"Capitalism is evil", "Democracy is degenerate", "Consumerism is bad"There are all moral claims. They depend on a concept of "good" and "bad" and if you don't have a consistent moral theory and some sort of justification and proof for it, your politics are fundamentally flawed.The reality is that most political discourse is just consequentialist utilitarian calculation.It consists of discussing to what extent and how the state ought to intervene in order to maximize utility. "We must tax the rich to feed the poor" <=> "Stealing from the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy results in more overall happiness""Taxes are necessary in order to maintain law and order" <=> "There must be a monopoly in the market for security services in order to minimize violence"The problem with this is that no one knows what the fuck a unit of happiness or a "util" is and how much of it results from any given action whatsoever, it's completely unsolvable and therefore useless when it comes to determining the morality of any given action.Libertarianism however does provide a clear, solvable way of determining whether or not any given action is morally permissible or not: does it initiate conflict over the use of scarce means that were legitimately acquired? i.e, is it aggression or not? If so, it is immoral, if not, it isn't.Libertarianism is not "when you maximize profit" or "when the corporations do what they want". It's not a set system of economic organization or a society in the future. It is a moral code to be practiced right now.And so the question arises, what proof is there that aggression is immoral?(see next post)
>>18051454I know two ways of proving that aggression is immoral, a reductio ad absurdum (Rothbard) and argumentation ethics (Hoppe).1 - The reductio ad absurdum is that if property is to exist at all, then only the first producer or occupier or homesteader of any given land or object is it's legitimate owner, otherwise the second-comer would also have to give up his property to a third-comer, meaning legitimate property would not exist at all. This applies first and foremost to anyone's own body. Collective property is also a contradiction, as it's impossible for the whole world to decide what to do with every property all the time. including what people do with their own bodies. And if you claim "oh no, collective property is not for the whole world" than who is it for, it's collective "first owners"? Then you are back to the first part of this proof.2 - Argumentation ethics states that argumentation itself requires the respect for property rights, as it's impossible to even begin to argue without first accepting that each participant has a right use his own body and his property in order to argue, in such a way that he does not stop his opponent from doing the same, and so to argue against property rights and for aggression is a self-contradiction.Whether or not you accept any of these proofs, the issue remains:If you're a utilitarian and claim that statism maximizes utility, a proof must be given for that claim. It must be proven how granting a monopoly over anything to the state maximizes utility. It must be explained how the state, that has no competitors and acquires it's wealth via the involuntary transaction and extortion that is taxation, is the best way to do anything whatsoever as opposed to a system of free competition and voluntary transactions.If instead you are a moral nihilist and claim that nothing is moral or immoral, you can't make political claims whatsoever. "Capitalism is bad"? You don't believe anything is "bad" at all!
>>18051454Morals even if they are real there us no reason to follow them.
>>18051462More on the statist argument for monopolies over security and arbitration.The claim is often made: "If there isn't a monopoly for the police, police agencies might attack each other!" The first problem with this is isn't implication. "it's bad if police agencies attack each other", i.e "Violence is bad". Why? Because it's a violation of property rights? So how is granting a political elite (the state) the right to use violence in order to stop people from providing security services, good? Because you know that if the state holds a monopoly over this service, the overall amount of violence will be less? You don't! Monopolies tend to provide the worst possible service for the highest possible price. And so if anything, the opposite is true.
>>18051462Property follows from the state not the other way around dingus.
>>18051489This is just moral nihilism with an extra layer. "It's not moral nor immoral to do what's moral".>>18051496Prove it.And what is "the state"? Other than a political elite given permission to violate property rights.
>>18051504For you stating "this is my property" necessitates that there must be a sovereign who can arbitrate whether your claim to exclusive use of something is legitimate. Duh. You wouldn't make a claim of something being your property if you knew there wasn't a person nearby who cares about property. (Unless you were stupid but whatever.)
>>18051513>For you stating "this is my property" necessitates that there must be a sovereign who can arbitrate whether your claim to exclusive use of something is legitimate.And what criteria does this supposedly necessary sovereign use to determine if anyone is the legitimate owner of anything?How do you determine furthermore, who can legitimately be such a sovereign?Do you see where this is going? Right back to the criteria for legitimate ownership and the reductio ad absurdum provided before.
>>18051504I believe in morals,stealing is wrongbut why shouldn't if i can get away with it?
Not a libertarian, but the NAP is a stroke of genius.
>>18051567If you believe it's wrong you must believe you shouldn't do it. That's what it means to be wrong.It seems to me that you don't believe it's wrong at all.But more on this "if I can get away with it". Would rape cease to be wrong if the victim was completely unconscious during the aggression and the aggressor got away? Obviously not, so the morality of an action is not dependent on whether or not you can get away with it.
>>18051454>Libertarianism however does provide a clear, solvable way of determining whether or not any given action is morally permissible or not: does it initiate conflict over the use of scarce means that were legitimately acquired?Wow, it's true. The NAP solves morality so well that ancaps are STILL having endless debates over whether abortion violates it and keep inventing "new" ideas other people had decades ago to get the answer they wanted all along. That's totally a sign that you solved philosophy right there!
