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

[Nielsio]

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. This guy is kind of confused.

 

[Bruno]

Hmmm. This guy is kind of confused.

Thanks for saving me 7:33

 

[Wesker1982]

Hmmm. This guy is kind of confused.

OP is that guy, in case you didn't know.


Nielsio,

I think when Ron Paul says that liberties come from the creator, he is talking about natural rights but in a way that the average Republican would understand and relate to. And it is not like all of his arguments for economic freedom are "because God said so" or whatever. He (as you know) has written books about the horrible consequences of government intervention from an economic viewpoint. He throws in that it happens to also conflict with his religious viewpoint, but that is not the main focus of his arguments.

 

[Nielsio]

Wesker,

I am aware that he also uses economic arguments, but in ultimately defending liberty, he shies away from arguments that apply to --and are discoverable-- in reality. People who don't already agree with him are going to be turned off by it. That's a loss.

All this actually leads to the issue that many people (just look at the Youtube comments on it) believe in 'natural rights'. It goes something like this: "you're a human being, ergo you (should) have rights". But that doesn't actually take people through the logic why, and as such cannot be persuasive.

 

[kuckfeynes]

From a purely numbers standpoint, there are a lot more theists to win over than atheists. Plus what do you think is easier, convincing an objectivist to put aside philosophical differences to further a mutual conclusion of liberty, or convincing your average suburban Christian soccer mom to vote for an atheist? I think when trying to convince people like that to support RP you have to ask them what they value more, being free or being right. What matters most immediately is believing in liberty. Arguing on what grounds one believes in liberty, while perhaps a great coffee shop discussion, doesn't really change the bottom line, the common goal.

 

[cubical]

I am not quite sure what the OP is arguing, but without God there are no absolute morals thus no point to liberties. You say using God to explain things doesn't work and is only a place holder, but it is actually the exact opposite. Moral reasoning without God has no substance and is often circular.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I am not quite sure what the OP is arguing, but without God there are no absolute morals thus no point to liberties.

There are logical moral principles that are self-evident, regardless of whether or not you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful superdude.

i.e. The Self-Ownership axiom. An attempt to refute it results in a performative contradiction, because you would be exercising exclusive control over your body and mind to argue against it.

 

[cubical]

There are logical moral principles that are self-evident, regardless of whether or not you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful superdude.

i.e. The Self-Ownership axiom. An attempt to refute it results in a performative contradiction, because you would be exercising exclusive control over your body and mind to argue against it.

Could you explain how moral principles are self evident. I am not familiar with the The Self-Ownership axiom.

EDIT: I just did a quick read about it. I do not see how this plays into morals. It only states that one has ownership of one's self/mind/body. Just because I can think for myself, doesn't mean I have to or should be able to do what I please.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Could you explain how moral principles are self evident. I am not familiar with the The Self-Ownership axiom.

Sure...

Morality is a conceptual construct. Rights don't exist as anything physical. There are fundamental self-evident logical principles (Self-Ownership, Non-Aggression, etc.) that need to be acknowledged, before being able to determine moral behavior from immoral behavior.

in the same way...

Mathematics is a conceptual construct. Numbers don't exist as anything physical. There are fundamental principles (Addition, Subtraction, etc.) that need to be acknowledged before being able to determine a true answer from a false answer.

There are simple and self-evident truths about reality which when realized and applied, lead to a further understanding of the complex world around us. Faith in God is not a requirement for logic and reason.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wesker,

I am aware that he also uses economic arguments, but in ultimately defending liberty, he shies away from arguments that apply to --and are discoverable-- in reality. People who don't already agree with him are going to be turned off by it. That's a loss.

All this actually leads to the issue that many people (just look at the Youtube comments on it) believe in 'natural rights'. It goes something like this: "you're a human being, ergo you (should) have rights". But that doesn't actually take people through the logic why, and as such cannot be persuasive.

If you really want to know why, you need to read something more substantive than blog or message boards post. Read Locke and Paine, as well as other Natural Rights philosophers.

 

[cubical]

Sure...

Morality is a conceptual construct. Rights don't exist as anything physical. There are fundamental self-evident logical principles (Self-Ownership, Non-Aggression, etc.) that need to be acknowledged, before being able to determine moral behavior from immoral behavior.

in the same way...

Mathematics is a conceptual construct. Numbers don't exist as anything physical. There are fundamental principles (Addition, Subtraction, etc.) that need to be acknowledged before being able to determine a true answer from a false answer.

There are simple and self-evident truths about reality which when realized and applied, lead to a further understanding of the complex world around us. Faith in God is not a requirement for logic and reason.

With the self-ownership principle you are saying since you can act on your own, that you have a right to what exactly? Life? Your body/mind?

 

[ClayTrainor]

EDIT: I just did a quick read about it. I do not see how this plays into morals. It only states that one has ownership of one's self/mind/body. Just because I can think for myself, doesn't mean I have to or should be able to do what I please.

Morality is all about the golden rule. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. The golden rule is deriviative of logical axioms such as self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

If individuals own themselves, and don't like having aggression initiated against themselves, than what makes it okay to aggressive against others? Nothing.

It's true whether or not Jesus, or anyone else said it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

With the self-ownership principle you are saying since you can act on your own, that you have a right to what exactly? Life? Your body/mind?

Self-Ownership is the fundamental property right, which all others derive out of. I am saying individuals are naturally the exclusive controllers of their lives, body and mind. Self-Ownership is inalienable, meaning it cannot be transferred to others.

 

[cubical]

If individuals own themselves, and don't like having aggression initiated against themselves, than what makes it okay to aggressive against others? Nothing.

Why is the Golden rule true?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Why is the Golden rule true?

If we accept Self-Ownership and the Non-Aggression principle as self-evident truths, than the golden rule is a logical conclusion.

So the question becomes about the principles the Golden Rule is derived out of, rather than the golden rule itself.

 

[cubical]

If we accept Self-Ownership and the Non-Aggression principle as self-evident truths, than the golden rule is the logical conclusion.

So the question becomes about the principles the Golden Rule is derived out of, rather than the golden rule itself.

But what if I want to live, but I want to kill you. I also could want all life, myself and yours, to end for whatever reason. Why is either wrong? It appears you are assuming life is worth something, but without a creator, I don't see where you get that idea.

 

[ClayTrainor]

But what if I want to live, but I want to kill you. I also could want all life, myself and yours, to end for whatever reason. Why is either wrong?

What you're describing is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle with regards to the self-ownership princple.

Under the Self-Ownership principle, I own myself, not you (and vice-versa), and in your examples you would be the self-owning individual who is initiating aggression against another self-owning individual, if you follow through with your desire(s).

Here's a question, I'd be curious to hear your answer on...

What is your reasoning for understanding why Rape is immoral? What principles do you apply?

It appears you are assuming life is worth something, but without a creator, I don't see where you get that idea.

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

Value is Subjective. I value enjoyable experiences and being around good people, and want to fill my life up with as much of that stuff as I possibly can before I have to gtfo.

FWIW, I strongly relate to this video.

 

[Godisnowhere]

This guy must be ignornat is he not? The declaration of Independence our founding document states that liberties originate from our Creator but this guy says "That is problematic". It is only problematic from his ignorant perspective. He is also absolutely ignorant of the history of our founding fathers in regard to Creator concepts such as moral law only possible from a Creator. But the GTE, General Theory of Evolution, which so many ignorant people hold as "fact" and says life arouse only by matter and energy and then descended from a common ancestor can easily shown to be false by the laws of Universal Information. Read Dr. Werner Gitt's book without Excuse and remove your ignorance on this subject folks. Because life consists of Universal Information (code based) and codes require intelligence and can NEVER be generated from matter and energy, a Creator who is a Genius of Genius's designed life. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of the scientific laws of UI, or doing so from an anti-Creator religious worldview or both. Ron Paul is absolutely correct on the statement that liberties come from our Creator. Only a fool (and most of them are religious fools of naturalism) would think this was problematic.

 

[cubical]

What you're describing is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle with regards to the self-ownership princple.

Under the Self-Ownership principle, I own myself, not you (and vice-versa), and in your examples you would be the self-owning individual who is initiating aggression against another self-owning individual, if you follow through with your desire(s).

Here's a question, I'd be curious to hear your answer on...

What is your reasoning for understanding why Rape is immoral? What principles do you apply?

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

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

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.

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. You just want to keep on living. Without a creator your life is just random atoms that came together.