Is Democracy Moral? Is Libertarianism Good?

[Good_Egg]

If principles are "binding", then preferring one principle to another in no way compromises the extent to which it is binding, Why would it?

If two principles command different actions (in some circumstance), then being free to choose principle B as a guide to one's actions means being free to ignore the different counsel offered by principle A. Which means that principle A is not binding upon you. And vice versa - being free to adopt A means that B is not binding on you. QED.

Principles are culturally constituted, obviously. Language is culturally constituted. Principles are phrased in terms of language.

"Two plus two equals four" is communicated by language. As are all the truths of mathematics and physics Doesn't mean that they are merely inter-subjective (cultural) truths that people could choose to have otherwise by collective agreement. The medium of communication, yes; the message, no.

That's what "reasonable" means.

You've declined to provide a rigorous definition of what "reasonable" means. From your comment on the other thread, you may possibly think it refers to a consensus of the ideas held by reasonable people. But if you think that you know what that conventional wisdom is, and feel free to ignore anything that suggests anything to the contrary on the grounds that this is what a reasonable person would do, then you're not going to learn very much.

Who IS the "rightful possessor"? You have to make up some obtruse rule of "rightful possession" to establish what it involves.

Rightful possession is neither obscure nor abstruse. It is all possession except that achieved by wrongful acquisition.
I can't prove it, but rather suspect that every functional society there has ever been has laws against wrongful acquisition. Whether you call it theft or something else.
Which thereby meets your criterion (all or nearly-all societies) for a natural right - in this case a natural duty to refrain from thieving, and hence a valid natural law concept of rightful possession.

Sure, different societies may have different ideas as to what can be owned, who can own property, what is owned communally, etc. But they all have the concept of theft. Unless of course, you know different...

I'm influenced here by Nozick's concept of a just transaction. If you're the rightful possessor of a widget and give it to me as part of a consensual transaction (no theft, no fraud, no coercion, etc) then I become the rightful possessor. Simple as that.

People may have different ideas about what the "right to life" or "right to liberty" might mean -- but "life" and "liberty" are clear concepts in any culture or language. "Property" is not.

Of the three, "liberty" seems to me the most ambiguous and culture-dependent.

[Ecurb]

If principles are "binding", then preferring one principle to another in no way compromises the extent to which it is binding, Why would it?

If two principles command different actions (in some circumstance), then being free to choose principle B as a guide to one's actions means being free to ignore the different counsel offered by principle A. Which means that principle A is not binding upon you. And vice versa - being free to adopt A means that B is not binding on you. QED.

OK. So what? That has nothing to do with your accusation or my defense. Of course it is true, but irrelevant. I suppose any principles which have the slightest chance of conflicting in a hypothetical situation cannot both be binding. Again, so what?

You've declined to provide a rigorous definition of what "reasonable" means. From your comment on the other thread, you may possibly think it refers to a consensus of the ideas held by reasonable people. But if you think that you know what that conventional wisdom is, and feel free to ignore anything that suggests anything to the contrary on the grounds that this is what a reasonable person would do, then you're not going to learn very much.

I think a consensus is evidence that a position is reasonable. but not proof. However, just because a theory or opinion is incorrect, we cannot assume it was unreasonable. It is reasonable to accept scientific consensus about something, even though we know that people who have accepted it in the past have often been wrong. We must muddle through as best we can.

Rightful possession is neither obscure nor abstruse. It is all possession except that achieved by wrongful acquisition.
I can't prove it, but rather suspect that every functional society there has ever been has laws against wrongful acquisition. Whether you call it theft or something else.
Which thereby meets your criterion (all or nearly-all societies) for a natural right - in this case a natural duty to refrain from thieving, and hence a valid natural law concept of rightful possession.

Sure, different societies may have different ideas as to what can be owned, who can own property, what is owned communally, etc. But they all have the concept of theft. Unless of course, you know different...

I'm influenced here by Nozick's concept of a just transaction. If you're the rightful possessor of a widget and give it to me as part of a consensual transaction (no theft, no fraud, no coercion, etc) then I become the rightful possessor. Simple as that.

Of course if possession is "rightful", then it is "right". You're hedging. There are innumerable gray areas. The Dutton's possess land that used to be "possessed" by the Indians. That was 150 years ago, though. Still the Indians want it back; the Duttons think they "possess" it rightfully, because they paid someone else for it, and Joe Developer wants to build an airport on it and wants it seized by the State. "Possession" is hard enough to define (can we "possess something we've never seen or touched?). "Rightful" only becomes meaningful with a particulat political and economic structure and philosophy.

Of the three, "liberty" seems to me the most ambiguous and culture-dependent.

Liberty is obvious. "Unfettered." Of course as it is used on a political discussion it often implies "unfettered except in ways of which I approve". All laws, of course, are enforced with fetters. However, if we are to fetter ourselves, thus much I agree with the lIbertarians: we should have a good reason for doing so.

[Good_Egg]

"Rightful" only becomes meaningful with a particulat political and economic structure and philosophy.

"Rightful" is meaningful as soon as one has a concept of "wrongful". I'm suggesting that all or almost all societies have a concept of wrongful appropriation (robbery) and that therefore by your criterion we can say that there is a natural right not to be robbed.

Unless you wish to rethink your criteria for being a natural right ?

Liberty is obvious. "Unfettered." Of course as it is used on a political discussion it often implies "unfettered except in ways of which I approve". All laws, of course, are enforced with fetters. However, if we are to fetter ourselves, thus much I agree with the lIbertarians: we should have a good reason for doing so.

Again you seem to be setting up your own judgment of what constitutes "good reason" as the ultimate value, above any principle.

All laws are enforced by threat of punishment, I.e. by coercion.

I'm contending that laws against coercion increase freedom - they liberate us from coercive behaviour by others at the small cost of restraining from coercive behaviour ourselves.

[Ecurb]

"Rightful" is meaningful as soon as one has a concept of "wrongful". I'm suggesting that all or almost all societies have a concept of wrongful appropriation (robbery) and that therefore by your criterion we can say that there is a natural right not to be robbed.

Unless you wish to rethink your criteria for being a natural right ?.....


Again you seem to be setting up your own judgment of what constitutes "good reason" as the ultimate value, above any principle.

All laws are enforced by threat of punishment, I.e. by coercion.

I'm contending that laws against coercion increase freedom - they liberate us from coercive behaviour by others at the small cost of restraining from coercive behaviour ourselves.

Of course laws can sometimes have a net effect of increasing freedom, despite having the proximate effect of limiting it.

How is it possible to do anything but set your own judgment above any principle? If a principle contradicts considered judgment, the principle must be abandoned. Are you suggesting we abandon reason and judgment instead? If so, whence derive the principles?

As far as "robbery", it is probably true that all societies have some such concept. However, the concepts of property (and hence robbery) vary extensively. For example, nobody except GE and 34 fellow travellers think taxation to support indigent orphans constitutes robbery. Whose notions about property ought we accept? Societal norms, or whacky, idiosyncratic notions?

[Good_Egg]

How is it possible to do anything but set your own judgment above any principle? If a principle contradicts considered judgment, the principle must be abandoned. Are you suggesting we abandon reason and judgment instead? If so, whence derive the principles?

I'm not suggesting that anyone should abandon reasoning and logic.

"Judgment" just means a weighing up of the merits of alternatives. A court judgment is hopefully a weighing up of the strength of the evidence and the soundness of the arguments presented.

But lots of the judgments we make in the course of a day are a weighing up of how well something fits our tastes. Beer or wine or fruit juice ? The pale grey suit or the dark pinstripe ? The match or the soap opera ?

What's the right word for someone who abandons principles when the conclusion is not to their taste ?

"Reasonable" is too often just a cover for a taste-driven preference.

...nobody except GE and 34 fellow travellers think taxation to support indigent orphans constitutes robbery.

The options seem to be:
- taxation is never robbery
- taxation is always robbery
- taxation in a good cause isn't robbery but taxation in a bad cause is.
Which principle are you arguing for ?

Whose notions about property ought we accept? Societal norms, or whacky, idiosyncratic notions?

Obviously you should use your reason to assess which notion is true. Accepting the norms of your society just because they are the norms is stupid.

[Ecurb]

I'm not suggesting that anyone should abandon reasoning and logic.

"Judgment" just means a weighing up of the merits of alternatives. A court judgment is hopefully a weighing up of the strength of the evidence and the soundness of the arguments presented.

But lots of the judgments we make in the course of a day are a weighing up of how well something fits our tastes. Beer or wine or fruit juice ? The pale grey suit or the dark pinstripe ? The match or the soap opera ?

What's the right word for someone who abandons principles when the conclusion is not to their taste ?

"Reasonable" is too often just a cover for a taste-driven
The options seem to be:
- taxation is never robbery
- taxation is always robbery
- taxation in a good cause isn't robbery but taxation in a bad cause is.
Which principle are you arguing for ?..

Obviously you should use your reason to assess which notion is true. Accepting the norms of your society just because they are the norms is stupid.

All moral principles are, I think, based on a form of "taste". That's because they are based on notions of what constitutes a desirable condition. We must use our taste to determine that, and then reason and principles to attain that condition.

Taxation is only "robbery" if we see property as some sort of natural relation between a person and an inanimate object. If, instead, we see property as a legally and culturally constituted relation between one person and other people (as I clearly do), then taxation is never robbery. This does not imply that taxation is never morally reprehensible; only that "robbery" is the wrong term to describe it.

In addition, accepting norms is not "stupid". We all accept norms about property, for example. We live in society according to certain rules. That does not mean that we cannot be critical of norms or defy them if we find them immoral. Nonetheless norms (and laws) are important. If an American drives on the left side of the street, mayhem ensues. We drive on the proper side because that norm -- like many others-- lubricates the machinery of society.