# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Disappointed in Austrian Economics

## Bratok

First some axioms:
1) Existence/continuity AND progress of humanity
2) well-being of individuals is less important than 1)

I was big fan of Peter Schiff and I still listen to his show but I don't consider myself austrian anymore, I think that Soros's reflexivity theory has better explanation of economics.
In my opinion both Austrian and Keynesian explanations of Great Depression are wrong. Austrians blame government and Keynesians blame free market. In reality only humans can be blamed for it. "Goal of economy is to eliminate all jobs" - Peter Schiff(I think he doesn't fully understand what he said) "I create nothing. I own" - Gordon Gekko. Capitalism means that people who own means of production can live without working, they can just collect dividends. More important is that means of production evolve much faster than humans. Human evolution is too slow. Sometime in the future working class will become extinct. Normally this extinction process would be carried out through savings and investing of workers and then capital will be transfered to their children. But it's not smooth process. Some people make mistakes when investing and some people(i believe they are majority) do not even realize that they should save and invest. if this happens they either starve to death, rob other people and go to jail, or charity helps them. Problems begin when too many people loose their jobs and don't have savings. That happened during Great Depression. Yes, federal reserve created bubble that popped in 1929. But what Murray Rothbard wrote about Hoover interventionism is wrong. Two examples of government intervention that austrians usually use are fixed wages and trade war. Fixed wages argument refuted here by dsglop YouTube - Robert Murphy (Peter Schiff Wannabe) vs. Paul Krugman Debate
Also Murphy says in that video that wages were fixed because Hoover called to businessmen and asked for it. However in this video YouTube - Conversations with History - David M. Kennedy at 15:08 historian David Kennedy says that Hoover called to businesmen in 1921 and it is ended Depression of 1921 while austrians believe that lack of government intervention and free market help US economy get out of this depression. So either Hoover had magic powers and could stop depression of 1921 AND prevent businessmen from lowering wages or free market fixed itself in 1921 AND it fixed itself in first years of Great Depression except that according pure abstract economics those 25% of workers that were unemployed were unnecessary and should have been removed from economy.
2nd argument refuted here http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/smoot.shtml
and here http://www.economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html

exports were only 5% of GDP, trade war couldn't impact US economy.
Government didn't cause Great Depression. Neither did free-maket. Humans caused Great Depression. Specifically working class. Market worked very well. Economy was completely restructured by 1933. But there was 25% unemployment. Real free-market solution would be to kill those workers(or let them starve to death). Because they can't adapt fast enough. Humans are obsolete. They can't keep up with progress. Even without minimum wage there was no place for them in economy. Free market economy ensures fastest economic growth. But humans are unnecessary for economy. Machines can completely replace human labor. therefore free market doesn't guarantee that there will always be demand for human workers. And because free market doesn't care about humans only about efficiency and gross output human capitalists will be eventually replaced too by uncontrollable AI(like in matrix, terminator, etc.) Economy simply doesn't need any humans.
Austrians believe that Roosevelt was evil, however he was forced to try to save those unnecessary 25% of workers otherwise they would probably destroy system. But Great Depression happened worldwide, many people couldn't find jobs, and capitalists didn't do enough to save them. I believe that's one of major reasons of WWII, technological advancements and capital accumulation lead to millions of workers that economy didn't need and those millions killed each other plus enough capital was destroyed so demand for previously unemployed workers was created again. Great Depression is very similar to what is happening these days. So i think it is possible that there will be WW3 in next 5-10 years if nothing will be done to deal with excessive human supply.

I also believe that markets are inherently unstable, usually they can fix themselves, but bubbles can also occur without government intervention. Problem with Soros's reflexivity theory is that while there were numerous market bubbles without government intervention there were very few(if any) that actually caused major damage to economy(2-way feedback mechanism - bubbles affect real economy). There was at least one such example in geopolitics - WWII. Germans and Japanese created bubble of national supremacy that badly damaged Allies and after it popped it caused even bigger damage to Axis. Even if Pearl Harbor was inside job it was necessary because otherwise Germany would get access to nuclear weapons and possibly destroy the world. Soros blames  dotcom and housing bubbles on free market but he clearly lies because he said in several interviews that Greenspan is biggest market manipulator. Even Paul McCulley from PIMCO who is also believer in free market's tendency towards bubbles said in 2001 that Greenspan was responsible for both dotcom and future housing bubble. I think that Soros does it probably because he can't explain it to public in simple terms.

Possible solutions to these free market problems
1 NWO. There should be one world government that controls WMDs, ecology and things like that. Strongest countries should take responsibility of policing the world.  If some governments refuse to comply they must be destroyed.
2 Not only FED should have responsible monetary policy but government should have instruments for suppressing bubbles.
3 People that can't find work and depend on government should have handouts/living wage as low as possible(just enough for food, cheap apartments, very basic medicine, tv, internet, prostitutes, i.e. "bread and circuses")
4 Strict population growth control(sterilization, vasectomy, etc.) is required for sustainability of economy, rich people can have as many children as they can support
5 no additional care for poor older people
6 legalization of euthanasia, smoking, alcholol, heavy drugs, abortion for people that depend on government
7 there probably should be some voting restrictions because people who depend on government will vote for greater share of income(which is normally reinvested to grow economy) and will slow progress while rich people would vote for less government and taxes which threatens stability and existence of humanity. However it's unclear how such system could be implemented since watchdogs are humans too, they are biased and fallible...

It's hard to accept but we libertarians indeed are cult members  Rothbard, Schiff, Ron Paul, Jim Rogers are all wrong. However nobody can deny fact that free market capitalism ensures fastest economic growth. So government intervention is needed but only to prevent system from collapse, everything else should be left to free market.

PS Sorry for broken english, it's not my first language.

----------


## Guitarzan

omg & lol

----------


## Bruno

1 NWO. There should be one world government that controls WMDs, ecology and things like that. Strongest countries should take responsibility of policing the world. If some governments refuse to comply they must be destroyed.
2 Not only FED should have responsible monetary policy but government should have instruments for suppressing bubbles.
3 People that can't find work and depend on government should have handouts/living wage as low as possible(just enough for food, cheap apartments, very basic medicine, tv, internet, prostitutes, i.e. "bread and circuses")
4 Strict population control(sterilization, vasectomy, etc.) is required for sustainability of economy, rich people can have as many children as they can support
5 no additional care for poor older people
6 legalization of euthanasia, smoking, alcholol, heavy drugs, abortion for people that depend on government


lmao

Please tell me this is satire.  Otherwise, 

- rep

----------


## hazek

I think you don't understand how government intervention is the cause of what you call human malinvestments and loses..

I suggest you watch this video and pay close attention from the 15min mark on. 

YouTube - Meltdown | Thomas E Woods, Jr.

----------


## Travlyr

> Capitalism means that people who own means of production can live without working, they can just collect dividends.


Your definition of capitalism is wrong. Capitalism is using capital to trade. If I trade wisely, then I profit.

----------


## Legend1104

Sorry to say dude, but you have lost your way. You are dead wrong. 




> Yes, federal reserve created bubble that popped in 1929. But what Murray Rothbard wrote about Hoover interventionism is wrong. Two examples of government intervention that austrians usually use are fixed wages and trade war. Fixed wages argument refuted here by dsglop


First off, Hoover was an interventionist. How can you say that Rothbard is wrong about Hoover and then mention fixed wages and trade war. Rothbard mentions so many different reasons why Hoover was an interventionist. Have you ever read America's Great Depression? He mentions forcing the Fed to inject masive amounts of money into the banks, public work programs, the Smoote-Hawley Tarriff (the largest tariff in American history), as well as bailouts, and asking banks to relax their demand for mortgage payments from lenders. 

With regards to your video, first forgive me for not having much faith in some random guy in his basement. His clip from Murphy is editted so I don't even know if that is all he said caused the Great Depression, but even Rothbard admitted that most businesses lowered prices by the end of 1931.




> at 15:08 historian David Kennedy says that Hoover called to businesmen in 1921 and it is ended Depression of 1921 while austrians believe that lack of government intervention and free market help US economy get out of this depression. So either Hoover had magic powers and could stop depression of 1921 AND prevent businessmen from lowering wages or free market fixed itself in 1921 AND it fixed itself in first years of Great Depression except that according pure abstract economics those 25% of workers that were unemployed were unnecessary and should have been removed from economy.
> 2nd argument refuted here http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/smoot.shtml
> and here http://www.economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html


Yes Hoover did, but he was mostly ignored by Harding. Alot of his ideas were ignored during 1921. He really did not get to have control of the market like he wanted until he was president.




> exports were only 5% of GDP, trade war couldn't impact US economy.
> Government didn't cause Great Depression. Neither did free-maket. Humans caused Great Depression. Specifically working class. Market worked very well.


Trade wars would have been because of the Smoote-Hawley Tariff. If you look at your little chart, imports dropped drastically during the 1930s because of the Tariff. The drop in imports would have led to drastically higher prices, and if that occurs during high unemployment then it can have serious economic problems.

Just a few thoughts on what you said. I don't have time to cover much more now.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Machines can completely replace human labor. therefore free market doesn't guarantee that there will always be demand for human workers.


Machines never break down and never need innovation, or specialization, right?


The human economy thrives when machines take over labor.

----------


## axiomata

So proud of one's ignorance.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> 6 legalization of euthanasia, smoking, alcholol, heavy drugs, abortion for people that depend on government


and illegal for everyone else?


is something wrong, bro?

----------


## psi2941

i bet the op is "dsglop" he says his a fan of schiff but look at his icon.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> First some axioms:
> 1) Existence/continuity AND progress of humanity
> 2) well-being of individuals is less important than 1)


How about starting off with valid axioms (ie. something that is actually self evident).

Continuity of the human species requires human reproduction.

Human reproduction does not require progress.

So much for 1)...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Wow... just read all of the OP.  It would be time-consuming to attempt to pick apart every error in that post...




> Originally Posted by *Bratok* First some axioms: 1) Existence/continuity AND progress of humanity 2) well-being of individuals is less important than 1


Your "axioms" are arbitrary, inconsistent, and non-objective.  Axioms are postulates neccessary for proper deduction itself, not subjective value judgements like the 2 things you just typed.

----------


## Dripping Rain

bookmarking to double check your facts tommorow. although I clearly see flaws in your arguments as well. that aside
Autrian Econ is not the word of God. There are many flaws but imo its light years ahead of keynesianism. If you visit patbuchanan.org you will find some damning criticisms of pure austrian econ. So I may be in the camp thats not fully onboard. But Ill take an Austrian prez over a keynesian in a heart beat.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> bookmarking to double check your facts tommorow. although I clearly see flaws in your arguments as well. that aside
> Autrian Econ is not the word of God. There are many flaws but imo its light years ahead of keynesianism. If you visit patbuchanan.org you will find some damning criticisms of pure austrian econ. So I may be in the camp thats not fully onboard. But Ill take an Austrian prez over a keynesian in a heart beat.


I agree.  I am not completely Austrian either, since there are a few foundational problems (from a Christian viewpoint).

One problem is that Austrian economists have never defended property from an _ethical_ standpoint, in fact Mises said it couldn't be.  They have defended it from linguistic, historical, or pragmatic grounds...but never ethically.  Only Christianity provides an ethical (and therefore the only defendable) basis for property.

This is a great explanation of this-

The Only Possible Defense Of Private Property:
http://americanvision.org/656/only-p...vate-property/

Where the Austrian school borrows from the worldview of Christianity, I agree.

----------


## Bratok

> I think you don't understand how government intervention is the cause of what you call human malinvestments and loses..


 humans need support even if they are not used in manufacturing. They can't be dismantled. For austrians there are no difference between capital and human.




> Machines never break down and never need innovation, or specialization, right?


they will repair themselves and AI will innovate.




> Trade wars would have been because of the Smoote-Hawley Tariff. If you look at your little chart, imports dropped drastically during the 1930s because of the Tariff.


 They were only 5% of GDP....




> and illegal for everyone else?


10th amendment would apply only to those who don't need government support.




> i bet the op is "dsglop" he says his a fan of schiff but look at his icon.


It's from funny video his critics made YouTube - Peter Schiff was right 
I'm thankful to Schiff he made me interested in economics and politics, however I think he is wrong.




> Human reproduction does not require progress.


Sun will die eventually, and there is chance that another asteroid will hit Earth. Progress is needed for human existence. 




> There are many flaws but imo its light years ahead of keynesianism. ... But Ill take an Austrian prez over a keynesian in a heart beat.


Austrian economics doesn't address problem of excessive human supply. Huge economic stimulus wouldn't only slow economic growth but would also destroy capital throwing economy several years(or even decades) back and would create demand for human labor. Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics because it solves problem of excessive human supply. However if there were handouts and strict birth control(and suppressing of destructive market bubbles) then everything else could be left to free market.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> humans need support even if they are not used in manufacturing. They can't be dismantled. For austrians there are no difference between capital and human.
> 
> they will repair themselves and AI will innovate.
> 
>  They were only 5% of GDP....
> 
> 
> 10th amendment would apply only to those who don't need government support.
> 
> ...



I forgot about artificial intelligence and the "rise of the machines".  You convinced me.  I quit Austrian economics!

LOLOLOLOL

----------


## Bratok

machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.




"All libertarians shall be assimilated"  -the Machines

----------


## roho76

> Machines never break down and never need innovation, or specialization, right?
> 
> 
> The human economy thrives when machines take over labor.


Case in point:

My job is programming robots that build cars.

Common quotes from union workers in the plants I visit and one of the reasons they are being replaced by machines when they use humans to do the same work as robots in Mexico:

"That's not my job"
"They don't pay me to do that"
"I need to go get my tools" (Why didn't you show up with your tools? Then he is not to be seen for an hour and upon his return it is break time.)

When an electrician shows up to fix a wire and that wire is held down by a harness that has a screw in it he stops work and waits for a tool maker to show up because that's "not his job" even though he has the tools in his hand to remove the screw and most of the time there is no tool maker available. A union worker spends 75% of his time finding ways to get out of doing work while spending the other 25% of their time complaining about making $30-$40 dollars/hr with a benefits package that rivals Congressional benefits. 




> Originally Posted by *Bratok*
> they will repair themselves and AI will innovate.


This is not "The Terminator". The Governator is not coming to take your job. Step out of lala land.

----------


## Bratok

> Common quotes from union workers


It's your emotions not logic, you are jealous that other people don't work as hard as you and have "unfair" wages. However "fair" system will destroy itself.

----------


## libertybrewcity

WaltM reincarnated as a red peter schiff?

----------


## treyfu

"We libertarians"? Sorry to break it to you, but if you actually believe the stuff you posted, you are not a libertarian. Try again.

----------


## Legend1104

> They were only 5% of GDP....


Your argument here makes no sense. Of course they would have been small by the 1930s. The tariff would have had the effect of dragging down the purchase of imports and exports. you cannot just look at were the line was at that time and say that they had no real effect. You need to look at the big picture. Your own graph shows that before 1930, imports/exports were declining drastically. The tariff brought them down and started a trade war. This would have increased prices for consumers at home.

Furthermore, your graph is incomplete. It does not show what happened before 1930. We don't know how much of a drop imports/exports took. Second, I don't know where you keep getting 5%. Certainly not from your chart. It does not show percentage. The numbers on the side indicate billions of dollars (I think...it is not actually expressed but I assume that is correct because it goes above 2000 and that certainly is not a percentage).


P.S. please someone tell me how to actually put an image into a response.

Here is a good chart about export/imports for that time period.
Notice the huge drop in imports/exports from 1929-1932.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mXz2rszFv0...e1920-1940.jpg

[rph-edit: nvmd... re: image insert ]

----------


## revolutionary8

> Some argue advanced technologies are simply too dangerous for humans to morally allow them to be built, and advocate efforts to stop their invention. *Perhaps the most famous for holding this viewpoint is Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who believed AI may enable the upper classes of society to "simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity".* Alternatively, if AI is not created, Kaczynski argues that humans "will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals" after sufficient technological progress has been made. Portions of Kaczynski's writings have been included in both Bill Joy's article and in a recent book by Ray Kurzweil. It should be noted that Kaczynski not only opposes the Singularity but also supports neo-Luddism. Many people oppose the Singularity without opposing present-day technology as Luddites do.
> 
> Just as Luddites opposed artifacts of the industrial revolution, due to concern for their effects on employment, some opponents of the Singularity are also concerned about future employment opportunities. Although Luddite concerns about jobs were not supported given the growth in jobs after the industrial revolution, there was one effect on involuntary employment: namely, a dramatic decrease in child labor and the labors of the overaged. Thus, only a drop in voluntary employment should be of concern, not the level of absolute employment *(Such a position is held by Henry Hazlitt)*. *Economically, a post-Singularity society would likely have more wealth than a pre-Singularity society (via increased knowledge of matter and energy manipulation to meet human needs) and thus wealth distribution would be easier to solve. One possible post-Singularity future, therefore, is one in which per capita wealth increases dramatically while per capita employment decreases.*


http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/tec...riticisms.html

Hazlitt explains this very well in his book Eco in one easy lesson

----------


## Bratok

> Second, I don't know where you keep getting 5%.


according to my chart in 1st post nominal GDP in 1929 - $100 billion, exports - $5 billion

----------


## Sentient Void

It seems that RPF is increasingly becoming a forum where liberals and statists either like to come to in order to try and refute libertarianism and sound economics  (where they and their 'arguments' are always debunked and refuted) , or for some that are increasingly curious as to find answers in their interest for a better and more consistent philosophy. 

I've noticed these 'kinds of posts' like the OP in this thread are becoming increasingly common...

Keep it up guys! ;-)

----------


## revolutionary8

when you hit Post Reply, look at the top at your tools. Hit the picture icon then copy the address of the pic in to the box. 
If that isn't working for you, simply wrap the tags [img] w....http[/img] around the image address. To get the image addy, mouse over the image, left click, then hit copy image address.

----------


## Legend1104

Great thanks.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bra...at_Whipple%27s



YouTube - The Brain Center At Whipple's (2/3)

YouTube - The Brain Center At Whipple's (3/3)

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I agree.  I am not completely Austrian either, since there are a few foundational problems (from a Christian viewpoint).
> 
> One problem is that Austrian economists have never defended property from an _ethical_ standpoint, in fact Mises said it couldn't be.  They have defended it from linguistic, historical, or pragmatic grounds...but never ethically.  Only Christianity provides an ethical (and therefore the only defendable) basis for property.
> 
> This is a great explanation of this-
> 
> The Only Possible Defense Of Private Property:
> http://americanvision.org/656/only-p...vate-property/
> 
> Where the Austrian school borrows from the worldview of Christianity, I agree.


What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

----------


## Sentient Void

> What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?


He clearly has not. 'The Ethics for Liberty' by Rothbard, anyone?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?


  of course I have.  I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.

If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an _ethical_ standpoint, then please point it out  Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action.  He said:




> Private property is a human device. It is not sacred.


To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this.  Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is _alien_ to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.

The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing.  I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.

----------


## Sentient Void

That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys). 

I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys). 
> 
> I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.



This is the "is-ought" fallacy.  You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case.  If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be".  David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms.  And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

By the way SV, I agree with you that property is intrinsic in man's nature.  This is where both you and I would disagree with Mises.  In Mises' view, since property was merely a pragmatic result of human behavior, and came much later after man "developed", a return to nature would be a return to a state devoid of property.


Property MUST be intrinsic and sacred for it to be defended ethically.  Christianity alone provides the axioms neccessary for an ethical defense of property.  Property IS sacred.  Property is intrinsic to man's nature because he was created to take dominion over the earth God created for him.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> of course I have.  I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.
> 
> If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an _ethical_ standpoint, then please point it out  Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action.  He said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this.  Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is _alien_ to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.
> 
> The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing.  I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.


Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned _Ethics of Liberty_ & Hoppe had the _Ethics and Economics of Private Property_.

The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> This is the "is-ought" fallacy.  You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case.  If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be".  David Hume pointed this out.
> 
> 
> Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms.  And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.


Non-sense. Discourse ethics (E.g. self-ownership) is clearly superior to any deified sacrosanct script. Reason & Logic need no 'higher authority'. Faith is a weak argument, in fact, it holds no merit whatsoever in terms of morality and ethics. (Reason & Logic is much superior)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned _Ethics of Liberty_ & Hoppe had the _Ethics and Economics of Private Property_.
> 
> The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).


Oh I am aware

You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh?  (I thought you liked logic)

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Oh I am aware
> 
> You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh?  (I thought you liked logic)


Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever. 

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever. 
> 
> I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.
> 
> Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.



In my previous posts I show that the Biblical axiom provides the only neccessarily ethical foundation for property. 

How does an argument from nature provide a logical, non-arbitrary defense of property as ethical?  What natural law philosopher has ever said property was _good because it was good_ (not good because it is historical, pragmatic, etc)??? Besides, arguing that something is good because it is "natural" is ridiculous.  Humans have shown that they are very good at murdering and oppressing each other.  Is that "good" because murder and oppression are in our nature?

And my argument is not from "faith", as if you mean to suggest that I am arbitrarily picking and choosing to have blind faith in certain worldviews...  My argument is from axioms neccessary for deduction.  I just showed how the axioms of Christianity provide the postulate neccessary for an ethical defense of property...Arguments from nature are not sound, as Hume pointed out.

----------


## Legend1104

> Non-sense. Discourse ethics (E.g. self-ownership) is clearly superior to any deified sacrosanct script. Reason & Logic need no 'higher authority'. Faith is a weak argument, in fact, it holds no merit whatsoever in terms of morality and ethics. (Reason & Logic is much superior)


Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it. 

First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for  humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning. 

Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.

That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...

Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.

----------


## ClayTrainor

My forehead hurts from all the facepalming I've done while reading this thread.

----------


## Bruno

> and illegal for everyone else?
> 
> 
> is something wrong, bro?


Those should be legal for everyone.  I believe the OP was intending it for population control.

----------


## axiomata

> My forehead hurts from all the facepalming I've done while reading this thread.


You're not doing it right then.  The proper technique for a facepalm is a slow and deliberate motion to the forehead.

----------


## Seraphim

> Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it. 
> 
> First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for  humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning. 
> 
> Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.
> 
> That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...
> 
> Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.


Don't confuse weak and corruptible with evil. Misguidedness is not evil.

The average person is good at heart and soul. The problem is that the average person is also stupid, malleable, weak and inclined to view the present self as more important than the future self and this can lead to corruption and selfish behavior.

Misguided. Not evil. There are evil people out there though...

Just not many IMHO. Sheeple by the billions though.

----------


## robert68

> ... Only Christianity provides an ethical (and therefore the only defendable) basis for property.
> 
> This is a great explanation of this-
> 
> The Only Possible Defense Of Private Property:
> http://americanvision.org/656/only-p...vate-property/
> 
> ...



From your link:




> Therefore the restoration of property rights can and will start only with the restoration of Christianity to its place of a dominant religion in the West. Only when our law codes, our cultural practices, our economic, political, scientific, scholarly and other fields of society submit to the revelation and the requirements of the Law of God, we will see the property rights truly upheld and defended. Like all other rights, property rights come from God, and they stand or fall with our obedience to God, as a nation under Him.


Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.

Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a _just_ acquisition of property, and a definition of the _just_ defense of property.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.
> 
> Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a _just_ acquisition of property, and a definition of the _just_ defense of property.


"Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankindthe American Revolutioncannot be understood without its Christian foundations."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.



What is your definition of tyranny?  The American Revolution?

It is interesting that you think Christianity is "tyrannical" when I am showing it's rigorous defense of the cornerstone of freedom:  private property.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever. 
> 
> I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.




AED,

What are laws of logic?  Are they merely conventions?  If laws of logic are merely conventional, why don't different cultures have different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic merely brain impulses?  If they are, why do people with different brains not employ different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic immaterial?  You would say yes, right?  If laws are immaterial, how can they exist in a universe (as atheists say) that consists only of matter?  Are you proposing a Platonic realm of forms?  

How do the concept of abstract, universal, immaterial realities like laws even comport with an atheistic view of the universe?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> AED,
> 
> What are laws of logic?  Are they merely conventions?  If laws of logic are merely conventional, why don't different cultures have different laws of logic?
> 
> Are laws of logic merely brain impulses?  If they are, why do people with different brains not employ different laws of logic?
> 
> Are laws of logic immaterial?  You would say yes, right?  If laws are immaterial, how can they exist in a universe (as atheists say) that consists only of matter?  Are you proposing a Platonic realm of forms?  
> 
> How do the concept of abstract, universal, immaterial realities like laws even comport with an atheistic view of the universe?


You are aware I am not an atheist, right? I fail how to see the causal connection between an abstract conceptual God, and the interventionist highly humanoid Christian triune God that breaks universal laws on whims, kills his creations, sets down a creed of biblical law, and is rather despotic. You jump from the very rigorous deistic/unitarian perspective to full-fledged super-natural deity. The Christian triune is fundamentally no different than Hinduism, Norse, Roman, and Greek religion/mythology. They all share the same characteristics. 

I am a Deist and you can generally say I am also Unitarian (In that I view Jesus set down a pretty good ethical system (Do not steal, Do not murder, etc.)). However, you think God is a walking talking monolithic entity who speaks to people, and does all the other super-natural canonical actions in the Bible. I think it's pretty funny how a Christian can believe in universal laws when his God wantonly shows total disregard and disdain for his own creation. Do not even get me started on the absurdity of miracles. 

Just because the abstract conception of God holds logically, does not mean that the Christian triune holds any water. The Triune is anything, but logical, rigorous, or prone to reason and study.

PS: You probably don't even know this, but a lot of Christianity is borrowed from Roman paganism brought in by Constantine to make it more palatable to Roman society writ large. I know a few true Christians, but the things they have in common with the 'Christians' of today is few and far between. I mean Jesus speaks out against organized religion and what does his disciples do? Create a highly organized, highly centralized, highly paganistic religion complete with levels of priesthoods, a grand arbiter, and the word of man presupposing itself to the word of God. It is highly hilarious. Beware idolatry? What do you do...create a Pope which is the idol of most of Christianity...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You are aware I am not an atheist, right?


I don't see how it matters if you are...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Bump.  

This thread is great from page 3 on....

----------


## JasonC

Do we have a cyber neo-luddite here?

----------


## couvi

> machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.


I understand what you are saying, but you are suggesting that humans won't live alongside the machines which they create.  What is the incentive for human existence?  The incentive is the pleasure of existence itself.  People prefer life to death--this is what will sustain humanity if machines completely take over our labor.  

And why are you so concerned about something that, even if it pans out as you describe, is perhaps thousands of years away.  You are basing your economics on some wild speculation and you seem more concerned about future people we will never know rather than our present existence.  The only way to base a society on the economics which you describe involves heavy restrictions.  I don't know about you, but I don't wish to be imprisoned for the sake of some speculative future.

----------


## trey4sports

hey its cool. We disagree, but im glad you have a real, thought-out opinion on the matter.

----------


## eduardo89

> Bump.  
> 
> This thread is great from page 3 on....


Thanks for bumping. It really is a great read!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it. 
> 
> First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for  humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning. 
> 
> Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.
> 
> That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...
> 
> Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.




Great post.  This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.

If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint?  It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.

----------


## Seraphim

To believe that all humans are inherently corrupt, or conversly that they are inherently good is fallacious.

Individuals vary on a incomprehensible scale of good/evil, purity of heart, courage etc...

To place a cover over all humans representing either extreme of the spectrum is not wise in my opinion.

There are a select few humans who are evil to the core, and a select few who are good to the core. And most of us fall somewhere in between.

If Ayn Rand truly believed that all people are inherently good - I'm quite certain she's wrong. But I'd also chip in that draping all humans as inherently corrupt is also a mistake. 


Sorry I didn't mean to come off as refuting you in particular...I wasn't...more just adding to what you and Legend said with a bit of a counter point.




> Great post.  This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.
> 
> If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint?  It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.

----------


## bb_dg

TO OP (BRATOK)

You mentioned many things in your first post and I will try to address them as well as I can. 

One thing that you point is that human "evolution" is too slow and cannot keep up with the means of production. Would you mind elaborating what you mean by that and why you believe this is true? 

The video you posted about Rob Murphy and Krugman debate, the issue seemed to be about whether wage rates were what helped make the great depression great. Murphy said that what fixing wages did was that employers now had to lay off people, which is true since employers had to pay more for less skilled workers, they could have just raised prices in response, but that normally doesn't happen since it would affect demand, so they usually just lay people off. 

Now the guy who made the video said all of that doesn't matter because there was no demand, so even if they were able to lower wages, no one was buying their stuff anyway, so it didn't matter. This is where he is incorrect. When there is a recession/depression, people do not have zero demand obviously. People will always have a demand for things like food and water. As for other things, like clothes, they may demand less, but they still demand even if they have lost a lot of money. Other things like new cars and luxuries may have even less demand, but not necessarily zero demand. Some businesses will go bankrupt and people will lose their jobs as a result of that or less demand, however, the capital that was being used up by these businesses that went bankrupt is now free to be used by someone else to produce something that still is in demand (food, clothes, etc). Capital will reallocate and be used to produce more again, thus more workers are needed. That is how an economy gets out of a recession. The deflationary spiral is an incorrect concept because people will always have a demand for certain commodities. 

The video with what David M. Kennedy said may have been true, that he asked businessmen to do certain things. But if you continue listening, he then says this approach, which was taken in 1921, did not work in 1929. It seems Mr. Kennedy is merely observing the events that happened and not necessarily saying the policy Hoover did was the correct one. Others who have studied this, such as Murray Rothbard who wrote the book America's Great Depression, say that Hoover's plans of intervention (which may have included the call to businessmen), did not come to be because the economy recovered before all of his plans were able to be implemented. 

Later in the post you mentioned how the economy was restructured but free market economists would say that the 25% unemployed would just have to starve. That is strong misunderstanding of free markets. There is not a fixed a mount of work in the economy. New jobs are always being created, humans have unlimited wants, so humans will always find ways to produce more. There is not a fixed amount of jobs in the economy, if there is a labor force looking for work, work will be created. 

You mentioned machines completely replacing humans, it is possible, but it seems that you are under the impression that labor saving machinery causes unemployment, which is untrue. If that were true, then that means with every technological advance, we are getting closer to zero employment ever since the beginning of man's existence as new technology is made. This is obviously untrue and let me explain why.

Let's say a business makes clothes and has several workers. Now lets say the employer implements a machine and he doesn't need as many workers anymore, so he fires them. What happens now? The employer makes more money than before, so he will either consume more, which will increase the demand in other areas where he consumes, thus more workers are needed in those areas. Not to mention there is now demand for people to make the machine itself. Now lets say the employer's competitor's also use the machine and they too produce more at less cost, so to compete they all lower their prices. The employer now makes less than he did when he first used the machine since prices are lower. However, who benefits when prices are lower? Now the consumer has more money and will consume more now since they don't need to pay as much for these particular items and will cause more demand and thus more workers. Machines cause greater demand in other areas. 

You next mentioned WWII and how it helped employ people and killed off a lot of extra people. WWII did not help the economy. War is actually very bad for the economy. Having full employment does not mean there is a healthy economy, jobs are a means, not the ends of themselves. Having a good economy is based on how much it produces, not how much people spend or if there are enough jobs for everyone. Getting full employment is the easiest thing to do, the government can just make a bunch of useless jobs or recruit everyone in the military. That way, there would be 100% employment, but nothing is produced, nothing to eat, everyone will starve even though everyone has a job. Production is what makes an economy strong. The reason why wars are bad for the economy is because resources are scarce. During war, instead of the resources being used to make goods and services, they are being used to make tanks and missiles. That's why they had to ration goods during WWII. 

Lastly you mention how economies can be unstable and how bubbles can occur without government intervention. That can be true, but as mentioned earlier, economies are able to get themselves out of recessions because it is not the recession that is the problem. The recession is the correction of the economy where bad businesses fail and capital is freed up for other people to use. What's bad are these booms where bad businesses seem to be doing well and people invest a lot of capital in it. Eventually these businesses fail and everyone who works for these bad businesses will lose their jobs, but that is how the economy fixes itself. The capital is reallocated and these people will be able to find more work elsewhere. If the government steps and and bails out these bad businesses that are unprofitable and a waste of capital, then that prolongs the recession and that is why the great depression is great and is part of the reason why we are still in a recession today.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To believe that all humans are inherently corrupt, or conversly that they are inherently good is fallacious.
> 
> Individuals vary on a incomprehensible scale of good/evil, purity of heart, courage etc...
> 
> To place a cover over all humans representing either extreme of the spectrum is not wise in my opinion.
> 
> There are a select few humans who are evil to the core, and a select few who are good to the core. And most of us fall somewhere in between.
> 
> If Ayn Rand truly believed that all people are inherently good - I'm quite certain she's wrong. But I'd also chip in that draping all humans as inherently corrupt is also a mistake. 
> ...


Well, but what is the standard for saying anything is good or bad?   If you reject the universal absolutes of Christianity, what non-arbitrary basis do you have to  call something good or evil?

Some of the posts in this thread seem to imply that nature is a sufficient standard for ethics, and it clearly isn't.   Using nature as the standard for ethics causes one to engage in the "is-ought" fallacy. 

Also, self-ownership does not justify itself.  A case can be made for self-ownership given Christian axioms, but how is it justified in atheism?  Ownership is not a concept that is just given in atheism.  Why is ownership valid?  Why is it not valid for the State to implement its ownership of you?  The government has more guns than you do.  How is property justified?  Why is theft wrong even if you did own things?  Why aren't some humans able to be classified as subhuman and therefore not deserving of property?

You have to justify ownership itself in atheism.  Since atheism has no non-arbitrary reason that theft is wrong, it is impossible to do.  Self-ownership only works within the worldview of Christianity.  And even then, it is not self-ownership, it is self-stewardship (because God is the ultimate owner of all).

----------


## Zeeder

> Well, but what is the standard for saying anything is good or bad?   If you reject the universal absolutes of Christianity, what non-arbitrary basis do you have to  call something good or evil?
> 
> Some of the posts in this thread seem to imply that nature is a sufficient standard for ethics, and it clearly isn't.   Using nature as the standard for ethics causes one to engage in the "is-ought" fallacy. 
> 
> Also, self-ownership does not justify itself.  A case can be made for self-ownership given Christian axioms, but how is it justified in atheism?  Ownership is not a concept that is just given in atheism.  Why is ownership valid?  Why is it not valid for the State to implement its ownership of you?  The government has more guns than you do.  How is property justified?  Why is theft wrong even if you did own things?  Why aren't some humans able to be classified as subhuman and therefore not deserving of property?
> 
> You have to justify ownership itself in atheism.  Since atheism has no non-arbitrary reason that theft is wrong, it is impossible to do.  Self-ownership only works within the worldview of Christianity.  And even then, it is not self-ownership, it is self-stewardship (because God is the ultimate owner of all).


    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 Funny you should associate self ownership with christianity. You "god" didn't seem to mind slavery one bit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
>     Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
> 
>     When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
> 
>     However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
>  Funny you should associate self ownership with christianity. You "god" didn't seem to mind slavery one bit.


 Nice red herring.  lolz

----------


## bb_dg

This talk about religion is leading far away from Austrian economics...

----------


## Seraphim

Well...

I do not believe in the religious God (including Christian interpretations). *I am not an Atheist.* There is a higher power. 

I equate God with energy - no energy= no life. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, energy is God.  

The foundation of energy and the Universe is balance. Balance is mathematics.

When one removes from the energy field of another human being - be it theft, destruction of their property and/or person..._you are, whether you realize or not, subtracting from the Universe, energy...GOD._

This applies to bullying, name calling, murder, theft etc. 

Recall a time you were put down...something that got to you in particular (because it came from a loved one? because it struck a tender "nerve"?)...IT IS DEFLATING. IT HURTS YOUR SOUL. 

Why? You are being sapped of positive ENERGY FLOW within yourself.

There is ABSOLUTELTY NOTHING arbitrary about that.

I think what I just said is very in line with The Golden Rule and The Non Aggression Principle - core components of Christian moral teachings.






> Well, but what is the standard for saying anything is good or bad?   If you reject the universal absolutes of Christianity, what non-arbitrary basis do you have to  call something good or evil?
> 
> Some of the posts in this thread seem to imply that nature is a sufficient standard for ethics, and it clearly isn't.   Using nature as the standard for ethics causes one to engage in the "is-ought" fallacy. 
> 
> Also, self-ownership does not justify itself.  A case can be made for self-ownership given Christian axioms, but how is it justified in atheism?  Ownership is not a concept that is just given in atheism.  Why is ownership valid?  Why is it not valid for the State to implement its ownership of you?  The government has more guns than you do.  How is property justified?  Why is theft wrong even if you did own things?  Why aren't some humans able to be classified as subhuman and therefore not deserving of property?
> 
> You have to justify ownership itself in atheism.  Since atheism has no non-arbitrary reason that theft is wrong, it is impossible to do.  Self-ownership only works within the worldview of Christianity.  And even then, it is not self-ownership, it is self-stewardship (because God is the ultimate owner of all).

----------


## JohnRego

> Well, but what is the standard for saying anything is good or bad?   If you reject the universal absolutes of Christianity, what non-arbitrary basis do you have to  call something good or evil?
> 
> Some of the posts in this thread seem to imply that nature is a sufficient standard for ethics, and it clearly isn't.   Using nature as the standard for ethics causes one to engage in the "is-ought" fallacy. 
> 
> Also, self-ownership does not justify itself.  A case can be made for self-ownership given Christian axioms, but how is it justified in atheism?  Ownership is not a concept that is just given in atheism.  Why is ownership valid?  Why is it not valid for the State to implement its ownership of you?  The government has more guns than you do.  How is property justified?  Why is theft wrong even if you did own things?  Why aren't some humans able to be classified as subhuman and therefore not deserving of property?
> 
> You have to justify ownership itself in atheism.  Since atheism has no non-arbitrary reason that theft is wrong, it is impossible to do.  Self-ownership only works within the worldview of Christianity.  And even then, it is not self-ownership, it is self-stewardship (because God is the ultimate owner of all).


The postulate of god does not solve the is-ought problem. Why is god right? Because he is perfect? Perfect in what regard? To what standard is god being measured to that s/he completely fulfills?

You find yourself in the exact same position as the atheist. There is no way to over come is-ought. There is no ought. There is only preference.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The postulate of god does not solve the is-ought problem. Why is god right? Because he is perfect? Perfect in what regard? To what standard is god being measured to that s/he completely fulfills?
> 
> You find yourself in the exact same position as the atheist. There is no way to over come is-ought. There is no ought. There is only preference.


Christianity most certainly does not have the is-ought problem.  God is good and His unchanging character is the standard of goodness.  The ought is derived from His character and will, which is the basis for moral absolutes.  There is no is-ought fallacy in Christianity like there is with natural law.

Now let's examine your idea that "there is no ought, only preference"?  Wow.  Well, you have just justified every tyranny in history.  Remember, it was Chairman Mao's preference for revolution that millions people had to be murdered.

It is completely irrational to claim that there is only preference.  If there were only preference, then 2+2 could be preferred to equal 5 instead of 4.  It is the same with logical laws as with moral laws.  Why be rational?  If your preference is to be destructive and irrational, why not be?  

Just another example of the inadequacy of atheism.  This again shows the incapability of atheistic worldviews to argue against and resist tyranny.

----------


## JohnRego

You haven't gotten around how god is good, you've merely asserted it, and you assumed a standard by which god is good, which is based completely on preference. That something is unchanging doesn't therefore = good. If by good you literally mean "like god", then yes god is good, but that says absolutely nothing about ethics, it only means how close one has a likeness to god.

2+2 ought not be 4, it is 4. There is no ought in that equation. I wasn't contrasting preference with is, I was contrasting it with ought. By the way, I do prefer 2+2 equal 5. Then when ever I added 2 set's of 2, I could get an extra 1, and could do that infinitely, and have abundance of anything I wanted. However, my preference doesn't make it so. Which is exactly my point in the first place. A preference doesn't make it so.

I didn't justify anything. "Just" is only another ought. If there is no ought, there is no "just". Thus Chairman Mao isn't just or unjust. Chairman Mao is, and that is against my (and I assume yours as well) preferences. Preferences can clash, but there is nothing making my preferences greater than his preferences. Outside of preferences, my death is no more significant than the erosion of rocks under a river.

Now, I doubt that Chairman Mao had a literal preference for revolution. I suppose he had a preference for prosperity, and was simply implementing a recipe to achieve that prosperity. In this manner, we can say he was in error. But, if his preference was just to kill people, he was not in error, and he succeeded spectacularly so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You haven't gotten around how god is good, you've merely asserted it, and you assumed a standard by which god is good, which is based completely on preference. That something is unchanging doesn't therefore = good. If by good you literally mean "like god", then yes god is good, but that says absolutely nothing about ethics, it only means how close one has a likeness to god.
> 
> 2+2 ought not be 4, it is 4. There is no ought in that equation. I wasn't contrasting preference with is, I was contrasting it with ought. By the way, I do prefer 2+2 equal 5. Then when ever I added 2 set's of 2, I could get an extra 1, and could do that infinitely, and have abundance of anything I wanted. However, my preference doesn't make it so. Which is exactly my point in the first place. A preference doesn't make it so.
> 
> I didn't justify anything. "Just" is only another ought. If there is no ought, there is no "just". Thus Chairman Mao isn't just or unjust. Chairman Mao is, and that is against my (and I assume yours as well) preferences. Preferences can clash, but there is nothing making my preferences greater than his preferences. Outside of preferences, my death is no more significant than the erosion of rocks under a river.
> 
> Now, I doubt that Chairman Mao had a literal preference for revolution. I suppose he had a preference for prosperity, and was simply implementing a recipe to achieve that prosperity. In this manner, we can say he was in error. But, if his preference was just to kill people, he was not in error, and he succeeded spectacularly so.



John, 

If everything is preference, why ought you be rational?

----------


## JohnRego

There is no ought. So you ought not be rational, you either are or are not. You won't achieve many of your preferences if you are not rational, but there is nothing besides other preferences that that says that's a "bad" thing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is no ought. So you ought not be rational, you either are or are not. You won't achieve many of your preferences if you are not rational, but there is nothing besides other preferences that that says that's a "bad" thing.


Thank you for admitting that your atheism does not compel you to be rational.  And you stated it very well by the way.  

I think it is very interesting that you are attempting to engage in rational debate, even argue a point against me, but in the same breath admit that there is no reason in your worldview that you ought to be rational.

Herein lies the failure of all post-modern thought:  the conclusion that irrationality is as morally valid as rationality.  You cannot separate rationality from morality....you can't separate anything from morality.  We live in a moral universe.


Very good thread by the way....

----------


## dannno

Wow, it's hard to argue when somebody makes 100 statements that are all factually incorrect or illogical. All in a row.

----------


## mowerybc

> machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.


I realize this discussion has moved beyond this point, but I just wanted to be the first to state that I, for one, welcome our new machine overlords.

----------


## JohnRego

> Thank you for admitting that your atheism does not compel you to be rational.  And you stated it very well by the way.  
> 
> I think it is very interesting that you are attempting to engage in rational debate, even argue a point against me, but in the same breath admit that there is no reason in your worldview that you ought to be rational.


Clearly I prefer it.




> Herein lies the failure of all post-modern thought:  the conclusion that irrationality is as morally valid as rationality.  You cannot separate rationality from morality....you can't separate anything from morality.  We live in a moral universe.


Clearly you prefer to believe that more than you prefer to be rational (in the non Austrian sense). Nothing wrong with that ;-)




> Very good thread by the way....


Indeed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Originally posted by *AquaBuddha2010*
> John, 
> 
> If everything is preference, why ought you be rational?






> There is no ought. So you ought not be rational, you either are or are not. You won't achieve many of your preferences if you are not rational, but there is nothing besides other preferences that that says that's a "bad" thing.






> Originally posted by *AquaBuddha2010*
> Thank you for admitting that your atheism does not compel you to be rational. And you stated it very well by the way. 
> 
> I think it is very interesting that you are attempting to engage in rational debate, even argue a point against me, but in the same breath admit that there is no reason in your worldview that you ought to be rational. 
> 
> Herein lies the failure of all post-modern thought: the conclusion that irrationality is as morally valid as rationality. You cannot separate rationality from morality....you can't separate anything from morality. We live in a moral universe. 
> 
> Very good thread by the way....



To me, (no offense to JohnRego by the way...John, I respect your thoughts here) this is the crux of why I cannot suspend my rationality to be an atheist.  This is why I reject objectivism, existentialism, dialecticism, etc....even admixtures of grace and nature like Thomism...

The Christian axiom provides the unshakeable foundation for logic and morality.

----------


## JohnRego

You don't have to suspend your rationality to be an atheist. If you prefer to be rational, you will be more successful in achieving your own preferences (unless one of them happens to be being irrational) regardless of believing in a god. Being rational is not a priori preferable.

Do you prefer to be rational?

I have a feeling you don't prefer it over preferring to believe in an absolute morality.

Irrationality is not as morally valid as rationality is because there is no such thing as morality. It's like saying 3 = 0/1 = 5. It's undefined.

Also, the "Christian Axioms" aren't confirmed in my attempt to deny them, thus aren't axioms.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't have to suspend your rationality to be an atheist. If you prefer to be rational, you will be more successful in achieving your own preferences (unless one of them happens to be being irrational) regardless of believing in a god. Being rational is not a priori preferable.
> 
> Do you prefer to be rational?
> 
> I have a feeling you don't prefer it over preferring to believe in an absolute morality.
> 
> Irrationality is not as morally valid as rationality is because there is no such thing as morality. It's like saying 3 = 0/1 = 5. It's undefined


You just said that there is no such thing as morality.  If it is not morally wrong to be irrational, then why is it compelling to be rational?

You say, "because you will have more success in achieving your preferences".  Well, okay.  How you can determine that...I don't know.  It could be the case that being irrational could grant you more success in achieving your preferences.  But, put that aside, what you have just done is to really make a non-statement.  

Chairman Mao's rational goal (to him) was to exterminate his political enemies.  He was achieving his preference, and your atheism provides no compelling argument against his preference (since you say there is no morality).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Also, the "Christian Axioms" aren't confirmed in my attempt to deny them, thus aren't axioms.



Yes they are.  Because you are using rational arguments as if your worldview provides a compelling reason to chose rationality over irrationality.  It doesn't.

----------


## JohnRego

Goals aren't rational. Goals are the preference. How you achieve that preference is where rationality comes in.

There is no compelling argument against a preference beyond another preference. What I'm saying is even if god condemns what Chairman Mao did, that's still just another preference (though it's a preference of a god). This is completely regardless of atheism. I'm giving you the fact that god exists, and STILL arguing that there is no compelling argument against Chairman Mao's preference beyond other preferences.




> Yes they are. Because you are using rational arguments as if your worldview provides a compelling reason to chose rationality over irrationality. It doesn't.


I'm not arguing as if my worldview provides a compelling reason to choose rationality. I'm merely stating that if you want to conform to rationality, here are the requirements. That's not prescriptive, that's descriptive.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You haven't gotten around how god is good, you've merely asserted it, and you assumed a standard by which god is good, which is based completely on preference. That something is unchanging doesn't therefore = good. If by good you literally mean "like god", then yes god is good, but that says absolutely nothing about ethics, it only means how close one has a likeness to god.
> 
> 2+2 ought not be 4, it is 4. There is no ought in that equation. I wasn't contrasting preference with is, I was contrasting it with ought. By the way, I do prefer 2+2 equal 5. Then when ever I added 2 set's of 2, I could get an extra 1, and could do that infinitely, and have abundance of anything I wanted. However, my preference doesn't make it so. Which is exactly my point in the first place. A preference doesn't make it so.
> 
> I didn't justify anything. "Just" is only another ought. If there is no ought, there is no "just". Thus Chairman Mao isn't just or unjust. Chairman Mao is, and that is against my (and I assume yours as well) preferences. Preferences can clash, but there is nothing making my preferences greater than his preferences. Outside of preferences, my death is no more significant than the erosion of rocks under a river.
> 
> Now, I doubt that Chairman Mao had a literal preference for revolution. I suppose he had a preference for prosperity, and was simply implementing a recipe to achieve that prosperity. In this manner, we can say he was in error. But, if his preference was just to kill people, he was not in error, and he succeeded spectacularly so.


I just want to point out that "2+2=4" is simply a theoretical statement.  It doesn't exist in the real world.  That is, numbers are abstract concepts, not real things.  When we apply mathematical theory to real world situations, it doesn't always work out so evenly.  For example, if you add 2 bottles of water to 2 bottles of cider, you wind up with 1 mixture.  /end ramble

----------


## Sola_Fide

O


> Goals aren't rational. Goals are the preference. How you achieve that preference is where rationality comes in.
> 
> There is no compelling argument against a preference beyond another preference. What I'm saying is even if god condemns what Chairman Mao did, that's still just another preference (though it's a preference of a god). This is completely regardless of atheism. I'm giving you the fact that god exists, and STILL arguing that there is no compelling argument against Chairman Mao's preference beyond other preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing as if my worldview provides a compelling reason to choose rationality. I'm merely stating that if you want to conform to rationality, here are the requirements. That's not prescriptive, that's descriptive.


I know.  The problem with your worldview is that you deny prescriptions, and thus fall back into the is-ought fallacy.

If you think that rationality is not something that you must argue for in order to be consistent and taken seriously...um...I don't know.  I mean, with that kind of irrationality you could just deny the law of identity and read all of my sentences as "hoydgitdbiydclhoudbktcmkffmvfkotxetnjtdhi".  That is perfectly acceptable to you....and if you think about it, it is just another way in which atheism destroys rationality itself.

I mean, you accept the law of identity, right?  You think A is A, right?  WHY do you accept it?  Why do you use it?  You are making the case that it is perfectly acceptable to deny the standards of logic, but it really isn't acceptable, is it JohnRego?

"There is no compelling argument of a preference against a preference."  Okay.  I'm glad you admit that.  I just want everyone to see that there is no philosophical argument against tyranny in atheism.  I have been arguing this here for months.


Now, of course the Christian axiom does provide the universal law necessary for morality and ethics.  It is the unchanging character of God.  You may not like it, you probably hate it, but I do have a universal, a system whereby I can deduce absolute moral laws.  I can with consistency condemn Mao as evil, you can't.  I have an argument against the preference to steal and murder, you don't.

----------


## couvi

I agree with JohnRego.  He is describing physical reality, whereas those who find an absolute morality in a god are expressing a metaphysical reality.  Physical reality lies within results, whereas metaphysical reality depends upon faith.  If I do a thing (for instance: if I place my hand upon my face), you could very well tell me that I did not do what I had just done.  But as you tell me that my hand is not upon my face, when the evidence is in the visual presentation given to you by the function of your eyes in connection with the processes of your brain, you espouse something similar to: "morality can be found in God".

John--I think that to say you are "describing", while those who count on the morality offered from religion "prescribe", gives a fantastically acute lingual representation of the difference in the views stated here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with JohnRego.  He is describing physical reality, whereas those who find an absolute morality in a god are expressing a metaphysical reality.  Physical reality lies within results, whereas metaphysical reality depends upon faith.  If I do a thing (for instance: if I place my hand upon my face), you could very well tell me that I did not do what I had just done.  But as you tell me that my hand is not upon my face, when the evidence is in the visual presentation given to you by the function of your eyes in connection with the processes of your brain, you espouse something similar to: "morality can be found in God".
> 
> John--I think that to say you are "describing", while those who count on the morality offered from religion "prescribe", gives a fantastically acute lingual representation of a the difference in these arguments.


Physical reality?  Huh?

You have a physical eyeball, a physical ear, some kind of mush in your skull that is undergoing random chemical reactions......uh, how is that rationality?  Where do you get abstractions from all of that physical particularity?


Ugh...Now I remember why I try not to get into philosophical discussions on messagebords anymore

----------


## archangel689

> machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.


Hogwash. When a programmer can program an AI that can out program himself I'll believe it and that's impossible the AI we have now are nothing more then choose your own adventure. Stop watching Terminator movies.

----------


## JohnRego

> O
> 
> I know.  The problem with your worldview is that you deny prescriptions, and thus fall back into the is-ought fallacy.
> 
> If you think that rationality is not something that you must argue for in order to be consistent and taken seriously...um...I don't know.  I mean, with that kind of irrationality you could just deny the law of identity and read all of my sentences as "hoydgitdbiydclhoudbktcmkffmvfkotxetnjtdhi".  That is perfectly acceptable to you....and if you think about it, it is just another way in which atheism destroys rationality itself.
> 
> I mean, you accept the law of identity, right?  You think A is A, right?  WHY do you accept it?  Why do you use it?  You are making the case that it is perfectly acceptable to deny the standards of logic, but it really isn't acceptable, is it JohnRego?


A is A conforms with rationality. Rationality is something I prefer. I do think that rationality is something needed in order to be consistent and taken seriously. That is because consistency is part of being rational. If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational. A is A.

You are arguing about what rationality is. I agree completely that that is what rationality is. However, this says nothing about whether one _should or should not_ employ rationality, a distinction you either fail to understand or are ignoring.

Tell me, Is it unacceptable for a rock to not employ the standards of logic?




> "There is no compelling argument of a preference against a preference."  Okay.  I'm glad you admit that.  I just want everyone to see that there is no philosophical argument against tyranny in atheism.  I have been arguing this here for months.


But this is also true of theism.




> Now, of course the Christian axiom does provide the universal law necessary for morality and ethics.  It is the unchanging character of God.  You may not like it, you probably hate it, but I do have a universal, a system whereby I can deduce absolute moral laws.  I can with consistency condemn Mao as evil, you can't.  I have an argument against the preference to steal and murder, you don't.


No, not of course. It's not an axiom. God's "law" is nothing more than his own preferences. You can condemn Mao as evil if you define "evil" as something god dislikes. But that is no different than defining it as something _I_ dislike.




> John--I think that to say you are "describing", while those who count on the morality offered from religion "prescribe", gives a fantastically acute lingual representation of the difference in the views stated here.


Sadly, I cannot claim it as my own.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, not of course. It's not an axiom. God's "law" is nothing more than his own preferences. You can condemn Mao as evil if you define "evil" as something god dislikes. But that is no different than defining it as something _I_ dislike.


Yes it is very different.  God created you and imposes His standards of thinking and morality upon you.  He declares you guilty for breaking His law, that is why it matters what God "dislikes".  

God created you, He owns you, and He makes you accountable to Him.  You are not accountable to Chairman Mao so his dislike means nothing.  Huge difference.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A is A conforms with rationality. Rationality is something I prefer. I do think that rationality is something needed in order to be consistent and taken seriously. That is because consistency is part of being rational. If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational. A is A.


But still you say there is no compelling reason to be rational.  Furthermore, why be consistent with your own presuppositions????  You just said that there is no "ought" in your worldview. So why ought you be consistent?





> Tell me, Is it unacceptable for a rock to not employ the standards of logic?


That is a category error because rocks can't reason.  Reason is a function of a man who has been made in the God's image.




> Sadly, I cannot claim it as my own.


Oh, you're watching nihilism videos.  I kind of got that impression...

----------


## JohnRego

Creation does not imply ownership, which again is another ought, by the same reasoning homesteading doesn't.

The only difference between my dislike and god's dislike is that he can send Mao to hell for it, where as I cannot. This is not substantively different then me being able to kill someone for doing something I dislike. And if I lived in China under Mao, I sure as $#@! would have been accountable to him., just as I am to the IRS right now. This again doesn't claim that I should be accountable to the IRS, only that I am currently. The two declarations, That of my breaking God's law, and that of breaking the IRS's law are two of a kind, and I will be punished for both (with perhaps a little more guarante that I'll be punished by the IRS ;-) ).




> But still you say there is no compelling reason to be rational. Furthermore, why be consistent with your own presuppositions???? You just said that there is no "ought" in your worldview. So why ought you be consistent?


You were speaking of _how_ one would be consistent and taken seriously. I told you how. I did not tell you that you should. And I want to be consistent because I prefer rationality. I've said this Multiple times. I don't see why you keep asking it.




> Oh, you're watching nihilism videos.  I kind of got that impression...


I don't suppose you would believe me if I said I came to this conclusion on my own, and found that as a way to explain it more clearly than I could myself.

Actually I was introduced to the idea on Mises.org, but I had to devils advocate it for a while before I accepted the position. By the way that video contains nothing about the argument that even if god did exist, morality would not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Creation does not imply ownership, which again is another ought, by the same reasoning homesteading doesn't.
> 
> The only difference between my dislike and god's dislike is that he can send Mao to hell for it, where as I cannot. This is not substantively different then me being able to kill someone for doing something I dislike. And if I lived in China under Mao, I sure as $#@! would have been accountable to him., just as I am to the IRS right now. This again doesn't claim that I should be accountable to the IRS, only that I am currently. The two declarations, That of my breaking God's law, and that of breaking the IRS's law are two of a kind, and I will be punished for both (with perhaps a little more guarante that I'll be punished by the IRS ;-) ).
> 
> 
> 
> You were speaking of _how_ one would be consistent and taken seriously. I told you how. I did not tell you that you should. And I want to be consistent because I prefer rationality. I've said this Multiple times. I don't see why you keep asking it.



What?  You "prefer rationality".... like you prefer to have a side of ham with your eggs?  To reduce reason to that level is something not even the most irrational existentialists have done.

*Why do you prefer to be consistent?   Furthermore, why are you arguing against me if my alleged irrationality is my preference?  Why are you arguing a point at all if every view is equally preferential?*

You see, your worldview undermines reason.


Even if you lived In China, you would not be finally accountable to Mao.  Mao is accountable to the same Creator you and me are (which is another way that Christianity philosophically rejects tyranny).

 I could see why you don't accept God's claims on you...in fact I know why you fight against His claims with all of your being.  But, He does own you, as He owns me and all of His creation.  And He will call you and me into account.  

He shows you daily how your unbelief is irrational, but you are so religiously committed to it that you have hardened your heart against the truth.

----------


## couvi

> Physical reality?  Huh?
> 
> You have a physical eyeball, a physical ear, some kind of mush in your skull that is undergoing random chemical reactions......uh, how is that rationality?  Where do you get abstractions from all of that physical particularity?
> 
> 
> Ugh...Now I remember why I try not to get into philosophical discussions on messagebords anymore


I didn't say that physical manifestations are rationality, I said that they are a certain kind of reality.  Now I understand that reality is only a contrivance of the mind, that's why I separate physical reality (which can be found in observed results) from metaphysical reality.  Rationality is not reality, but rationality is derived from specific reality.  This is the view of Mises; it is the intellectual basis for Austrian economics and, in large part, the human liberty movement.

----------


## JohnRego

> What?  You "prefer rationality".... like you prefer to have a side of ham with your eggs?  To reduce reason to that level is something not even the most irrational existentialists have done.


I guess only the rational ones have then. I'm combining Austrianism with Nihalism. There are probably very few of us.




> *Why do you prefer to be consistent?   Furthermore, why are you arguing against me if my alleged irrationality is my preference?  Why are you arguing a point at all if every view is equally preferential?*


Because I think it's possible you/others might simply be in error, and not actually prefer god to reason. I might be in error. Still, I prefer to sharpen my own sword, not just yours. This is how I achieve that.




> You see, your worldview undermines reason.


My worldview leaves reason intact, but only avoids prescription. Prescription is If-clause based. If you prefer reason, then you should follow logic. If you prefer prosperity, you should limit/abolish government. Etc. There is no such thing as an objective If-clause. That is all I'm stating.




> Even if you lived In China, you would not be finally accountable to Mao.  Mao is accountable to the same Creator you and me are (which is another way that Christianity philosophically rejects tyranny).


How does the finality of the judgement refute that the standard god uses to judge you is still just a preference of god?




> I could see why you don't accept God's claims on you...in fact I know why you fight against His claims with all of your being.  But, He does own you, as He owns me and all of His creation.  And He will call you and me into account.  
> 
> He shows you daily how your unbelief is irrational, but you are so religiously committed to it that you have hardened your heart against the truth.


Thanks for the psycho analysis. Just so you know, I grew up a christian, I still go to church, and everybody there know's I don't believe in God. I was convinced by logic, not by some hatred of God or by some terrible thing that happened to me.

God gave you the free will to follow him or not. He wants you to prefer him. He made it so that preference is what really matters. Why would he deny preference to himself then? If it were true that there was a universal morality, then god would be subject to it. Instead it's his preference that he wants to matter to you, not some universal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is the "is-ought" fallacy.  You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case.  If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be".  David Hume pointed this out.
> 
> 
> Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms.  And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.


I am indebted to you 1000 rep!  Great post!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This talk about religion is leading far away from Austrian economics...


It's all inherently interwoven.  You can't have a basis for Austrian econ if you don't have principles and axioms first.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well...
> 
> I do not believe in the religious God (including Christian interpretations). *I am not an Atheist.* There is a higher power. 
> 
> I equate God with energy - no energy= no life. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, energy is God.  
> 
> The foundation of energy and the Universe is balance. Balance is mathematics.
> 
> When one removes from the energy field of another human being - be it theft, destruction of their property and/or person..._you are, whether you realize or not, subtracting from the Universe, energy...GOD._
> ...


It is completely arbitrary and utter rubbish.  You can't supply one objective basis for anything you just said.  Energy is not God.  God created energy, and therefore owns it.

----------


## Seraphim

Let's get this straight:

You BELIEVE THAT.

It does not make it so. Me not believing also does not make that so.

You BELIEVE. You DO NOT know. 




> It is completely arbitrary and utter rubbish.  You can't supply one objective basis for anything you just said.  Energy is not God.  God created energy, and therefore owns it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A is A conforms with rationality. Rationality is something I prefer. I do think that rationality is something needed in order to be consistent and taken seriously. That is because consistency is part of being rational. If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational. A is A.
> 
> You are arguing about what rationality is. I agree completely that that is what rationality is. However, this says nothing about whether one _should or should not_ employ rationality, a distinction you either fail to understand or are ignoring.
> 
> Tell me, Is it unacceptable for a rock to not employ the standards of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> But this is also true of theism.
> ...


"If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational."

I will get back to this.  You say that God's preferences are no different than your own.  However, that assumes there is no basis for superiority.  If you concede that God is perfect, all-knowing, eternal, and created everything that is in the universe, defined space, time, matter, etc. and is outside of it, then you must also concede that there would be nothing without God.  Therefore, since God is the ultimate absolute, He does not need a standard to be compared to.  He IS the standard to which all material things are compared.  God's will is not the same as your own because God created the Universe.  If you concede that God made you, then you must also concede that He defines you and knows everything about you.  Therefore, He knows what is BEST for you.  Therefore, if you concede that God exists and that God created, then you must also concede to the idea that God is the absolute standard for everything and that there is an 'ought', not just an 'is'.  

However, you do not believe that.  You believe that there are absolutely no absolutes, which is a demonstrably illogical view in itself.  Your reference to rationality assumes that rationality stands on some objective, absolute basis.  If there are no absolutes, then rationality itself is subjective.  For instance, if you had a goal that could only be achieved by killing people, then it would be rational for you to kill as many as was necessary to achieve that goal.  In your view, laws are only damage control.  It was perfectly reasonable for the killer/rapist/thief to do what they did as long as they didn't get caught.  However, you would 'prefer' that they didn't do that, so really it is just your will against theirs.  With a view like this, you can expect crime to go up because there is no basis for self-discipline.  If people have a goal of achieving as much self-satisfaction at the expense of others, then why not do something that, to them, is completely rational?  You can say they are not really being rational, but that assumes that there is some objective, absolute standard for what is rational.  Yet, if you follow an absolute standard for rationality, then what is the basis for taking care of your kids?  Aren't they just a burden on you?  If you were truly rational, then you would get rid of the kids in any way you could as long as you didn't get caught doing something "illegal."  You may say you want to further your gene pool, but of what interest is that to you if it is of no consequence to you once you are dead?  If you subscribe to the view that there is no God and there is no absolute law, then you must also believe that your life, and by extension everyone else's, is meaningless.  So, by all means, exterminate your kids.  Just don't get caught.  

Now I am going to get back to the quote I gave from you in the beginning of this post.  You say that consistency is a must if you are going to be rational.  However, this is based on absolutes.  If you believe there is no God and there is only matter, then there are no absolutes.  If there are no absolutes, then what governs matter itself?  Why is there consistency at all?  If you say that there are no absolutes, then there is no reason that all matter, energy, space, time, etc. should follow an absolute law because, by your definition, there are no absolutes.  The observation of matter is completely inconsistent with the idea that there are no absolutes.  Perhaps you would care to explain why matter felt it was necessary to assemble into an animated being instead of remaining inanimate matter?  Perhaps you would care to explain why nothing became something when it was perfectly stable being nothing?  

If there are no absolutes, there is no purpose, and if there is no purpose, then there is no basis for consistency in how matter, time, space, etc. act.  See, you must assume that you are already an animated, independent being in order to have preference.  But how does inanimate matter have a preference?  By extension, how can you say that inanimate matter arranged in a certain way to form a brain or a body has a preference?  How does a collection of non-preferential material result in the ability to have a preference?  

Every day, we see the effects of matter left to itself.  It tends to wind down and lose energy.  It tends toward disorder.  A car left to itself is only known as a car because we have the ability to recognize it as a car.  However, if it is left to itself, it will eventually erode and lose its identity as a car.  Only intelligence can create this identity, so there is no basis for saying matter left to itself would create this intelligence in the first place in order to propagate that intelligence.  There must be an ultimate Creator outside of the effects of matter, space, and time that organized things in the first place because matter left to itself certainly wouldn't.  In order for us to have intelligence and the ability to create identity at all requires an original source of this intelligence.  If you believe that rationality and preference is all there is, then you must also believe that rationality is based on a metaphysical idea that exists outside of space, time, matter, etc.  I am asking, where did these standards that rationality is based on come from if not from the Creator of space, time, matter, etc.?  

In your view, everything is subjective.  That includes rationality.  That means there are no over-arching metaphysical ideas that apply to everyone.  Yet, you violate this by acting as if there are some things that do apply to everyone, such as the need to act "rationally" as if there were some ultimate goal toward which rationality would help you move.  However, if everything in this world is of no consequence to you, then what is the reason for preference at all or for attempting to achieve goals?  They will all be meaningless to you once you die.  

Of course, there is a basis for all of this is if you follow the view that God created and God defines.  I have a perfectly rational reason to act as if there are rules that apply to everyone because I base it on absolute principles.  There is a basis for rationality and for preference that works toward a goal defined by God.  If there are no absolutes, however, there is no basis for anyof this.  Only God can provide any meaning to existence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let's get this straight:
> 
> You BELIEVE THAT.
> 
> It does not make it so. Me not believing also does not make that so.
> 
> You BELIEVE. You DO NOT know.


And therefore, it must be subjective.  There is no objective basis for claiming that energy is God.  Can you supply one?  I, however, have an objective basis for claiming that energy is not God because God is all-encompassing.  If He knows everything and is eternal, then He cannot be energy because energy is a result of His creation.

----------


## JohnRego

> "If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational."
> 
> I will get back to this.  You say that God's preferences are no different than your own.  However, that assumes there is no basis for superiority.  If you concede that God is perfect


Perfect? according to what standard? His standard? His Preference? God is perfect because he say's he's perfect? Why? Because he's perfect?




> all-knowing, eternal, and created everything that is in the universe, defined space, time, matter, etc. and is outside of it, then you must also concede that there would be nothing without God.  Therefore, since God is the ultimate absolute, He does not need a standard to be compared to.  He IS the standard to which all material things are compared.  God's will is not the same as your own because God created the Universe.  If you concede that God made you, then you must also concede that He defines you and knows everything about you.  Therefore, He knows what is BEST for you.


Best according to what standard? Time preference is a real thing. If I heavily discount the future, then an STD isn't going to affect my preferences. Thus sex with many people is preferable.




> Therefore, if you concede that God exists and that God created, then you must also concede to the idea that God is the absolute standard for everything and that there is an 'ought', not just an 'is'.


Try again.




> However, you do not believe that.  You believe that there are absolutely no absolutes, which is a demonstrably illogical view in itself.  Your reference to rationality assumes that rationality stands on some objective, absolute basis.  If there are no absolutes, then rationality itself is subjective.


woah woah woah there buddy. I said no such thing. Descriptions can be perfectly valid absolutes. Prescriptions can not. I can describe that 2+2 = 4, but to prescribe 2+2 = 4 means that I'm saying 2+2 _should_ = 4. This is not the case. For example it would be nice for me on my 1st grade test if 2+2 = 5, because that's what I wrote, and I would like a good grade. So I would prescribe that 2+2 = 5 because I want a good grade. However my friend wrote 4, and so he would prescribe that 2+2=4 (unless of course, he wanted a bad grade). Fortunately for him, his matched the correct description, and got marked correct by the teacher. So we have only one correct descriptions, but two equally valid prescriptions.




> For instance, if you had a goal that could only be achieved by killing people, then it would be rational for you to kill as many as was necessary to achieve that goal.  In your view, laws are only damage control.  It was perfectly reasonable for the killer/rapist/thief to do what they did as long as they didn't get caught.  However, you would 'prefer' that they didn't do that, so really it is just your will against theirs.  With a view like this, you can expect crime to go up because there is no basis for self-discipline.  If people have a goal of achieving as much self-satisfaction at the expense of others, then why not do something that, to them, is completely rational?  You can say they are not really being rational, but that assumes that there is some objective, absolute standard for what is rational.  Yet, if you follow an absolute standard for rationality, then what is the basis for taking care of your kids?  Aren't they just a burden on you?  If you were truly rational, then you would get rid of the kids in any way you could as long as you didn't get caught doing something "illegal."  You may say you want to further your gene pool, but of what interest is that to you if it is of no consequence to you once you are dead?  If you subscribe to the view that there is no God and there is no absolute law, then you must also believe that your life, and by extension everyone else's, is meaningless.  So, by all means, exterminate your kids.  Just don't get caught.


Even if the consequences you think would occur because of my world view were probable (something I dispute, but is tangential to this line of argument) It would not change anything about the truth of it, because those things you describe are trying to persuade the argument by using the concept of good and bad, the very thing you are trying to prove. But I think you know this, and yet decided to write this paragraph any way. 




> Now I am going to get back to the quote I gave from you in the beginning of this post.  You say that consistency is a must if you are going to be rational.  However, this is based on absolutes.  If you believe there is no God and there is only matter, then there are no absolutes.  If there are no absolutes, then what governs matter itself?  Why is there consistency at all?  If you say that there are no absolutes, then there is no reason that all matter, energy, space, time, etc. should follow an absolute law because, by your definition, there are no absolutes.  The observation of matter is completely inconsistent with the idea that there are no absolutes.  Perhaps you would care to explain why matter felt it was necessary to assemble into an animated being instead of remaining inanimate matter?  Perhaps you would care to explain why nothing became something when it was perfectly stable being nothing?  
> 
> If there are no absolutes, there is no purpose, and if there is no purpose, then there is no basis for consistency in how matter, time, space, etc. act.  See, you must assume that you are already an animated, independent being in order to have preference.  But how does inanimate matter have a preference?  By extension, how can you say that inanimate matter arranged in a certain way to form a brain or a body has a preference?  How does a collection of non-preferential material result in the ability to have a preference?


I didn't deny absolutes as explained above, so this entire section is worthless




> Every day, we see the effects of matter left to itself.  It tends to wind down and lose energy.  It tends toward disorder.  A car left to itself is only known as a car because we have the ability to recognize it as a car.  However, if it is left to itself, it will eventually erode and lose its identity as a car.  Only intelligence can create this identity, so there is no basis for saying matter left to itself would create this intelligence in the first place in order to propagate that intelligence.  There must be an ultimate Creator outside of the effects of matter, space, and time that organized things in the first place because matter left to itself certainly wouldn't.  In order for us to have intelligence and the ability to create identity at all requires an original source of this intelligence.  If you believe that rationality and preference is all there is, then you must also believe that rationality is based on a metaphysical idea that exists outside of space, time, matter, etc.  I am asking, where did these standards that rationality is based on come from if not from the Creator of space, time, matter, etc.?


This is a theistic argument, arguing for the existence of god, and is thus outside the scope of this argument. If you would like a greater discussion of why I reject this, I'm Sam Armstrong over at Mises, and this thread has many of my replies to it 




> In your view, everything is subjective.  That includes rationality.  That means there are no over-arching metaphysical ideas that apply to everyone.  Yet, you violate this by acting as if there are some things that do apply to everyone, such as the need to act "rationally" as if there were some ultimate goal toward which rationality would help you move.  However, if everything in this world is of no consequence to you, then what is the reason for preference at all or for attempting to achieve goals?  They will all be meaningless to you once you die.  
> 
> Of course, there is a basis for all of this is if you follow the view that God created and God defines.  I have a perfectly rational reason to act as if there are rules that apply to everyone because I base it on absolute principles.  There is a basis for rationality and for preference that works toward a goal defined by God.  If there are no absolutes, however, there is no basis for anyof this.  Only God can provide any meaning to existence.


Again there is a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive. I do not deny objective description, I only deny objective prescription.

----------


## Revolution9

> Great post.  This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.
> 
> If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint?  It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.



I agree with your contention that the Divine Right of private property is ecclesiastical and sacred and of the tenets of Christianity.  Since all things in The Universe are created by The Divine Creator we have these items, breath, blood, body, land as an extension of those and in trust to us from The Divine Creator...the original Private Property owner. I would however suggest that there is a counterfeit amongst men we call psychopaths. Only legal restraint is capable of subduing the destructive actions of these types on the community of private property owners. This is not a sleight against the inherent goodness of Man, but rather it seems a trojan horse sent in by The Enemy. Counterfeiting is The Enemy's gambit.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> To what standard is god being measured to that s/he completely fulfills?


The self embedding arithmetical and geometrical irrational number Phi. From the infinitely large to the infinitesimally small it is Unitarian. Change this value and self embedding no longer occurs and destruction takes place.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Perfect? according to what standard? His standard? His Preference? God is perfect because he say's he's perfect? Why? Because he's perfect?
> 
> 
> 
> Best according to what standard? Time preference is a real thing. If I heavily discount the future, then an STD isn't going to affect my preferences. Thus sex with many people is preferable.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> ...


But if you believe in absolutes, then you believe there are absolute standards to which everything is compared.  However, you deny that God could be an absolute in Himself... why?  Furthermore, if you believe in absolutes, then I am asking you, where did those absolutes come from?  Who prescribed them as absolute?  Is there a source of their absolution, such as, oh, I don't know, God?  What I'm getting at is, where do the absolutes come from if there is no Creator and no absolute authority that defines them?  Indeed, to deny this is to deny reality itself.  You think you have preference, but you don't ask how inanimate matter can result in that preference.  

Also, the argument for the existence of God is very relevant.  If there are absolute moral standards, it would be preferential for you to find out about them for two reasons.  

1) you will be held accountable to them by an absolute and all-powerful authority.  You failed to refute my statement about God knowing what is best for you.  I told you He IS the standard by definition, and you said you believe in absolute standards, so why not God?  
2) It is bound to affect you and the society you live in.  If people truly believe that there are no absolute moral standards and they will never be held accountable, crime will likely go up.  You found me out on that paragraph about killing your kids, but seem completely unphased by the implications of a belief in nothing.  You are immune to morality.  This kind of stuff has led to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao who found it preferential and rational to exterminate a whole bunch of people for their cause.

However, where did it get them in the end, and who is to say it was necessarily better than if they had followed your path?  If you truly believe there is nothing beyond death, then there is no purpose for life and everything you do in it is inconsequential.    

You presume your own sentience and awareness of yourself, but it never occurred to you to ask why there are absolute laws for matter?  If something came out of nothing, then what is the basis for consistency in nature and laws that govern it?  Why are we here?  Do you mean to tell me that matter itself conceived of a purpose in creating all this? 

If you concede that there are metaphysical absolute rules, then you must also concede that these things are immaterial.  That is inconsistent with your view that matter is all there is.  If matter is all there is, then why are there natural laws?  Why do things in nature always behave the same way?

----------


## showpan

Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol

----------


## bb_dg

> Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol


Yeah, I tried debunking about 8 pages in, but the off-topic debates just kept piling on. Are there moderators on this forum? I guess the OP gave up on this thread.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, I tried debunking about 8 pages in, but the off-topic debates just kept piling on. Are there moderators on this forum? I guess the OP gave up on this thread.


The OP was a troll anyway.  This thread turned out great in my opinion.

----------


## JohnRego

> But if you believe in absolutes, then you believe there are absolute standards to which everything is compared.  However, you deny that God could be an absolute in Himself... why?  Furthermore, if you believe in absolutes, then I am asking you, where did those absolutes come from?  Who prescribed them as absolute?  Is there a source of their absolution, such as, oh, I don't know, God?  What I'm getting at is, where do the absolutes come from if there is no Creator and no absolute authority that defines them?  Indeed, to deny this is to deny reality itself.  You think you have preference, but you don't ask how inanimate matter can result in that preference.


Reason and logic are rules that can be derived using the human mind. They don't come from god in the immediate (though if it comes through the rules of the universe, which in turn was created by god, fine. But that's different from revealed thought). They come from self reflection, thought, and possibly observation (depending on if you think all thought is developed by observation or is something that comes about through the brain development). They have been derived multiple times independently in different cultures.

And no, believing in some absolutes does not logically imply there are absolute for every aspect of life. Again, _descriptive_ vs _prescriptive_. A prescription depends on an if. *If* you like chocolate, you should choose chocolate ice cream. Is liking chocolate and absolute? No it is not. It's a preference, and everybody has different preferences. One does not prescribe absolutes into being, they simply are. A is A.

Because there is no such thing as an absolute if, there is no such thing as an absolute prescription. All morals are prescriptions. Ergo, all morals are not absolutes.




> Also, the argument for the existence of God is very relevant.  If there are absolute moral standards, it would be preferential for you to find out about them for two reasons.
> 
> 1) you will be held accountable to them by an absolute and all-powerful authority.  You failed to refute my statement about God knowing what is best for you.  I told you He IS the standard by definition, and you said you believe in absolute standards, so why not God?  
> 2) It is bound to affect you and the society you live in.  If people truly believe that there are no absolute moral standards and they will never be held accountable, crime will likely go up.  You found me out on that paragraph about killing your kids, but seem completely unphased by the implications of a belief in nothing.  You are immune to morality.  This kind of stuff has led to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao who found it preferential and rational to exterminate a whole bunch of people for their cause.


I am conceding god for this argument and still backing up my position that there is no absolute morality. Ergo, you don't need to prove him for this argument.




> However, where did it get them in the end, and who is to say it was necessarily better than if they had followed your path?  If you truly believe there is nothing beyond death, then there is no purpose for life and everything you do in it is inconsequential.


Again, Time preference is a real thing. If you heavily discount the future, then all that matters to you is the present, or near future. This again is a preference. This is conceding heaven. Stop arguing about the after life. I'm giving it to you.




> You presume your own sentience and awareness of yourself, but it never occurred to you to ask why there are absolute laws for matter?  If something came out of nothing, then what is the basis for consistency in nature and laws that govern it?  Why are we here?  Do you mean to tell me that matter itself conceived of a purpose in creating all this?
> 
> If you concede that there are metaphysical absolute rules, then you must also concede that these things are immaterial.  That is inconsistent with your view that matter is all there is.  If matter is all there is, then why are there natural laws?  Why do things in nature always behave the same way?


I don't presume it, It's evident by the fact that I even could presume it. Also I don't necessarily think matter was created at all. Again this is outside of the scope of this argument. Go to that thread I linked if you want my full position on this matter (and yes it did occur to me as evident in that thread).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Reason and logic are rules that can be derived using the human mind. They don't come from god in the immediate (though if it comes through the rules of the universe, which in turn was created by god, fine. But that's different from revealed thought). They come from self reflection, thought, and possibly observation (depending on if you think all thought is developed by observation or is something that comes about through the brain development). They have been derived multiple times independently in different cultures.


The problem is that you must first assume the human mind.  But the mind is immaterial right?  If it can conceive of such rules that are inherent in all of the universe, then doesn't that imply that those rules are immaterial and exist beyond the human mind?  Logic does not originate in the human mind.  Once again, I asked you to tell me how matter itself  can develop into something with purpose and preference if not for innate laws that exist outside of the mind?  




> And no, believing in some absolutes does not logically imply there are absolute for every aspect of life. Again, _descriptive_ vs _prescriptive_. A prescription depends on an if. *If* you like chocolate, you should choose chocolate ice cream. Is liking chocolate and absolute? No it is not. It's a preference, and everybody has different preferences. One does not prescribe absolutes into being, they simply are. A is A.


I never said it implied that.  However, you don't seem to recognize what absolutes are.  They are inherently prescriptive because you don't have to believe in them to follow them.  There are natural laws which all matter obeys.  Why?  There are also rational standards that exist outside of the human mind to which all human contrivances are compared.  They are either logical or illogical, but where does logic come from?  Isn't it immaterial and therefore prescriptive?  You are assuming that every choice originates from the human mind and is, therefore, descriptive before it is prescriptive, but why start with the human mind?  Where did it get its descriptive and prescriptive power?  There had to be something there before that.




> Because there is no such thing as an absolute if, there is no such thing as an absolute prescription.


Here is the core of your argument.  You say you admit there are absolutes, so how does it make logical sense for you to deny absolute prescription?




> I am conceding god for this argument and still backing up my position that there is no absolute morality. Ergo, you don't need to prove him for this argument.


But your statement is illogical.  If you admit there are absolutes, then why couldn't God be an absolute in Himself?  God doesn't have to be perfect compared to any standard because HE IS ALL THERE IS.  Without Him, there is nothing.  Therefore, he IS the standard for everything.




> Again, Time preference is a real thing. If you heavily discount the future, then all that matters to you is the present, or near future. This again is a preference. This is conceding heaven. Stop arguing about the after life. I'm giving it to you.


If you are "giving me" the afterlife, then you have every reason to be concerned about it.  I don't see how you don't get this.  If everyone has an afterlife, then it is no longer a preference whether you want to think about it because it will inevitably affect you.  Also, I never said anything about heaven, as if there were a material place to contain God.  God is omnipresent.  In order to be an absolute, He must be omnipresent and omnipotent.  If you concede those things, then you must concede that He IS the absolute standard to which all things are compared.




> I don't presume it, It's evident by the fact that I even could presume it. Also I don't necessarily think matter was created at all. Again this is outside of the scope of this argument. Go to that thread I linked if you want my full position on this matter (and yes it did occur to me as evident in that thread).


You are assuming that you are here, so it must have happened.  What if it happened in the way I describe rather than by some uknown process that you simply assume to have happened for you to have those abilities?  The problem is that you are stuck in your own way of thinking and so you won't even consider anything outside of the material world.  




> Those are good questions.  Perhpas you should work to find those out instead of just assuming God did it.


Your position is just as illogical as mine would be because you automaticall assume that the material world is all there is.  You don't even ask questions like those because you already assume the fact that matter is all there is.  However, you told me it was evident that your mind must have originated in such a way because it is there, which is illogical.  I am telling you it is evident that, if there are absolute laws, then there must be a purpose to those laws.  

I can at least derive from this argument that you are admitting your views are illogical, but you prefer to believe them anyway.  That's more than the vast majority of atheists will admit.  The thing is, I look for truth and go where the evidence leads me.  By logical deduction, which I know exists because it is evident, I can deduce that there must be a purpose if there is order in nature.  You don't even ask these questions because you assume even the illogical is logical.  I guess if you do that, it would be pretty easy to say something came out of nothing and developed order in an exponential fashion for no particular reason than for absolute rules of logic to exist.  Those views don't make sense, but again, they don't have to in your view.  In that case, it would be illogical for me to continue this discussion and instead talk to people who are willing to listen to logic and and are privvy to the idea that there is something outside of the material universe.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol


Without faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who exists outside of time and space, how can one possibly claim to understand economics?

----------


## robert68

> robert68's previous post:
> From your link:
> ...
> Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.
> 
> Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a just acquisition of property, and a definition of the just defense of property.





> "Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations."


A property right is just the right to control a scarce resource in a given area; and every political theory supports a variation of that. What distinguishes libertarianism is the rule that the scarce resource cannot be acquired and/or protected through the initiation of force (i.e. aggression). One has a property right in their body the same way, because they acquired possession of it (before birth) without the initiation of force; a “right to life” is not needed for a right to control ones body, and it can be used to justify aggression. 

In certain contexts, when this is understood with an audience, the term property right might be casually identified with libertarianism, but property rights are not what define libertarianism – principled opposition to the initiation of force is – and without that, property rights can easily be, and regularly are, a justification for aggression. 

Do you identify yourself with the non-aggression principled?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A property right is just the right to control a scarce resource in a given area; and every political theory supports a variation of that. What distinguishes libertarianism is the rule that the scarce resource cannot be acquired and/or protected through the initiation of force (i.e. aggression). One has a property right in their body the same way, because they acquired possession of it (before birth) without the initiation of force; a right to life is not needed for a right to control ones body. 
> 
> In certain contexts, when this is understood with an audience, the term property right might be casually identified with libertarianism, but property rights are not what define libertarianism  principled opposition to the initiation of force is  and without that, _property rights_ can easily be, and regularly are, a justification for aggression. 
> 
> Do you identify yourself with the non-aggression principled?


I don't endorse the non-aggression principle on its own terms and I don't even endorse the Lockean idea of unalienable rights like the article portrays.



There is no natural law:




> The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God." Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong. conformity to or transgression of the law of God." 
> 
> This may be seen very clearly in God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God's command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. 
> 
> Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself.





Both the ideas of unalienable rights and the non-aggression principle are logically inconsistent:




> If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable-- then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights are logically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example, violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates the inalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life. The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Natural rights are logically incompatible with justice. 
> 
> The Biblical idea is not natural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsic rights--natural and inalienable rights--are compatible with liberty and justice. And those rights are imputed by God. All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail. 
> 
> Natural law is a failure, because "oughts" cannot be derived from "ises." In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements about man and the universe, statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood.


So I believe in imputed rights, not natural rights.  I believe in self-stewardship, not self-ownership.  I reject aggression because theft and murder are contrary to the commands of God, not because rights are inherent or because of the inconsistent "principle of non-aggression".  My view is God-centered, not man-centered.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I believe in self-stewardship, not self-ownership.


What is the fundamental difference between these 2 ideas?

----------


## JohnRego

> The problem is that you must first assume the human mind.  But the mind is immaterial right?  If it can conceive of such rules that are inherent in all of the universe, then doesn't that imply that those rules are immaterial and exist beyond the human mind?  Logic does not originate in the human mind.  Once again, I asked you to tell me how matter itself  can develop into something with purpose and preference if not for innate laws that exist outside of the mind?


I didn't say that logic originates from the human mind, I said they could be derived using the human mind. And I don't have to assume a human mind. I think therefore I am is not an assumption. And I didn't deny the laws outside of the mind. My preference for reason has absolutely nothing to do with how reason is constructed.




> I never said it implied that.  However, you don't seem to recognize what absolutes are.  They are inherently prescriptive because you don't have to believe in them to follow them.  There are natural laws which all matter obeys.  Why?  There are also rational standards that exist outside of the human mind to which all human contrivances are compared.  They are either logical or illogical, but where does logic come from?  Isn't it immaterial and therefore prescriptive?  You are assuming that every choice originates from the human mind and is, therefore, descriptive before it is prescriptive, but why start with the human mind?  Where did it get its descriptive and prescriptive power?  There had to be something there before that.


I think this stems from a misunderstanding of prescription. A physical law is not a prescription, it is a description of what will happen, or a list of characteristics. There is no if and should. Dense objects fall to the ground. It is not "dense objects should fall to the ground". Logic is descriptive. Both descriptions and prescriptions are immaterial, as they are ideas. So no, the fact that it's immaterial does not mean it's prescriptive.

Prescriptions depend on descriptions, but the prescription has the presumption of a goal. If the goal is not there, then the prescription is no longer valid.

For example "If you want to taste beer, you should pour beer on your foot". We can compare this to the description "taste is located in the mouth, not the foot" and then say that prescription is wrong if the description is correct. But by changing the If (the goal), we can make it true e.g. "If you want a sticky foot, you should pour beer on your foot". A description's truth value depends on its accuracy. A prescription's truth value is dependent on the its accuracy *and* the goal, and putting in place a god with the absolute best intentions, who is all knowing and all powerful doesn't change that logic.




> Here is the core of your argument.  You say you admit there are absolutes, so how does it make logical sense for you to deny absolute prescription?


Because prescriptions are not absolutes. An absolute conditional is a contradiction.




> But your statement is illogical.  If you admit there are absolutes, then why couldn't God be an absolute in Himself?  God doesn't have to be perfect compared to any standard because HE IS ALL THERE IS.  Without Him, there is nothing.  Therefore, he IS the standard for everything.


Then saying God is perfect has no meaning because he is the standard. All you are saying is God is. So again if you define god as good, then yes god is good. Then to be good, is to be like god. This says nothing about ethics.




> If you are "giving me" the afterlife, then you have every reason to be concerned about it.  I don't see how you don't get this.  If everyone has an afterlife, then it is no longer a preference whether you want to think about it because it will inevitably affect you.  Also, I never said anything about heaven, as if there were a material place to contain God.  God is omnipresent.  In order to be an absolute, He must be omnipresent and omnipotent.  If you concede those things, then you must concede that He IS the absolute standard to which all things are compared.


Seriously, Google "Time Preference" before you say anything else on this subject.

As for the next part of your post, I'm ignoring it and telling you once more that I'm not arguing about creation/god, nor am I going to.




> I can at least derive from this argument that you are admitting your views are illogical, but you prefer to believe them anyway.  That's more than the vast majority of atheists will admit.  The thing is, I look for truth and go where the evidence leads me.  By logical deduction, which I know exists because it is evident, I can deduce that there must be a purpose if there is order in nature.  You don't even ask these questions because you assume even the illogical is logical.  I guess if you do that, it would be pretty easy to say something came out of nothing and developed order in an exponential fashion for no particular reason than for absolute rules of logic to exist.  Those views don't make sense, but again, they don't have to in your view.  In that case, it would be illogical for me to continue this discussion and instead talk to people who are willing to listen to logic and and are privvy to the idea that there is something outside of the material universe.


Wrong. My argument about preference for reason has nothing to do with myself not preferring reason, only that others may not prefer reason. That in no way concedes that _I_ think my views are illogical. You are conflating preference to equal reality. I've stated many times that preference does not equate to reality. In fact, that's what the entire argument is about.

----------


## robert68

> I don't endorse the non-aggression principle on its own terms and I don't even endorse the Lockean idea of unalienable rights like the article portrays.
> 
> 
> There is no natural law:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the ideas of unalienable rights and the non-aggression principle are logically inconsistent:
> 
> ...


Since religious folks like yourself in this forum sometimes put up quotes of Ron Paul as support of your arguments, I thought I’d do the same here, even though I think he may have suggested different than what he says in this quote, on certain occasions. From Liberty Defined on page 316:




> Religious interpretations of God's desires are subjective and can never be settled through reason, no matter how logical some would like to make the debate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Since religious folks like yourself in this forum sometimes put up quotes of Ron Paul as support of your arguments, I thought Id do the same here, even though I think he may have suggested different than what he says in this quote, on certain occasions. From Liberty Defined on page 316:


Meh.

I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.

Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty.  I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.

------------

EDIT:  I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.   

So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

----------


## robert68

> Meh.
> 
> I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty.  I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.


Ive seen some religious folks in this forum say differently, so Im surprised to hear that.




> EDIT:  I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.   
> 
> So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


The quote wasn't qualified to fighting between Jews and Muslims, and was clear and concise. You just don't like its meaning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

This thread is awesome.  So many good concepts debated here...

----------


## Seraphim

> Meh.
> 
> I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty. * I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.*
> ------------
> 
> EDIT:  I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.   
> 
> So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Z'omg - +rep since I never thought that would be the case.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Z'omg - +rep since I never thought that would be the case.


Well, yeah.  Obviously it is not the ideal scenario....its certainly not the scenario the early Americans envisioned, because back then, it was the Christians who jealously defended liberty.

But yeah, if an atheist has shown that he has a track record of defending liberty, of course I would support him.  Chuck Baldwin has said the same thing.

----------

