Ron Paul, Evolution, Liberty, and Austrian Economics (video)

[ClayTrainor]

Why does the non-aggression principle have to hold true in everyone?

It is either universally true, or it is meaningless. So, ask yourself, is it ever morally okay for some people to initiate aggression against other people?

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard

Just because you can think for yourself and you have control over your body, doesn't mean I can't make you do what I want. If you were my slave it would improve my life greatly. Sure someone could come and make us both slaves, but I can't control that.

In your example, if someone came along and made us slaves, than they would be self-owning individuals who are initiating the use of aggression against other self-owning individuals, and therefore would be engaging in immoral behaviour if we accept the the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership as valid.

"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals." - Ron Paul

Do you accept Self-Ownership and Non-aggression as valid principles?

I feel rape is wrong because you are hurting someone else and ruining a life that was created in God's image. Generally speaking it is not what is good. Goodness comes from God. It is not something God invented it is what God is.

Generally speaking? That sure doesn't sound like a moral principle.... Whatever keeps you from raping people, is fine by me.

However, I accept that there are stronger reasons for Rape being immoral, than merely just asserting that "There is a God, and he is Good".

Sex can be moral or immoral, depending on whether or not aggression is being used against a person or not. If sex is forced on someone against their will, than it is rape, because it involves one self-owning individual initiating aggression against another self-owning individual. Neither Faith in a God or lack thereof is a requirement for understanding this logic.

Again, how do you KNOW life is worth something. You say you know life is worth something, but you don't tell me how you know this.

Yes, I did.

I know my life is worth something, otherwise I'd be suicidal.

You just want to keep on living.

Which demonstrates that I see some kind of value in my life.

Without a creator your life is just random atoms that came together.

Without a creator, life is Natural rather than Supernatural. Just because someone doesn't believe there is an all-powerful, all-knowing superdude doesn't mean they can't value the beauty of life.

 

[cubical]

It is either universally true, or it is meaningless. So, ask yourself, is it ever morally okay for some people to initiate aggression against other people?

Assuming there is no God, it is meaningless. Sometimes it benefits me to take from others.

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard



"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals." - Ron Paul

This is just people saying it is wrong and that is must be wrong, but not why it is wrong.

In your example, if someone came along and made us slaves, than they would be self-owning individuals who are initiating the use of aggression against other self-owning individuals, and therefore would be engaging in immoral behaviour if we accept the the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership as valid.

But why must everyone accept these prinicples?

Do you accept Self-Ownership and Non-aggression as valid principles?

Yes, because we have life and a purpose given to us by our Creator.

Generally speaking? That sure doesn't sound like a moral principle.... Whatever keeps you from raping people, is fine by me.

However, I accept that there are stronger reasons for Rape being immoral, than merely just asserting that "There is a God, and he is Good".

That is the basis for why we do not rape, murder, steal etc.

Under the logical principles of non-aggression and self-ownership, Sex can be moral or immoral, depending on whether or not aggression is being used against a person or not. If sex is forced on someone against their will, than it is rape, because it involves one self-owning individual initiating aggression against another self-owning individual and therefore is morally wrong. Neither Faith in a God or lack thereof is a requirement for understanding such logic.

You are assuming everyone believes in non-aggression. Again, why must everyone agree to non-aggression?

Yes, I did.

I haven't seen it.

Which demonstrates that I see some kind of value in my life.

You know you WANT to keep on living. That's it. But if I WANT you dead, why are you right?

Without a creator, life is Natural rather than Supernatural. Just because someone doesn't believe there is an all-powerful, all-knowing superdude doesn't mean they can't value the beauty of life.

Of course people CAN find beauty and they CAN enjoy life, people usually do, I never once said they couldn't. But your position is subjective and far from absolute. Simply saying something like, "well everyone knows there is beauty in life, thus it is important" gets you no where. I could continue to ask why beauty has value. You probably could answer, but with another false assertion for proof that life has meaning.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Assuming there is no God, it is meaningless.

Assuming there is a God, I am going to treat you with respect and expect the same in return. Assuming there is no God, I am still going to treat you with respect and will expect the same in return. The non-aggression principle and self-ownership are self-evident, regardless of how you think this world came to be.

I don't see why Gods opinion on the subject should matter, if we assume he/she/it does exist... I mean, If God thought the Non-aggression principle was invalid, would I be wrong to disagree with that?

Sometimes it benefits me to take from others.

Just because it might benefit you to steal, does not make it right. That's where moral principles come in.

But why must everyone accept these prinicples?

You can only violate the non-aggression principle at the involuntary expense of someone else. To actively engage in violations of such principles is to commit an immoral act against another person.

That is the basis for why we do not rape, murder, steal etc.

Ah, but you said "Generally speaking it is not what is good.", while also claiming Objective morality through god.... or am I mistaken? Generally speaking is not an objective claim against rape.

My argument against rape is as follows...

If sex is forced on someone against their will, than it is rape, because it involves one self-owning individual initiating aggression against another self-owning individual. Neither Faith in a God or lack thereof is a requirement for understanding this logic.

Now, you can argue that God is responsible for Self-Ownership and The NAP, and I would argue otherwise, but we can both reason from objective principles like the non-aggression principle and self-ownership to determine moral behaviour regardless of our faith in a god or lack thereof. The mere fact that we're talking about this, instead of trying to use violence to intimidate the other guy into agreeing, is an acknowledgement of the validity and universality of the non-aggression principle.

On the other hand, saying something like "Generally speaking it is not what is good." is not an argument for objective moral principles.

You are assuming everyone believes in non-aggression.

Sorry, but this is a straw man. In no way have I, nor do I ever state such a thing. I clearly recognize that there are, and probably always will be some people who believe in using aggression against others.

You know you WANT to keep on living. That's it. But if I WANT you dead, why are you right?

How does that change my claim? I would strongly prefer you not to kill me, because I value my life.

So yes, you can kill me. It is physically possible do so. But is it right to do so? That's where the conceptual construct of moral principles comes in.

I could continue to ask why beauty has value.

I know you could. You could respond to every single one of my points with a "why?", until the end of time. I can't help but be reminded of a Louis CK skit. Go to 7:25 and watch til the end, if you want a good laugh.

You probably could answer, but with another false assertion for proof that life has meaning.

The problem I have with your question is.... "meaning to who?"

 

[cubical]

When I said generally speaking I was saying rather than there being a specific reason why rape is wrong, the same reasons apply across all acts of right and wrong.

You keep telling me non-aggression is right because it is needed for self-ownership. But why must one have self-ownership?

Just because it might benefit you to steal, does not make it right. That's where moral principles come in.

Says you.

The problem I have with your question is.... "meaning to who?"

That is exactly the question. Without a standard everything is relative.

 

[ClayTrainor]

That is exactly the question.

Well...If the premise of your question is what my life means to some kind of supernatural overlord whom I've never talked to nor seen any evidence for, than I have no idea. :o

 

[cubical]

Well...If the premise of your question is what my life means to some kind of supernatural overlord whom I've never talked to nor seen any evidence for, than I have no idea. :o

Well getting into evidences of the Bible and its validity is a whole different debate.

I have yet to hear a valid answer to the cosmological argument or the Transcendental Argument, but they does not prove God of the Bible, but rather a supernatural mind.

 

[ClayTrainor]

When I said generally speaking I was saying rather than there being a specific reason why rape is wrong, the same reasons apply across all acts of right and wrong.

What reasons exactly? What principles do you reason from to determine moral behaviour?

You keep telling me non-aggression is right because it is needed for self-ownership. But why must one have self-ownership?

With regards to self-ownership on it's own, I'm not necessarily saying that Individuals ought to have self-ownership, I'm merely recognizing that Individuals do in fact own themselves. The "ought to" is established by the non-aggression principle, while self-ownership on it's own establishes the foundation for property rights.

Self-Ownership emerges naturally, and is inalienable, meaning it cannot be transferred to others. All it really means is that you have exclusive control over your thoughts and body, and so does every other individual. It is yours, by nature (or creation, if you prefer). To argue against self-ownership results in a performative contradiction, as you must exercise exclusive control over your body and mind to argue against it. i.e. You are expressing your opinion, transferred from your mind, by your fingers to me.

It is a self-evident truth. A logical axiom.

Says you.

How can I claim to ultimately speak for anyone but myself?

 

[cubical]

What reasons exactly? What principles do you reason from to determine moral behaviour?

By the character of God. It is not right to lie because God can not lie(steal or murder). The character of God is learned through scripture.

With regards to self-ownership on it's own, I'm not saying that Individuals ought to have self-ownership, I'm merely recognizing that Individuals do in fact own themselves. The "ought to" is established by the non-aggression principle, while self-ownership on it's own establishes the foundation for property rights.

Ok, well then it is just your opinion that I shouldn't steal from you or kill you. You are living in a world that you want to be true, but there is nothing absolute in which you could say someone is wrong for living differently.

Self-Ownership emerges naturally, and is inalienable, meaning it cannot be transferred to others. All it really means is that you have exclusive control over your thoughts and body, and so does every other individual. It is yours, by nature (or creation, if you prefer). To argue against self-ownership results in a performative contradiction, as you must exercise exclusive control over your body and mind to argue against it. i.e. You are expressing your opinion, transferred from your mind, by your fingers to me.

It is a self-evident truth. A logical axiom.

Yes, I am aware that you own yourself, but it does not mean I can not come and take what you own. Nothing in the natural world says I can't or shouldn't. Only majorities who agree on how to live.

How can I claim to ultimately speak for anyone but myself?

That is exactly it, you can't. In your position there is no absolute standard in which you can speak on anyone else's behalf. They do what they want and you do what you want. Just like you can't tell an animal it is wrong to kill, you can't tell a human it is wrong to kill.

 

[ClayTrainor]

By the character of God. It is not right to lie because God can not lie(steal or murder). The character of God is learned through scripture.

Argument from Authority Fallacy.

"Anything you don't understand,... you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it." - Carl Sagan

Ok, well then it is just your opinion that I shouldn't steal from you or kill you. You are living in a world that you want to be true, but there is nothing absolute in which you could say someone is wrong for living differently.

There are clear, objective universal principles that can be used to say someone is wrong for killing people, raping people, stealing from people, etc. These things are all very clear violations of the non-aggression principle.

And yes, of course I want to live in a world with as little aggression and violence as possible, and I hope you do too.

Yes, I am aware that you own yourself, but it does not mean I can not come and take what you own. Nothing in the natural world says I can't or shouldn't. Only majorities who agree on how to live.

Morality has nothing to do with majority opinion. Slavery is wrong because it is clear and obvious violation of the non-aggression principle. You can only violate the non-aggression principle at the involuntary expense of someone else. To actively engage in violations of such principles is to commit an immoral act against another person. At this point, it's clear to me that there's no point continuing to try and explain this to you.

It doesn't really matter to me what reasons you have for accepting the non-aggression principle, God or otherwise, as long as you practice it in your daily life, I consider you a decent person.

 

[Nielsio]

Follow-up video:

On Morality and Utility (by Daniel James Sanchez)