundamental reason--every human's absolute property right to their own body.
Just so I understand, you're saying that *it* (every human's absolute property right in their own body) comes from mutual agreements between people? What if this agreement is not met by two actual people? Is NAP then no longer valid? Does that mean that the resulting murder then has no moral value whatsoever?
If you mean what would be practical for people to do, it doesn't matter if nobody follows the NAP, and instead steal, kill and rape all the time, as long as they have the common preferences we discussed above, it would be better for them to follow it.
The NAP is useful whether it is followed or not.
However, if nobody follows it, nobody applies, it, and the NAP doesn't stop any bullets. This is what I meant when I said it's not magical.
That's interesting. That would, to me, imply that there is nothing objective about rights. I do see that a general lack of belief in your rights does, de facto, mean that they will be infringed; but if they don't exist then there is nothing to infringe. If rights require belief for their existence, then they do not exist; however, if rights do exist, then they exist regardless of belief in them. Would we not say that a slave or victim or holocaust victim had rights that were infringed?
Again, it comes down to your definition of rights. mine would be something like:
Right:
an explicit or implicit agreement between people stating that a certain behavior will be considered disallowed in their community. This means that they agree to:
1) Not engage in this behavior.
2) Either defend the victim of this behavior, or at least not prevent them, or someone else from repealing the aggressor.
However, the fact that people come up with a "right" doesn't mean that this is a productive agreement. People can come up with a "right to food", but we've seen the results of that.
It seems to me that you choose to call "rights" to what I would call productive rights, or productive agreements. But otherwise we seem to be on the same page.
"That would, to me, imply that there is nothing objective about rights"
There is something objective in the sense that you can study, reason and deduce what type of rights will objectively lead to certain results.
Ultimately I don't think it matters if you call it objective, subjective, or what, what matters is that it is based on preference and pragmatism, that it is a system that works from the bottom up, where people come up with solutions to problems because it suits their own goals
The alternative is a top-down approach where the "rights" are dictated from above from some authority, whether it's god, state, mommy, or science.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't take into account individual preference, and it offers nothing other than some spiritual sense of belonging in return for the individual being moral.
I'm not saying that's useless, but I want more than that. I want to understand it from the bottom up. I want it to make sense for the individual.
I'm not sure that I disagree with a top down approach as long as the standard is rationality and science. In the same way, I do not fear absolutism--the fact that most moralists have historically appealed to irrational absolutes does not invalidate absolute morality, only their irrational standards.
That does not mean that the system shouldn't also make sense from the bottom up. I believe that we are all equipped with a fairly accurate moral compass, but we should always be able to measure our emotional reactions against a rational methodology as well.
The difference between the two approaches is that one attempts to explain the phenomenon through human action, while the other invocates nebulous collective or "higher authority" concepts.
I just finished UPB for the first time this morning; so perhaps I do not yet possess enough understanding of the concepts to hash this out. The power and desire argument is interesting for sure. I did feel while reading the book that the theory is missing something; but I couldn't really put my finger on it.
In the determinism debate he went the same way. I have an idea where it comes from, but I will keep this for my self for now.
I do wonder if this really is a problem. You say that given you accept property rights, UPB validates libertarian philosophy.
But GIVEN you accept property rights, rape is already inconsistent, so the objection that it is consistent for men to do what they have the power and desire to do, would already violate property rights.
I don't watch that Stef guy too much, but I think you are the one playing semantics here. Simple logic makes it clear that the philosophy of just doing what you have the power and desire to do is inconsistent even with the very fact that any of us are even here complaining about statism and whatnot. The only way your "Power and Desire" model could be consistent is if nobody ever complained about anything because whatever it is you're complaining about someone had the power and desire to do it.
I want to prevent people from having the power of the state. That is my desire, and so I want to spread philosophy that destroys the power of the state.
In doing so you are spreading a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to your "Power and Desire" framework. It must be that way by necessity in order to achieve your goals, therefore you would be espousing a philosophy which is inconsistent with the one you actually live your life by.
well from my perspective my parents benefit my life, and im sure that their are some confused teenagers that come to rash conclusions with the encouragement stef gives, which i think are based alot on his relationship with family, not objectively.
"and im sure that their are some confused teenagers that come to rash conclusions with the encouragement stef gives"
Then again, if you're sure this happens, where are these confused, hurt teenagers? I haven't heard of any. But whenever I hear deFOO all I hear is people getting less sad and more happy.
Statism is also the product of peoples pursuit of power. Yes it limits the power of other people, that is the nature of power. You gain power by limiting the power of others and vice versa.
"You gain power by limiting the power of others and vice versa."
I'm sure by "power", Luke doesn't mean just the type of power that one individual has over another, but to the general ability of achieving things you want.
With this definition, we most often gain power by voluntarily associating with one another peacefully.
Unless we are in the business of government of course.
He isn't using that definition. He used rape as an example of the Power and Desire thing. Watch the whole video again. You're entering a discussion without understanding the context.
"He used rape as an example of the Power and Desire thing."
That was just meant to show that UPB doesn't validate only libertarian ethics, and that it can validate any consistent set of ethics, however violent.
It is you who doesn't understand the context.
It's ok though. No worries. But Luke doesn't want people raping each other,because in his ideal world there would be lots of people willing to stop that man from raping that women, so he wouldn't have the power, you see?
I know what he was trying to say, and I'm saying that the whole Power and Desire thing would be an inconsistent set of ethics. Then your saying it's ok because in his ideal world their would be lots of people who would use their power to stop that guy from raping the woman. Well guess what you would call those "lots of people". You would call them the state or the government, which is the very thing Luke is here on youtube to complain about. Are you beginning to see the recursive logic here?
States or governments rule by convincing the general population that they need to allow an authority or a small minority of people to have a coercive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.
That has nothing to do with defending a potential rape victim.
It's inconsistent because you would have to have a society in which no one ever complained about anything. Since any possible action anyone could ever take would automatically fit into the Power and Desire framework, therefore if anyone ever complained about anything then they would be espousing a philosophy inconsistent with the one that they live by.
People can try to limit my power, and I can stop them, perhaps through "complaining". This is not inconsistent. I'm saying people can exercise power in whatever way they choose, but Im going to do the same. And if people attack me, I am going to defend myself.
It is inconsistent Luke. If you say that anyone can execirse power in any way they choose then turn around and complain about someone exercising their power in a way that you don't like then you are contradicting yourself, therefore it is inconsistent.
Absolutely. I don't think that Luke believes the power and desire argument is valid. He was just saying that the argument passes UPB and therefore UPB is invalid. I'm sure that Luke agrees with the non-initiation of the use of force--otherwise is disapproval of the state is merely aesthetic and not moral.
Luke, assuming you accept the non-aggression principle, what grounds do you accept it? Do you believe that it is objectively moral or is it your subjective preference?
I know he doesn't believe it, but I'm saying the argument doesn not pass UPB. I could be wrong because I'm not as familiar with UPB or Stef as Luke is, but I do know that everyone living by power and desire alone could not possibly be a consistent philosophy unless no one ever complained about anything.
I see. So you don't believe in any form of objective moral laws?
Can any violation of the NAP be justified on the merit that it helps the violator achieve his goals as an individual? If someone justifies their transgressions against others in this way is their argument just as valid as your argument for NAP as a rule of thumb?
I don't believe in "objective moral laws", but I believe some moral agreements are objectively better than others at achieving certain things which a lot of people want, such as peace, longevity and wealth.
The NAP seems to be a pretty good agreement in these terms.
But the NAP is not magic. It only works if people think it's a good idea for them to use it.
Of course the NAP isn't magic; it doesn't need to be magic, it just needs to be valid. I think that your using an equivocation of the word "works" in the last sentence. Clearly, any ethical theory only "works" (e.g. achieves the desired goals of peace, longevity, ect) if people think that it's a good idea to implement. But the NAP the theory also "works" (e.g. is logically consistent, valid, and true) regardless of whether or not it is known, believed, or practiced.
The first thing I read from Stefan was te logic of Love... which made me so disappointed to read UPB. The logic of love is a example of the good in him, but I fear we ma have a Darth Vader on our hands..
I agree with you. I don't want UPB to cause Stef to fail (he turned me into an anarchist, after all). However, if he continues to ignore its flaws, I have a strong feeling that FDR will fail.
people should do whatever they have the power and desire to do. the people who are in power have been and will continue to do whatever they want. why shouldn't everyone?
I've given up on Stef. He simply rejects any and all criticisms of his ideas, even when they are logically sound. I honestly think he'd rather go down in flames than admit his ideas might be flawed. Maybe it's a matter of ego.
Criticism should continue, but that is for the benefit of the people he's suckering. Hoping that he himself will come around is, in my opinion, wishful thinking.
"I've given up on Stef." Just curious why you'd dismiss everything he does because you're convinced he is wrong on just a few things. Do you feel he's doing nothing good for freedom?
"Just curious why you'd dismiss everything he does"
I never said that. What the fuck is with people on Youtube misconstruing every little word and misrepresenting every opinion possible? How about you read the rest of my fucking post and try to comprehend it this time?
Because the accusation you made wasn't even remotely close to what I actually said. Some people on Youtube seem to have a comprehension problem. It's quite annoying.
What I hope, is that more and more people will hear the arguments we are making, and they will bring them up to stef more and more often. This is basically what you are saying. The point of my last comment was just to say it won't be easy. Stef is very tricky. I just hope some of my own arguments against stef, get brought up by more and more people.
All stef will do is straw man the argument (like he did in his last video). That will fool most people.
Plus, I don't think everybody is going to understand what led me to come up with that UPB counter example (the "power and desire" ethic). There are certain things I needed to understand before I could think that up.
It's kind of like knowing one kung fu move, but not knowing what to do after you use that one move. Stef will likely disarm (trick) most people who present that argument to him
I don't know, he is regularly posting on liberating minds and noticed the participators of the forum of his peer review on his blog, hence why I read it. But I do not know much else he has said about the UPB.
It's like he's trying to turn a rule into a physical property. There are so many things wrong with UPB, and it's such a complex construct, and stef is such a clever manipulator (of logic, people, and language) that I think people will be debunking UPB for quite a while. It'll take time to dismantle the whole thing. I'm listening to the audio book again myself.
Wow dude, that is so true.
It seems that Stefbot in the end only cares about people becoming Libertarians. An example is Stefbot says "I will do anything too get people to take the red pill". Making a metaphor based off the Matrix, Neo was given a choice. This argument drives many people away from Stefan Molyneux because they feel that he is somewhat forceful in his debates.
drew335533 2 years ago
I'm right with you, Luke. I consider UPB to be a flawed 'product' that Stef is trying to commercialise, but that everything else he does - including his other books, his psychological counselling, his atheist logic and his espousal of anarcho-capitalism - is both extremely valuable and a major leap forward in ethical behaviour and rationality.
AFreeSpiri 2 years ago
I think UPB went over your head, Luke.
OpineTime 2 years ago
Not a very sensitive or curious remark! Does this passive, aggressive statement come from an abusive childhood?
willyswear 2 years ago
Actually in retrospect, my comment was not sensitive or curious, thank you for pointing that out for me.
I don't know any other place this type of passive aggressive behavior could come from besides an abusive childhood. I'm pretty sure it doesn't spawn from an abusive old age that I have not lived yet, or a non abusive childhood, unless non abusive childhoods result in passive aggressive behavior.
Why do you think I left such an aggressive statement?
OpineTime 2 years ago
Not quite sure! Sounds like someone challenged one of your beliefs so you reacted unconsciously with an emotional response but thats just a guess. What makes childhood abusive is the trauma physical, psychological or other. Adults can also have traumatic incidents that stunts or reverses their growth like soldiers or rape victims with PTSD. So an abusive old age is possible but from what you tell me that is not the case.
willyswear 2 years ago
When did someone challenge one of my beliefs? I never even said I hold UPB as a belief, but if someone told me "Red is Green" I would tell them that the idea of red went over their head.
Why do you think saying "I think UPB went over your head" is passive aggressive? You really seem to know your stuff so explain to me how that comment is passive aggressive please.
OpineTime 2 years ago
Because you had absolutely no curiosity to his position. You could of asked questions or stated why you thought he was misunderstanding UPB but instead you said " I think UPB went over your head" which is basically a passive aggressive way of saying "You are to stupid to understand UPB" The meaning of your words were very cruel but the wording was not hence it was a passive aggressive statement.
willyswear 2 years ago
You interpret "I think UPB went over your head" as a passive aggressive way of saying "You are too stupid to understand UPB".
I interpret "I think UPB went over your head" as a non passive aggressive way of saying "I think you aren't understanding UPB".
I think this has been too long of a youtube comment conversation, you can give me a call if you hold curiosity in my position.
OpineTime 2 years ago
This argument would be compelling if I hadn't listened to a couple of podcasts on FDR in which Stef trashed Libertarianism.
esalian9 2 years ago
have you pointed this out to stefan?
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
cough cough.. the rational majority?
xelenty 2 years ago
Like your style, Luke. 5/5 and new subscriber.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
5star
Sepero1 2 years ago
You should look into Hans Hoppe's theory of argumentation ethics. Its basically the same as UPB, although some people may differ on that. They are at least very similar. Stef confuses the issue with talk of physiology in my opinion, but I believe the theory is valid. Essentially the act of arguing assumes a certain ethic, which is already the libertarian ethic, and to argue against it is to engage in self contradiction. Hoppe's explanation may be clearer than Stef's.
mikepeino 2 years ago
The desire and power argument does not talk about which actions one takes, but only about two 'characteristics' of those actions. By your claim, UPB would validate every actual action, because every action is the result of power(ability?) and desire.
Doesn't UPB invalidate theories rather than validate?
I think FDR is a great intro to philosophy and rational thinking for the everyday life. Interest in this seems to be a trade-off between rigidity and appeal and FDR seems to be balancing.
pelshoff 2 years ago
UPB is used to invalidate theories. FDR introduced me to anarcho-capitalism and austrian economics--I think that anarchy is the only moral form of any political theory, so I'm glad that I am no longer discrediting libertarianism with inconsistent ideals. It also introduced me to psychology and self-examination, which has still proven difficult to implement in my life. After I had listened to FDR enough to have a fair grip of the concepts I went on to read Rothbard, Mises, Dawkins, and Miller.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Darwin, Gladwell, Hazlitt, and Hoppe. I found all of their works to be enlightening and am happy to have had the opportunity to be introduced to those writers through the ideas expressed at FDR.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Not a fan of the UPB, or the bigheaded, literally and figuratively, stefbot
iamjackscolin 2 years ago
The thought that Stefan causes harm to anarchism is a bit far fetched.
Will politicians gather together on youtube to make movies about how Kim Jing Il causes harm to their profession? That his abuse of fear, might give their fear mongering a bad idea?
Not even Stalin and Mao caused harm to statism, so the idea that some inconsistencies in Stefs philosophy cause any harm is out of touch with reality.
modelmark 2 years ago
I think I agree. Oftentimes we accuse FDR of generating or incentivizing a sheep-like behavior, but when we compare it to most "movements" out there it looks like it generates much more of the opposite.
And, after all, there's no such thing a bad publicity.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I think the sheep-like behavior is already in people before they come to FDR.
While I agree that some FDR policies are very anti-knowledge, I think the inherent cultiness in people is the cause of that, rather than the other way around.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Give us a tour of your room.
HisManifest 2 years ago
My take on UPB is that it is a framework for *disproving* ethical truth statements. If a theory of ethics passes UPB, then it is not necessarily valid; it just possesses the potential to be valid. On the other hand, if a theory does not pass UPB, then it cannot be valid.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Yes, and it can be an useful tool for that purpose. I still think it would be much better if it defined morality / ethics.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I didn't know that it didn't.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
iirc the book starts up by saying it won't insult the intellect of the reader by defining morality, or something like that
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Yeah, I did think that it wouldn't have hurt to go into those definitions as well. I think that the logic was that he wanted to be as simplistic as possible. Perhaps morality has several technical definitions; but it also has a common definition and I think that he wanted to focus on that.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
...valid.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
I agree. And maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that he acts as if only his set of ethics is consistent, and every other is inconsistent.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Certainly he aims for consistency-- who wouldn't? That's the whole point. The theory is remarkably simple. He just says be consistent and this is were most people lose the ability to be consistent (gods, governments, ect.). And while Rothbard doesn't deal with the question of god (presumably due to his social circle?), his disproofs for the ethical validity of the state are certainly consistent.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Molyneux's work, on the other hand, does not posit any ethical truths--it does not say that anything is actually right or wrong. All UPB claims is that *if* an ethical truth statement is to be examined, it must pass the logical requirement of internal consistency as well as consistency with any implicit principles inherent in the act of debating. UPB doesn't claim that murder is wrong; it merely shows that the theory "murder is wrong" is at least internally consistent and therefore could be.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
For Rothbard, all rights are mere extensions of property rights; which, in turn, stem from one's ownership of one's own body. And, while he insists that these rights should be protected; he does not pretend that all permissible actions are good actions. In this way, Rothbard's works on ethics are more legalistic--e.g. they focus on actions for which a person can and cannot be reasonably prosecuted.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Rand's are easily the shakiest--she is far too rigid and absolutist, stretching absolute morality all the into the realm of aesthetics (Rothbard hilariously satirized this aspect of her philosophy in his one act comedy "Mozart Was a Red"). Rothbard's logic is fierce. I cannot find fault with any of his claims. He is clear, to the point, and ruthlessly consistent--but he does not deal with morality holistically. Instead, he constantly distinguishes between what he calls morality and rights.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
I assume that many of you believe in right and wrong--if so, on what basis? I have read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness; Rothbard's For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty, What Has the Government Done With Our Money, and The Case Against the Fed; and Molyneux's On Truth, and UPB. I found all of them to be useful despite they're great differences in the realms of proof.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Still, the power and desire argument is problematic. For, can't all human actions be described as actions that the actor had the power and desire to commit? The purpose of any ethical methodology is to determine which actions are immoral and which action are good or neutral. It can be reasonable assumed that all actions--good, bad, or ugly--were well within the power and the desire of the actor by the very virtue that they were committed.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
"It can be reasonable assumed that all actions (...) were well within the power and the desire of the actor by the very virtue that they were committed."
Indeed, it is a descriptive statement, not prescriptive.
Any theory of morality/ethics that makes sense has to explain why it is in the individual's best interest to follow it, without appealing to any supernatural entities or events of any kind. So it has to be descriptive.
UPB could be a much better book if it just defined "morality".
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Then again, the book does contain logical fallacies.
For example when he talks about how it's gotta be ok to kill fish because sharks kill fish "naturally" and can't help it.
That's analogous to saying that it's gotta be ok to kill humans because lions / cancer kill them and can't help it.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I think that you may have pushed two separate arguments together here. He says that the rule "men should not eat fish" is inconsistent because it is too specific. And then uses the shark example to show that if ethics is extended to include animals that it would necessarily condemn certain animals (like sharks), and to again show that show that ethics requires the ability for choice. Rothbard makes a similar point in TEOL if I remember correctly.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Yes, and if I say "humans should not kill humans" it is too specific, but if I say "it is wrong to kill humans" I'm condemning all kinds of living and nonliving entities or events that kill humans and have "no capacity for choice".
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Do you actually believe that the first is too specific, or are you using it as a rhetorical disproof of the above argument?
Do you believe murder is wrong? If so, why?
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
I believe murder is wrong because it is not practical for people to kill other people if they want to achieve commonly shared preferences such as peace, a long life, wealth, etc.
I eat fish, but whether sharks also kill fish or not has no bearing on the moral status of this action.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Saying murder is wrong is not the same as saying it is not practical or does not achieve our mutual goals and preferences. Untimely death certainly does contradict every human's general preference of life over death; but preference alone cannot justify calling something wrong. Many things are preferred by certain people or groups, but the absence of those things is not always an evil. Murder must be wrong for a more fundamental reason--every human's absolute property right to their own body.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Where does this absolute right come from?
I propose that it comes from mutual agreements between people. And that the reason we make these agreements is because it is mutually beneficial.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Just so I understand, you're saying that *it* (every human's absolute property right in their own body) comes from mutual agreements between people? What if this agreement is not met by two actual people? Is NAP then no longer valid? Does that mean that the resulting murder then has no moral value whatsoever?
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
It depends on what you mean by moral value.
If you mean what would be practical for people to do, it doesn't matter if nobody follows the NAP, and instead steal, kill and rape all the time, as long as they have the common preferences we discussed above, it would be better for them to follow it.
The NAP is useful whether it is followed or not.
However, if nobody follows it, nobody applies, it, and the NAP doesn't stop any bullets. This is what I meant when I said it's not magical.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
"Just so I understand, you're saying that *it* (every human's absolute property right in their own body) comes from mutual agreements between people"
Yes. By "right" I mean the ability of one person to be free from aggression against them, or to defend if such an aggression takes place.
If nobody respects your rights, you don't have any rights.
It may still be a good idea for people to respect each other's rights, but rights in themselves don't exist unless people believe in them.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
That's interesting. That would, to me, imply that there is nothing objective about rights. I do see that a general lack of belief in your rights does, de facto, mean that they will be infringed; but if they don't exist then there is nothing to infringe. If rights require belief for their existence, then they do not exist; however, if rights do exist, then they exist regardless of belief in them. Would we not say that a slave or victim or holocaust victim had rights that were infringed?
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Again, it comes down to your definition of rights. mine would be something like:
Right:
an explicit or implicit agreement between people stating that a certain behavior will be considered disallowed in their community. This means that they agree to:
1) Not engage in this behavior.
2) Either defend the victim of this behavior, or at least not prevent them, or someone else from repealing the aggressor.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
.
However, the fact that people come up with a "right" doesn't mean that this is a productive agreement. People can come up with a "right to food", but we've seen the results of that.
It seems to me that you choose to call "rights" to what I would call productive rights, or productive agreements. But otherwise we seem to be on the same page.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
"That would, to me, imply that there is nothing objective about rights"
There is something objective in the sense that you can study, reason and deduce what type of rights will objectively lead to certain results.
Ultimately I don't think it matters if you call it objective, subjective, or what, what matters is that it is based on preference and pragmatism, that it is a system that works from the bottom up, where people come up with solutions to problems because it suits their own goals
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
The alternative is a top-down approach where the "rights" are dictated from above from some authority, whether it's god, state, mommy, or science.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't take into account individual preference, and it offers nothing other than some spiritual sense of belonging in return for the individual being moral.
I'm not saying that's useless, but I want more than that. I want to understand it from the bottom up. I want it to make sense for the individual.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I'm not sure that I disagree with a top down approach as long as the standard is rationality and science. In the same way, I do not fear absolutism--the fact that most moralists have historically appealed to irrational absolutes does not invalidate absolute morality, only their irrational standards.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
That does not mean that the system shouldn't also make sense from the bottom up. I believe that we are all equipped with a fairly accurate moral compass, but we should always be able to measure our emotional reactions against a rational methodology as well.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Sure. And it makes sense for the individual to do that.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
The difference between the two approaches is that one attempts to explain the phenomenon through human action, while the other invocates nebulous collective or "higher authority" concepts.
/watch?v=hXLPEzVFIVU
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I gave up on using words like "rights"... now I try to use "agreements" instead.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I just finished UPB for the first time this morning; so perhaps I do not yet possess enough understanding of the concepts to hash this out. The power and desire argument is interesting for sure. I did feel while reading the book that the theory is missing something; but I couldn't really put my finger on it.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
In the determinism debate he went the same way. I have an idea where it comes from, but I will keep this for my self for now.
I do wonder if this really is a problem. You say that given you accept property rights, UPB validates libertarian philosophy.
But GIVEN you accept property rights, rape is already inconsistent, so the objection that it is consistent for men to do what they have the power and desire to do, would already violate property rights.
modelmark 2 years ago
couldn't have said it better. But this is only one of the many topics where stefan has been doing this for years now.
I'm convinced it's a psychological issue.
Maybe if we're nice enough with him he'll open up. FDR drones don't count. It has to be real.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
at 5:42 when you say "point out" the word "out" is a rare instance of your Canadian accent shining through.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago 4
I don't watch that Stef guy too much, but I think you are the one playing semantics here. Simple logic makes it clear that the philosophy of just doing what you have the power and desire to do is inconsistent even with the very fact that any of us are even here complaining about statism and whatnot. The only way your "Power and Desire" model could be consistent is if nobody ever complained about anything because whatever it is you're complaining about someone had the power and desire to do it.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
I want to prevent people from having the power of the state. That is my desire, and so I want to spread philosophy that destroys the power of the state.
Luke12000 2 years ago
In doing so you are spreading a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to your "Power and Desire" framework. It must be that way by necessity in order to achieve your goals, therefore you would be espousing a philosophy which is inconsistent with the one you actually live your life by.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
"In doing so you are spreading a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to your "Power and Desire" framework."
I disagree. Statism is the product of limiting the power of the general public, not allowing people to pursue power.
Luke12000 2 years ago
I really dont appreciate him encouraging the "deFOOing" of people. I think this leads to a lot of pain in peoples lives.
DSowns1111 2 years ago
Why do you say this?
All he says is we shouldn't value family members just because they're family.
Family is only an accident. It tells you nothing about the value of the person.
I've "deFOOed" about 18 months ago and am feeling much, much better than I was when I was seeing my parents and other harmful people in my life.
Lots of people I know have had similar experiences.
I haven't heard of anyone who's "deFOOed" and ended up with a worse life.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago 2
well from my perspective my parents benefit my life, and im sure that their are some confused teenagers that come to rash conclusions with the encouragement stef gives, which i think are based alot on his relationship with family, not objectively.
DSowns1111 2 years ago
"well from my perspective my parents benefit my life"
That's fine, nobody is saying you should deFOO.
"and im sure that their are some confused teenagers that come to rash conclusions with the encouragement stef gives"
I don't think so, I think all he does is asking them questions which they ask themselves.
"i think are based alot on his relationship with family, not objectively. "
I disagree, I think his stuff on psychology is really good, the best he's got by far.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
"I disagree, I think his stuff on psychology is really good, the best he's got by far. " stef is no expert in psychology.
DSowns1111 2 years ago
"and im sure that their are some confused teenagers that come to rash conclusions with the encouragement stef gives"
Then again, if you're sure this happens, where are these confused, hurt teenagers? I haven't heard of any. But whenever I hear deFOO all I hear is people getting less sad and more happy.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Statism is also the product of peoples pursuit of power. Yes it limits the power of other people, that is the nature of power. You gain power by limiting the power of others and vice versa.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
"You gain power by limiting the power of others and vice versa."
I'm sure by "power", Luke doesn't mean just the type of power that one individual has over another, but to the general ability of achieving things you want.
With this definition, we most often gain power by voluntarily associating with one another peacefully.
Unless we are in the business of government of course.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
He isn't using that definition. He used rape as an example of the Power and Desire thing. Watch the whole video again. You're entering a discussion without understanding the context.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
I do mean "the general ability of achieving things you want."
Luke12000 2 years ago
"He used rape as an example of the Power and Desire thing."
That was just meant to show that UPB doesn't validate only libertarian ethics, and that it can validate any consistent set of ethics, however violent.
It is you who doesn't understand the context.
It's ok though. No worries. But Luke doesn't want people raping each other,because in his ideal world there would be lots of people willing to stop that man from raping that women, so he wouldn't have the power, you see?
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
I know what he was trying to say, and I'm saying that the whole Power and Desire thing would be an inconsistent set of ethics. Then your saying it's ok because in his ideal world their would be lots of people who would use their power to stop that guy from raping the woman. Well guess what you would call those "lots of people". You would call them the state or the government, which is the very thing Luke is here on youtube to complain about. Are you beginning to see the recursive logic here?
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
I do not call them states or governments.
States or governments rule by convincing the general population that they need to allow an authority or a small minority of people to have a coercive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.
That has nothing to do with defending a potential rape victim.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
How is the "power and desire" argument inconsistent?
You haven't explained.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
It's inconsistent because you would have to have a society in which no one ever complained about anything. Since any possible action anyone could ever take would automatically fit into the Power and Desire framework, therefore if anyone ever complained about anything then they would be espousing a philosophy inconsistent with the one that they live by.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
People can try to limit my power, and I can stop them, perhaps through "complaining". This is not inconsistent. I'm saying people can exercise power in whatever way they choose, but Im going to do the same. And if people attack me, I am going to defend myself.
Luke12000 2 years ago
It is inconsistent Luke. If you say that anyone can execirse power in any way they choose then turn around and complain about someone exercising their power in a way that you don't like then you are contradicting yourself, therefore it is inconsistent.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Absolutely. I don't think that Luke believes the power and desire argument is valid. He was just saying that the argument passes UPB and therefore UPB is invalid. I'm sure that Luke agrees with the non-initiation of the use of force--otherwise is disapproval of the state is merely aesthetic and not moral.
Luke, assuming you accept the non-aggression principle, what grounds do you accept it? Do you believe that it is objectively moral or is it your subjective preference?
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
I know he doesn't believe it, but I'm saying the argument doesn not pass UPB. I could be wrong because I'm not as familiar with UPB or Stef as Luke is, but I do know that everyone living by power and desire alone could not possibly be a consistent philosophy unless no one ever complained about anything.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
The rule says nothing about complaining. If it works, it is a form of power.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
If you complain about anything then you are espousing a philosophy contradictory to the one you are living.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
"If you complain about anything then you are espousing a philosophy contradictory to the one you are living"
Why?
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
i accept the NAP as a rule of thumb, but only because it helps me achieve my goals as an individual. I don't see it as "objective"
Luke12000 2 years ago
I see. So you don't believe in any form of objective moral laws?
Can any violation of the NAP be justified on the merit that it helps the violator achieve his goals as an individual? If someone justifies their transgressions against others in this way is their argument just as valid as your argument for NAP as a rule of thumb?
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
I don't believe in "objective moral laws", but I believe some moral agreements are objectively better than others at achieving certain things which a lot of people want, such as peace, longevity and wealth.
The NAP seems to be a pretty good agreement in these terms.
But the NAP is not magic. It only works if people think it's a good idea for them to use it.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Ah, I think that wasn't for me. Whatever, I'll leave it anyways :)
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Of course the NAP isn't magic; it doesn't need to be magic, it just needs to be valid. I think that your using an equivocation of the word "works" in the last sentence. Clearly, any ethical theory only "works" (e.g. achieves the desired goals of peace, longevity, ect) if people think that it's a good idea to implement. But the NAP the theory also "works" (e.g. is logically consistent, valid, and true) regardless of whether or not it is known, believed, or practiced.
whoisthesteve 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
Good points.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
The first thing I read from Stefan was te logic of Love... which made me so disappointed to read UPB. The logic of love is a example of the good in him, but I fear we ma have a Darth Vader on our hands..
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago 4
At least you can just DeFoo him when he turns out to be your father.
someweirdgayguy 2 years ago 2
I agree with you. I don't want UPB to cause Stef to fail (he turned me into an anarchist, after all). However, if he continues to ignore its flaws, I have a strong feeling that FDR will fail.
kvan1917 2 years ago 3
why are you so cool? seriously
TheRightDecision 2 years ago
people should do whatever they have the power and desire to do. the people who are in power have been and will continue to do whatever they want. why shouldn't everyone?
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
I agree. this is kinda how I think these days.
Luke12000 2 years ago
I've given up on Stef. He simply rejects any and all criticisms of his ideas, even when they are logically sound. I honestly think he'd rather go down in flames than admit his ideas might be flawed. Maybe it's a matter of ego.
Criticism should continue, but that is for the benefit of the people he's suckering. Hoping that he himself will come around is, in my opinion, wishful thinking.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"I've given up on Stef." Just curious why you'd dismiss everything he does because you're convinced he is wrong on just a few things. Do you feel he's doing nothing good for freedom?
sumadartsan 2 years ago
"Just curious why you'd dismiss everything he does"
I never said that. What the fuck is with people on Youtube misconstruing every little word and misrepresenting every opinion possible? How about you read the rest of my fucking post and try to comprehend it this time?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"What the fuck is with people on Youtube" My apologies. Why so hostile? A simple explanation would have been sufficient.
sumadartsan 2 years ago
"Why so hostile?"
Because the accusation you made wasn't even remotely close to what I actually said. Some people on Youtube seem to have a comprehension problem. It's quite annoying.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Well said Luke!!
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
I would REALLY enjoy it if you called into Stefs sunday call-in show and gave him this argument.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
I should, I asked to debate him and got no response. But I could always try to get him to address this there.
Luke12000 2 years ago
I hope you'll stick to only the desire and power argument as the other ones don't seem anywhere near as strong.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
I agree
Luke12000 2 years ago
Comment removed
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
"I asked to debate him and got no response."
What a surprise!
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Stef's kung fu is no match for mine. There's just no stopping my hamster style.
D4Shawn 2 years ago 4
What I hope, is that more and more people will hear the arguments we are making, and they will bring them up to stef more and more often. This is basically what you are saying. The point of my last comment was just to say it won't be easy. Stef is very tricky. I just hope some of my own arguments against stef, get brought up by more and more people.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
All stef will do is straw man the argument (like he did in his last video). That will fool most people.
Plus, I don't think everybody is going to understand what led me to come up with that UPB counter example (the "power and desire" ethic). There are certain things I needed to understand before I could think that up.
It's kind of like knowing one kung fu move, but not knowing what to do after you use that one move. Stef will likely disarm (trick) most people who present that argument to him
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Danny Shahar has written a nice philosophical peer review on his blog of the UPB.
lordmetroid 2 years ago
Is he the guy that pointed out how UPB validates chopping off someone's arm?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I don't know, he is regularly posting on liberating minds and noticed the participators of the forum of his peer review on his blog, hence why I read it. But I do not know much else he has said about the UPB.
lordmetroid 2 years ago
Shahar spent months throughout many blog posts trying to dissect UPB page by page. Molyneux basically blacklisted him and didn't respond.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
It's like he's trying to turn a rule into a physical property. There are so many things wrong with UPB, and it's such a complex construct, and stef is such a clever manipulator (of logic, people, and language) that I think people will be debunking UPB for quite a while. It'll take time to dismantle the whole thing. I'm listening to the audio book again myself.
D4Shawn 2 years ago