mikefavre35 mowi:

May 22, 2012 - the alcoholic is a terrible example because despite the developed chemical dependence it can be overcome and it is entirely detrimental in nature. you will never overcome the need for food and it acts only as a positive. you obviously did no research on moral naturalism ahahahaha

mikefavre35 mowi:

May 22, 2012 - this is another negative our society creates - overindividualization. you are not a super subjective being who's needs are entirely unique to you. this is why democracy is flawed, no matter how dear someone's beliefs are to them it doesn't make them as right as everyone else simply based on it's subjectivity, yet it gives them just as powerful a voice. like two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...

mikefavre35 mowi:

May 22, 2012 - you are not nearly as unique and independent as you seem to think you are.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - So are you saying that some individual voices should be ignored in society and others elevated? Who decides on what is more pressing or not? Who shall decide what is good for me? Aren't I capable enough to know what is good? If not, are you?

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Some people are better than others.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Who shall define who is and is not a better sort of person? My only moral criterion is that the INITIATION of violence is wrong. To initiate violence against another person is to attack them when the victim has not physically harmed the attacker. This rule is a trait among almost all civilizations from the most ancient to the most modern. Violence is wrong because it allows people to inhibit individual liberty and coerce people into situations they do not want or approve of.

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - And how do you delineate the concept of violence? Systematic violence exists without a physical manifestation. Your morality would approve of me fighting an oppressive system, but not attacking you for "looking at me in a funny way". The problem with morality is that is subjective and hazily defined. As well, "wanting" and "approving" are subjective concepts. Inhibition is in some cases necessary to protect the freedom of other individuals. Personal quality is the only true merit.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - So who shall define who deserves merit or not?

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Merit will tell on its own. If your definition of it requires an arbiter, then it is already subject to perspective. That way socialism lies.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Merit does require an arbiter because you may see something that has merit and another may not. Please, if merit is self-evident give me an example of its self-evidence? Merit is a judgement call on does someone deserve something or not. As an example, if a man does not work, but is able to then does he merit having any kind of subsistence wage if he has not contributed?

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Merit is observed in the level of success a person is able to achieve for himself. Any other observation of merit can only have subjective meaning. I would not distinguish between a man who is able to work but does not, and a man who is not able to work, because neither produces any value from my perspective. Subsistence wage is paid to avoid having such people starve in the streets and committing violence out of desperation, not because it is merited.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Here is an example. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Bill Gates has often been the poster boy for unmerited success, yet he has treated his business partners and workers in far better terms than that of Steve Jobs. Yet Steve Jobs was lionized and hailed as a great man though he often tricked his business partners and squeezed out competitors far more than Gates. If merit was self-evident then people would in fact see that his success could be viewed as unmerited. Ideas of merit are subjective.

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - That's my point. You may think one man's success is less merited than another's, but the men who built these empires do not ask for your opinion nor anyone else's. And this is right and proper, in accordance with the basic principles your nation was built on.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - You said, in the beginning. "Some people are better than others." Then you say, "Merit will tell on its own" and now you are suggesting that merit does not matter because it will not stop men (which I don't disagree with because men are self-interested). it sounds like a non sequitur to me. Your initial statement was, "some people are better than others," I argue the subjectivity of that statement and of merit and then you say it doesn't matter?

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - I have been referring to two separate concepts of merit: subjective merit, which is a value judgment made by a person with reference to another person, which we obviously agree is entirely subjective; and objective merit, which could be defined as the natural tendency of a person to rise to the top in any given environment -- a quality of an individual which can be derived by observing the individual's movement in his environment, irrespective of interpretation. Apologies for the confusion.

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - My initial statement was intended to convey the notion that some people have a stronger tendency than others to rise to the top in society. It does not necessarily mean that those who reach equal position have equal quality, but rather that the likelihood for some to reach such position is greater than for others. Next, I intended to state that it is useless to consider any notion of "merit" other than that already observable by natural motion of people in society, because yes, it doesn't matter

sandc411 mowi:

May 22, 2012 - i also don't need people to wash my car, clean my clothes, entertain me, bring me food, cut my hair, landscape my yard, fix my broken window, install a door, make my clothes, ... profit as my motive, my ONLY motive makes me treat customers like kings. they like that, even though some are slobs. they come back. i hand-make pies. i could use machines, but people like that i make them. whether it's a better product is for them to say, not me.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Sorry I don't really understand this idea of objective merit. Do you mean to state an individual's personality traits or abilities? Individual talent is not what I mean. The problem I had with mikefavre35 is that he seems to suggest that individualistic goals (with or without talents) should be ignored if it conflicts with his vision (and individual vision which he doesn't define) because he apparently knows best. To do such a thing requires an arbiter of which choices are good and not good.

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 22, 2012 - True. But people who know what's best for the rest of us, calling for universal arbitrage and adherence to their absolute morality and such things, are frankly a bit scary.

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - Agreed. The problem is, for this gentleman's vision to come true, such a thing must occur. A political class (like the unelected EU commission who have not been elected by their representatives) must come to the fore of society. He may call the opposite of his vision hyperindividualism but outside of voluntary exchange is to argue that some visions are more worthy than others, but who decides what is worthy?

goingalt mowi:

May 22, 2012 - CORRECTION and elaboration: Like the unelected EU commission who have not been elected by the populace at large but by other career politicians.

Bangell99 mowi:

May 25, 2012 - Can anyone recommend a good book or two that effectively counters the best arguments against libertarianism?

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 25, 2012 - Ancient question, that, isn't it? Several solutions have been suggested, and unsurprisingly, all have led to different kinds of elitist societies..

lolzarfoomeister mowi:

May 25, 2012 - Ha! Thank you, that comment made my day. : )

apologyisnothepolicy mowi:

May 26, 2012 - Milton Friedman seems like a really nice guy...for a general in Satan´s army