Thread: Is There Morality In Profit?

Originally Posted by spockman

2.) Perhaps American anti-trust laws. But they can be implemented without advocating a ban on all monopoly. And although not too long ago Canada was a terrible country as far as it's economic policies go, it's current anti-trust laws and it's general attitude towards monopoly is better than the U.S. I like Canada.

Honestly, I do not know the Canadian anti-trust laws but the principle of my complaints still stands against any government institution. It retains no right to interfere with the transactions between two voluntary parties. Governments themselves are monopoly so if you really believe in the harm of monopolies upon the general public then I suggest turning your disgust at the government itself. If there is such a thing as a 'positive' monopoly then pray tell why not advocate compassionate monopolies is all sectors of life?

Originally Posted by spockman

3.) You are right. It is not just that I have to pay taxes which go to politicians who use my effort and work to trade favors and pull. However, I am fine paying certain taxes. So it is not the general concept that I am against.

Very well but you seem to think that you win the argument by appealing to your personal tastes on the matter. Pay whatever you wish to whomever you wish. The fact that taxation is coercive does not change.

Originally Posted by spockman

4.) Well, for one, a single group with the most power could be the government that rules the people. And if we were willing to go back to a government, we would lose much of the progress and rights and systems of checks and balance that many nations have now. In many ways, these nations advocate indirect thievery. But the risk of some establishment employing a more direct kind of thievery is too high.

Well if that is your criteria of government then your definition of it is ambiguous at best. What kind of power? A certain love interest may have power over you, are they to be considered a government? Also why assume that if one were to go back to a government then all human rights would be void?

Originally Posted by spockman

5.) I agree with the first half of this point. But please, tell me how a free market could ever come about on defence unless imperialism was employed or unless they mandated a form of taxation from everyone that they protected? How else could a military profit?

Like I have explained many times on this forum, defense is just like any other service in the economy. It can vary depending on supply/demand. Let us theorize that I am apart of neighborhood A and we want to have safe streets for our children to play it. Perhaps the home owner's associate would have a monthly 'security' fee in which the neighborhood would hire a private police officer to walk to the streets ensuring safety. Notice no imperialism and individuals who do not agree to this monthly fee can either be bared from entry into the neighborhood or have to pay a certain fee to call upon the police officer of the neighborhood. It could be from a simple cop to a team of high class security soldiers if one so desired.

Originally Posted by spockman

6.) That's a good point. And like I said earlier, I do not believe something can bbe bought for more than it is worth. That is impossible, so road prices would balance out to what they are worth.

And what they are worth is a result of subjectivity in consumers.

Originally Posted by spockman

7.) First, I think today's government is better than most governments.

And which government are we discussing?

Originally Posted by spockman

So, I don't want to play a 'who's in charge' russian roulette. I prefer to stay with the status qoute than have a crap-shoot. So yeah, today's government is based on who has the most guns and is not immune to corruption, but it is less corrupt than it could be. To address your point on liberty and how some proupounders of it become hypocrites... I never said all liberty is good. To quote a hero of mine,

Of course this is talking about war but the point still stands. A certain amount of liberty has to be restricted or else the rights of others are violated. That's a big difference between libertarians and objectivists. Most libertarians, they will propound a form of anarchism. Whereas an objectivist will likely propound a minarchism.

And I call that jibberish. It is counter-intuitive to claim that in order for liberty to be expanded it must be constricted and to claim that things could be a lot worse isn't justification for what is transpiring now. It is petty apologia for the injustice of the day. To quote someone I hold in regard:

'So I hear that liberty without brakes is menacing. Who is she menacing? Who shall fear the untamed horse, but one who would tame it? Who shall fear an avalanche, but one who would stop it? Who trembles in front of liberty, but tyranny? A menacing liberty... one ought to say it's the opposite. What is frightening in her is the sound of her irons. Once those are shattered, she is no more tumultuous; but calm and wise.'

Originally Posted by spockman

8.) Eck, I did not proofread this paragraph. Sorry, yeah, I'll be more clear. A privatized police force would have to have it's own regulations and force them on others or else it could do nothing.

Not at all. Privatized police forces would only operate on property that they have been allowed upon.

Originally Posted by spockman

Who writes these laws? If I am hiring a police officer to be my body guard, where is the line drawn on what I can ask him to do if I pay him enough to do it? Isn't he basically a hired goon? And a privatized court?!?

Well with free will you could ask him to do anything. Whether he is likely to or not is the case. You cannot stop the most base desires that lead to crime in some individuals. I present no utopia in which crime stops. There will continue to be crime. However, what is the usage of a police officer? To protect your rights ( not allowing murder, theft, robbery, rape, etc. ) That is why they are hired. If this officer oversteps their bounds then they can obviously be tried in a private court system. If you are keen to hear how such a system could work then I will explain it. However, if you are just going to brush it off as rubbish then I shall not waste our time here.

Originally Posted by spockman

I would, for one, just refuse to acknowledge that it had any hold over my personal liberty. It could be highly immoral, who is to say? There is no due process. And if it still forced it's personal values on me and the way I live my life, than I would say that this is not an anarchy.

I must say I find it curious that you are so staunch in your belief that a private court, which would have nothing to do with you unless you were being tried as a criminal, have no control over your liberty but an institution of strangers elected by a majority of strangers be allowed to dictate what is acceptable personal liberty. We must define what is an actual crime in a libertarian society before we continue. Consenting acts of the voluntary nature are not crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drunkness, drug usage etc. What is a crime is that which bring about coercion to an individual or his property, coercion being define as the threat or act of physical violence against an individual. Your personal tastes are your own as long as you do not harm others or threaten to harm them. However, do realize that you can enter into contractual agreements in which you may not be allowed to say streak through your neighborhood. As long as these contracts are entered into voluntary, then there is no crime.

Originally Posted by spockman

Because it wouldn't be. Besides, in this case the function of the court would be to make a profit. What, would people pay the courts to punish a criminal they wanted punished? How would anything but killing the poor bastard each and every time someone is convicted be anything but the most profitable?

Your asking why there wouldn't be capital punishment every case? Well how would that be more profitable then having a chain gang or a inmate worker program?

Originally Posted by spockman

As far as the point on how a freee market produces the best service, you are preaching to the choir. A privatized military/police force would be more efficient. It just wouldn't be moral.

Well I have retorted to your comments.

Originally Posted by spockman

9.) Agreed, and spending is ludicrous. There is no reason why we should spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Military spending should be significantly cut.

I say it should be completely abolished. The demilitarization of the US would be a great step toward world peace. Perhaps naive a goal but a noble one.

Originally Posted by spockman

10.) Sure, why not?

Well all these products have been used as money in the past but they are generally lacking in some regard when it comes to using them as money. Crops are fickle, cigarettes too abundant, livestock too bulky etc. Gold and silver can be made portable, they are durable, they have a high value per unit and they are not easily reproducible.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Each of the environmental acquisition systems of a living organism products must maintain and promote the life of that organism--the human mind being one of these means that the behavior of the human mind does have an ideal--i.e. a defined product--which is objective.

I believe that the human mind have an objective goal or 'eudaimonia' but this eudaimonia is not objectively defined in the case of aggregate humanity. Speaking generally, human's eudaimonia is the meeting and/or increase in 'social utility.' Perhaps a better defined way would be to say the removal of felt unease which involve the application of means to ends.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Virtue simply means functioning in accordance with one's given definition--each systems virtue is then measured in terms of functionality toward that ends. Behavior is moral, when it is effected by a functional mind. It is not subjective at all. One must be careful with the term "functional" this does not simply means it effects an action, but an action commensurate with its designed purpose.

Well I would call acting in one's definitional precepts to be one's 'nature', not virtue.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

It is a sign of conceptual failure when one says that evolution is driven for a purpose, that is, except the human mind. The human mind has a designed function, even if it is too young to effect it. Thus its product is not subjective, but objectively determined. Even when it fails at its purpose, does not negate its purpose.

Again, we are all objectively designed to pursue eudaimonia but what that is, is subjective to the individual.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Morality, then, cannot possibly ever be subjective--it is not a rational thought. And to think that institutions of learning cannot even teach the basics of self-realization only highlights the failure of what is called education.

Well self-realization is a individual flourishing. You cannot be told who you are, what you like and what you should be. Therefore why expect that self-realization can be taught in any institution in the first place?

You anarchistic bastard, you're right.

"I believe that the human mind have an objective goal or 'eudaimonia' but this eudaimonia is not objectively defined in the case of aggregate humanity."

All you did is restate Aristotle--however he was not that much of a synonym freak. What I say, is before you can add and subtract human will in a truely civil society, he must first have will. As pointed out by Plato, there is a difference between doing what one pleases, and willing a thing. And, since the mind is for the manipulation of the environment towards the end of survival, it is not subjective, but objectively defined on the level of biology.

Every environmental acquistion system of a living organism resides in the same class.

an environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of its body.

This definition includes the human mind--thus all a person's social discourse. It defines the unit, and only from the unit can the universe be constructed.

What I believe you mean by subjective is a persons ability to comply with objective reality. Which puts it at least one step away from the truth of things.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

All you did is restate Aristotle--however he was not that much of a synonym freak. What I say, is before you can add and subtract human will in a truely civil society, he must first have will. As pointed out by Plato, there is a difference between doing what one pleases, and willing a thing. And, since the mind is for the manipulation of the environment towards the end of survival, it is not subjective, but objectively defined on the level of biology.

Much of Western philosophy is merely a repetition of Plato/Aristotle so I hope you are not using that comment as a argument against me. Self-preservation is an objective feature of man but man is capable of defying self-preservation.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

an environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of its body.

Then why must we be so wordy about it? I understand your concept that in order for man to sustain themselves they must mold their surrounding environment into one which promotes their well-being. Just say that we naturally seek a state in which our welfare is bettered. Or simply state something like I have: We apply means toward ends which remove a felt unease, thus the purpose of action. I hope you don't feel the need to continually write 'environmental acquisition system' to me in every statement.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

This definition includes the human mind--thus all a person's social discourse. It defines the unit, and only from the unit can the universe be constructed.

Well this sounds like some kind of Kantian twist in which we construct the reality around us, but why assume that reality is only in us? Can it be that reality is outside of our consciousness?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What I believe you mean by subjective is a persons ability to comply with objective reality. Which puts it at least one step away from the truth of things.

By subjective I am referring to the definition that interpretation is dependent upon the individual at hand. Thus while eudiamonia is an objective feature of humanity, we are all searching for our own flourishing, what such a flourishing depends exclusively upon the individual at hand.

Originally Posted by spockman

You anarchistic bastard, you're right.

Are you just patronizing me or are you being serious?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Are you just patronizing me or are you being serious?

No, I am reading over this all and realizing that, yes, it is really arbitrary that the government, an institution which is supposed to just fill a demand like anything else, is treated like some magical entity whose services must be bought whether the consumer of those services wants them or not. I am asking myself why the establishment should be immune to the most basic limitatins that any other organization has to exist within.

Originally Posted by spockman

No, I am reading over this all and realizing that, yes, it is really arbitrary that the government, an institution which is supposed to just fill a demand like anything else, is treated like some magical entity whose services must be bought whether the consumer of those services wants them or not. I am asking myself why the establishment should be immune to the most basic limitatins that any other organization has to exist within.

A chip at the structure has been presented. Let us see if I can make a hole out of it. We are routinely told that we are the government, that if it does something we do not wish then we merely cast our vote and it will be changed for we give them the power. Yet we must realize that they are not us. The government and us are different. Many say that the first step to understanding libertarianism is this:
'Imagine the government a band of thieves.' and then all theory falls into place. Notice the moral ambiguity of the state. Notice its double standards. It is allowed to steal and call it taxation yet we are not. It is allowed to kidnap and call it conscription yet we are not. It is allowed to kill and call it war yet we are not. How did the state acquire such powers for we never had them even if we are to presume that the state is empowered by us. And yet the state is allowed these 'liberties' at the cost of ours. This is not an argument to say that we should be allowed to harm one another but one that proclaims that the state should not be allowed to harm us. That we should be permitted to defend ourselves and not be called 'traitors' or 'criminals.' That we should be permitted to leave this institution without harm coming to our person or property for our natural state of being is one of non-violence and voluntary trade.