Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

-I agree with previous users: Hoppe transcends the is-ought dichotomy. His ethic doesn�t establish a system
of values � it makes no value judgments (on whether or not aggression is �good� or �bad�) because these
judgments are meaningless (�good� and �bad� aren�t just subjective � they don�t mean anything at all, other
than perhaps what you /want/ to happen). Hoppeanism is a method of ethical reasoning that establishes what
behavior is �just� (what can be justified) and what is unjust (what cannot be rationally justified). So
it�s not a matter of men being �good or evil�, or answering the question �why should I /want/ to be moral
in your Hoppean world?�. Hoppeanism establishes a true, undeniable structure of ethics that is precisely
that: TRUE. Hoppean ethics are rational, verifiable, justifiable, reasonable, true, etc� denying them and
breaking them is just the opposite: unjustifiable, �wrong�, irrational, unreasonable, etc. The norms that
violate Hoppeanism are false, not just �bad�. As I said in another thread, Hoppeanism is like the
scientific method: by all means, you may act as if it isn�t /correct/, but that doesn�t change anything.
Nothing will happen to you (I mean, private law might chase after you, but it�s not like you get zapped by
lightning, unless DROs invent something like that ) � your behavior is just /wrong/.

Hoppe's a psycho, you're just a white male in your twenties. Get over it

# ¿ May 23, 2014 00:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 02:57

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

absolem posted:

How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice...

(note, the first bit of that is an actual question)

If we choose an objective morality, why wouldn't we choose one directly based on the well-being and happiness of people, rather than presupposing that "property rights" are the best way to secure that well-being and happiness? Because there sure as gently caress is no proof that the latter supposition is in any way true. All there is is the navel-gazing and masturbation of a discredited philosophy, assembled by angry cranks with no social skills. Hurry up and abandon it.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:00

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person� but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal � of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a �free good�) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly� [B]esides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished� to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:25

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

quote:

More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values � with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias

quote:

In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

cheese posted:

Are we playing guess the racist author?

It's all Hoppe.

You've got to admit the guy has a certain, um, Teutonic crispness

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:30

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with �free� immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic one-man-one-vote rule. Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently undemocratic, and antimajoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:35

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

They [these confused libertarians] fantasized of a society where every one would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as as result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity. Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.

This intellectual combination could hardly end happily. Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:37

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one�s own tenant-property. One may say innumberable things and promote almost any idea under the sun but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They � the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism � will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:37

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

e: beaten! OK try this on for size!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t565842/

quote:

I have brought up Hans Hermann Hoppe myself multiple times only to be criticized on this board because he often cites Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. If you read through the comments you will quickly discover that the economic beliefs espoused by Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are the only part of Ludwig von Mises that they really endorse, despite what they say.

Needless to say Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Hoppe have all been called anti-semite Neonazis in all of the comments (The best part of the read).

If anyone is interested in these people, especially since they all know and have endorsed Ron Paul at one point or another [and that the Ludwig von Mises Institute \ Lewrockwell.com was possibly the biggest supporter] I thought this would be helpful.

EDIT: I also want to make mention that this is an internal battle of "libertarianism", between the "libertines" who like free love, drugs, homosexuals and all the other evil aspects of society and the very culturally conservative, white and Christian beliefs of someone like Lew Rockwell. There is actually a post by Murray Rothbard on Lew Rockwell's site from the early 1990s "A Strategy for the Right" where he says libertarianism's largest ally should be with people like David Duke.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:38

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head.

I don't know poo poo about philosophy, I just know when a dude comes in and is like

quote:

Private property entitles its owner to discriminate: to exclude or include others from his property and to determine the conditions of entry and inclusion. Both inclusion and exclusion have associated costs and benefits for the owner, which he weighs against each other when he makes his decision. In any case, the owner�s decision is motivated by his concern for his property and by reason. His reasoning may turn out correct and he reaches his goal or it may turn out wrong, but in any case, the owner�s is a reasoned decision.

The founder and developer of a private community, then, would not likely discriminate and exclude based on mere differences of opinion. Or if he did he would not likely attract more than a guru�s following as subscribers. Typically, discrimination will be based on differences in conduct, expression and appearance, on what people do and how they act in public, on language, religion, ethnicity, customs, social class, etc. The owner discriminates in order to achieve a high degree of homogeneity-of-conduct in his community and so avoid or reduce intra-communal tension and conflict � in economic jargon: to reduce transaction costs; and he does so in the expectation that his decision will be good for his property and community.

In any case, in a libertarian world there would indeed be far more discrimination than in the present statist world, which is characterized by countless anti-discrimination laws and, consequently, ubiquitous forced integration. In particular, whatever other criteria may be used for inclusion or exclusion, in a libertarian world, for instance, no private community owner would want to tolerate � and not discriminate against � communist or socialist activists on his property. As enemies of the very institution on which the community rests, they would be excluded or expelled � but they would of course remain free to establish their own communist commune, kibbutzim, or whatever other �lifestyle experiment� they come up with.

[...] a libertarian world would be characterized by a far greater variety of different, but internally relatively homogeneous communities, and consequently the range, diversity, and vigor of intellectual discussion in all likelihood would far surpass anything experienced presently or at any time in the past.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 05:30

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

From a purely logical point of view, libertarianism is compatible with each and every aesthetic and artistic style or judgment. I am not the first one to notice, for instance, that famous libertarian Ayn Rand�s artistic work displays a striking stylistic resemblance to Socialist Soviet Realism. Similarly, I have seen it possible to be a �perfect� libertarian and never aggress against anyone�s person or property, and yet be an all-around useless, unpleasant or even rotten fellow.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 05:34

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

On his father and sworn enemy, J�rgen Habermas

quote:

Habermas was my principal philosophy teacher and Ph.D. advisor during my studies at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, from 1968-74. Through his seminars I became acquainted with British and American analytical philosophy. I read K. Popper, P. Feyerabend, L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, J.L. Austin, J. Searle, W.v.O. Quine, H. Putnam, N. Chomsky, J. Piaget. I discovered Paul Lorenzen and the Erlangen School and the work of K.O Apel. I still believe that this was a pretty good intellectual training.

Personally, then, I have no regrets. As for Habermas�s influence on Germany and German public opinion, however, it has been an unmitigated disaster, at least from a libertarian viewpoint. Habermas is today Germany�s most celebrated public intellectual and High Priest of �Political Correctness�: of social democracy and welfare-statism, of multi-culturalism, anti-discrimination (affirmative action) and political centralization spiced, especially for German consumption, with a heavy dose of �anti-fascist� rhetoric and �collective guilt� � mongering.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 05:37

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

absolem posted:

I didn't make anyone do anything. I did try to make this more than a "debate me" thread, and the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind.

Click the question mark under my username. Is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a cool guy? Do you think he's got something to say about how society should be run?

# ¿ May 23, 2014 18:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 02:57

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Buried alive posted:

Oh good, you're still around. I had a thought.

So self-ownership is the basis of all argumentation. Part of what it means to own something is to be able to sell it. Based on my understanding of libertarian philosophy, you could sell yourself into slavery if you really had a mind to.

According to your understanding of Hoppe, slavery is untenable because it leads to a contradiction in performance of some sort. I contend that banning slavery is just as untenable, because it violates this idea of self-ownership. How can you be forbidden from selling something that you rightfully own? To say that you own yourself, but can't sell yourself, is a contradiction in performance.

So either you allow slavery, and the ethic collapses, or you ban slavery, and the ethic collapses.

What do you think?

To add to this, I don't think that Hoppe would say that a society that respects property rights would have no slavery. Quite the contrary, in fact; anyone without a sufficiently developed understanding of the sanctity of private property (and surely anyone who would consider selling themselves into slavery would fall into this category) is not a real person and may be traded between free people as a good.

So in fact, the very act of saying "I'd like to sell myself into slavery" out loud changes you from a person into a good, disqualifying you from being compensated for your own enslavement.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 21:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure