David Sklansky is an ACist

[Borodog]

this thread went exactly where I thought it would.

Libertarian ethics are selected for pretty strongly, both via biological and cultural evolution (I.e. The market). It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world (nor is it a coincidence that the most internally liberal have also become the most externally aggressive and imperialistic; but that's another topic).

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread went exactly where I thought it would.

[/ QUOTE ]
clever boy.

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarian ethics are selected for pretty strongly, both via biological and cultural evolution (I.e. The market).

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why has every anarchy is history (except Somalia...lol) ended up being a government?

Doesn't sound like strong selection to me.

It's also funny that you don't make the correlation the other way...that the most externally aggressive and imperialistic have come about through government...and through the prosperity that generates, become libertarian internally.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome, thanks. Is there anything else to add? Do other ACist agree that AC follows entirely from these two premises? Before I write a long debunking of the "AC is the most logical" position, I want to be clear on the basic premises.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome, thanks. Is there anything else to add? Do other ACist agree that AC follows entirely from these two premises? Before I write a long debunking of the "AC is the most logical" position, I want to be clear on the basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debunk away. I trust your debunking will include, at least implicitly, which political/economic system actually does logically follow from the preceding premises.

Edit: No, not all ACists even accept natural rights. Some, for example, support AC purely based upon social utilitarian grounds.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also funny that you don't make the correlation the other way...that the most externally aggressive and imperialistic have come about through government...and through the prosperity that generates, become libertarian internally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he was going for was to recap history based on the order in which the events actually occurred.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is all wrong and demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding, IMO. The reason "kill or be killed" is the law of the jungle is because its the only strategy lions and tigers and bears (oh my?) can come up with. Other animals, other organisms, come up with very different strategies. Keep in mind, the goal is to win, not to kill everything else. Just to win. Just to get as many copies of yourself out there as possible. This is MOST CERTAINLY not always best accomplished by "kill or be killed." Humans do not behave this way, at least not with anything even resembling a "law" or "rule." We cooperate, because, in our environment, this is a selected for strategy. Human nature is cooperative, its altrustic. Sure, its also violent at times. But rules of thumb like "be nice to your family" or "be honest in your dealings" aren't social constructs, they are tried and true game theory solutions, developed over millions of years of evolution. Nowadays, I don't even WANT to kill or rape anyone, so thats why I don't do it, but the impetus for my desire is that no one wants to hang out with a killer or a rapist, and its tough to make it as a lone human.

We are absolutely NOT a wild collection of bloodthirsty animals being barely held in check by the yoke of government or law.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that human history is so violent, both on a micro and a macro level should be evidence that "applying social consequence" is not nearly effective enough to stop such things.
I used to fight in middle school, not by choice, but because I'd get jumped by kids with too much testosterone. There were no negative "social consequences" for these kids and I couldn't change that fact if I wanted to.

[ QUOTE ]
But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it may be productive for a particular physically stronger individual.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain what you mean by "problem" and by "nature will correct it". Example?

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is correct. Is there a core of culinary preference that all humans would share without bias? We all have slightly different tastes and following this logic would lead to the conclusion that there is a "correct" sense of taste when it comes to food. Similarly with art, music and film.

[ QUOTE ]
"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of a moral and a tangible reason why it's "good"?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this thread went exactly where I thought it would.

[/ QUOTE ]
clever boy.

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarian ethics are selected for pretty strongly, both via biological and cultural evolution (I.e. The market).

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why has every anarchy is history (except Somalia...lol) ended up being a government?

Doesn't sound like strong selection to me.

It's also funny that you don't make the correlation the other way...that the most externally aggressive and imperialistic have come about through government...and through the prosperity that generates, become libertarian internally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the US would be a great example illustrating that the libertarianism comes before the external aggression.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is all wrong and demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding, IMO. The reason "kill or be killed" is the law of the jungle is because its the only strategy lions and tigers and bears (oh my?) can come up with. Other animals, other organisms, come up with very different strategies. Keep in mind, the goal is to win, not to kill everything else. Just to win. Just to get as many copies of yourself out there as possible. This is MOST CERTAINLY not always best accomplished by "kill or be killed." Humans do not behave this way, at least not with anything even resembling a "law" or "rule." We cooperate, because, in our environment, this is a selected for strategy. Human nature is cooperative, its altrustic. Sure, its also violent at times. But rules of thumb like "be nice to your family" or "be honest in your dealings" aren't social constructs, they are tried and true game theory solutions, developed over millions of years of evolution. Nowadays, I don't even WANT to kill or rape anyone, so thats why I don't do it, but the impetus for my desire is that no one wants to hang out with a killer or a rapist, and its tough to make it as a lone human.

We are absolutely NOT a wild collection of bloodthirsty animals being barely held in check by the yoke of government or law.

[/ QUOTE ]
Government is a good "game theory solution" IMO.

[Phil153]

Did the Enlightenment come before land owners became kings and consolidated power?

It seems bizarre to make such claims about libertarian ethics leading to prosperity, when the most advanced civilizations on earth have been built on the centralization of power. Rome, England, in fact most of Europe, China - centralized governments and power hierarchies (such as monarchies) preceded widespread development.

Did the modern age of human rights come before or after widespread prosperity under stable governments?