Freedomain Radio

Hey guys,

I've just recently finished UPB.  The book was really amazing and has since opened up a new way of thinking for me -- I try to evaluate everything now through an objective and consistent lens.

Anyway, I have a few question about things I'm yet understanding. Well, I think I understand them, I just want to check with you guys to make sure I'm getting it correctly. I was emailing Stef, but I'm afraid of bothering him too much so I figure you guys will be the next best thing.

Ok, here are my questions:

 

Small ones --

Lying and Fraud. UPB invalidates any theory that says "fraud/lying is good" so therefore fraud/lying must be wrong. But both of these things have elements of avoidability and are thus not categorized with forceful, unavoidable actions like murder/rape/theft. So does this mean that they are simply ANA? Stef says the amount of "wrongness" of fraud/lying is usually conditional -- based on the level of avoidability -- but does that mean that fraud/lying can or cannot be punishable by force? If I send my life savings to the Nigerian spam-email prince am I allowed to act with force to get it back? That situation is pretty avoidable, so my gut reaction is "no." But in less avoidable situations would force be allowed? Where do we draw the line?

Buying a dog or having a child. Stef talks about the implicit contract that is created when having a child, by having a child you are assuming the responsibility to take care of it. He likens this to the voluntary obligation taken on when someone buys a dog. "As long as the dog is in my possession, I have a responsibility to try to keep it healthy." My question is "whom are you responsible to?" In the case of child raising, this implicit contract leads to the right of third-party defense, allowing someone else to step in and protect the neglected child. But in the case of the dog, can this implied responsibility actually be enforced? Since actions against a dog cannot actually be considered moral/immoral, does this responsibility really exist?

 
Bigger ones --

1.

In my mind, the best proof of UPB is a statement like "If you want to get to Pittsburgh, you must travel east/west." (I live at Bucknell University, central pa).  This statement represents objective truth -- I can never reach Pittsburgh by traveling in a north/south direction, I can only reach it by traveling west (simple solution) or east (all the way around the world). And human preference -- I still choose to travel in the wrong direction, my choice is subjective but the reality of the situation is not.

The little nagging problem I have with this is: Don't we only know that traveling to Pittsburgh from Bucknell requires east/west movement because of empirical data? So I guess my question is, what is the equivalent data in a statement like "If you want to be moral, you must not murder." Is it simply the fact that this statement passes the logical consistency test, while all others fail, or is there some empirical data we can rely on for proof?

Stef uses the failure of communism as an empirical proof for property rights. Should I just imagine a society where murder is "okay" and have that act as empirical data? 

2.

"Morality only applies  to rational consciousness." This is essentially how Stef invalidates theories that would make the killing of animals, trees, and other non-human non-rational entities wrong. But, doesn't it also follow from this statement that killing children has no moral content? Children are "human" but they are also biologically different enough to allow for the label of non-rational. My argument would be "No, because children will become rational acting humans." But does that make abortion immoral, since the fetus will eventually become a rational human? What about mentally retarded people or permanent coma victims, they have no moral responsibility and will likely never gain rationality. Are we allowed to kill them?

 

 

Thanks so much for reading my questions. I've been wrestling with this stuff for the past few weeks and I think with a little help from you guys, UPB will finally "click" and I'll get that satisfying feeling of finally grasping a truly consistent and logical theory.

Thanks again,

Will  

 

Thanks - good questions! 

Moyer:

Lying and Fraud. UPB invalidates any theory that says "fraud/lying is good" so therefore fraud/lying must be wrong. But both of these things have elements of avoidability and are thus not categorized with forceful, unavoidable actions like murder/rape/theft. So does this mean that they are simply ANA? Stef says the amount of "wrongness" of fraud/lying is usually conditional -- based on the level of avoidability -- but does that mean that fraud/lying can or cannot be punishable by force? If I send my life savings to the Nigerian spam-email prince am I allowed to act with force to get it back? That situation is pretty avoidable, so my gut reaction is "no." But in less avoidable situations would force be allowed? Where do we draw the line?

Gray area. Rational objectivity is impossible. I would take out a contract to insure me against fraud, which would require that I take certain precautions.

Moyer:

Buying a dog or having a child. Stef talks about the implicit contract that is created when having a child, by having a child you are assuming the responsibility to take care of it. He likens this to the voluntary obligation taken on when someone buys a dog. "As long as the dog is in my possession, I have a responsibility to try to keep it healthy." My question is "whom are you responsible to?" In the case of child raising, this implicit contract leads to the right of third-party defense, allowing someone else to step in and protect the neglected child. But in the case of the dog, can this implied responsibility actually be enforced? Since actions against a dog cannot actually be considered moral/immoral, does this responsibility really exist?

It is an implicit contract, based on inevitable 'kidnapping.' If I lock you in my basement, am I harming you directly? Of course not - I am allowed to lock the door to my basement. But you have no other way to get food other than leaving my basement. This is like dogs and kids.

Moyer:

 
Bigger ones --

1.

In my mind, the best proof of UPB is a statement like "If you want to get to Pittsburgh, you must travel east/west." (I live at Bucknell University, central pa).  This statement represents objective truth -- I can never reach Pittsburgh by traveling in a north/south direction, I can only reach it by traveling west (simple solution) or east (all the way around the world). And human preference -- I still choose to travel in the wrong direction, my choice is subjective but the reality of the situation is not.

The little nagging problem I have with this is: Don't we only know that traveling to Pittsburgh from Bucknell requires east/west movement because of empirical data? So I guess my question is, what is the equivalent data in a statement like "If you want to be moral, you must not murder." Is it simply the fact that this statement passes the logical consistency test, while all others fail, or is there some empirical data we can rely on for proof?

Stef uses the failure of communism as an empirical proof for property rights. Should I just imagine a society where murder is "okay" and have that act as empirical data? 

UPB does not argue "If you want to be moral, you must not murder" but rather "Any moral system that says that murder is moral is false."

Moyer:

2.

"Morality only applies  to rational consciousness." This is essentially how Stef invalidates theories that would make the killing of animals, trees, and other non-human non-rational entities wrong. But, doesn't it also follow from this statement that killing children has no moral content? Children are "human" but they are also biologically different enough to allow for the label of non-rational. My argument would be "No, because children will become rational acting humans." But does that make abortion immoral, since the fetus will eventually become a rational human? What about mentally retarded people or permanent coma victims, they have no moral responsibility and will likely never gain rationality. Are we allowed to kill them?

Kids are incredibly rational.

What about babies? Well, a sleeping man is not rational, yet we are are not allowed to kill him, because he will awaken from sleep into rationality - just as a baby will 'awaken' from babyhood into rationality.

Coma victims = gray area.

And - are you really worried about people hunting the retarded in a free society? Their parents and charities will protect them.

Stefan Molyneux:

Gray area. Rational objectivity is impossible. I would take out a contract to insure me against fraud, which would require that I take certain precautions.

Alright. I'll accept that if we have to. Obviously, UPB is 10000000000% more sound than other moral theories, I just wish there was no gray areas. I guess that's being a little unrealistic.

Stefan Molyneux:

It is an implicit contract, based on inevitable 'kidnapping.' If I lock you in my basement, am I harming you directly? Of course not - I am allowed to lock the door to my basement. But you have no other way to get food other than leaving my basement. This is like dogs and kids.

I realize the implicit contract when it comes to children. I just don't see how it applies for animals, when it's not immoral to act against animals.

Stefan Molyneux:

UPB does not argue "If you want to be moral, you must not murder" but rather "Any moral system that says that murder is moral is false."

Right. So therefore any moral system that says murder is immoral is true. It's true because the opposite (system that says murder is moral) is logically inconsistent.  But is it also true because of empirical data? Communism is the empirical data that disproves any system which posits that theft is moral. Is there a similar example for murder -- more than just me imagining a society where everybody murders everybody else? I just want to make sure I'm not missing a really good example (political structure or economic arrangement) that can act as empirical disproof of "murder is moral" theories.

Stefan Molyneux:

Kids are incredibly rational.

What about babies? Well, a sleeping man is not rational, yet we are are not allowed to kill him, because he will awaken from sleep into rationality - just as a baby will 'awaken' from babyhood into rationality.

Coma victims = gray area.

And - are you really worried about people hunting the retarded in a free society? Their parents and charities will protect them.

No, I'm not worried at all. A free society would better protect everyone. I totally agree with that. I'm just trying to reconcile that belief with UPB. I think there is a loophole by saying "you can't act immorally against an irrational entity" but at the same time saying "babies/mentally retarded are irrational, but it's immoral to act against them."

This is a case where we already know it's wrong -- like murder. So I'm not looking to UPB to provide me with an answer. But just like in the case of murder, I want UPB to confirm what we already know.

 

Thanks for the response! 

Retarded people are far more rational than any animal of course, so I don't think that the "non-rational" exclusion applies to them. And as I mentioned, babies are "about" to be rational, in the same way that a sleeping man is, and so the "non-rational" exclusion cannot apply to them.

Does that make sense? 

Yea, that's true. I think I got that.

I think my next question is about abortion. Is that immoral since a fetus will eventually be rational? Do we have to rely on biology to tell us when the point of "just part of a woman's body" becomes "a future human." I suspect we will.

About the murder thing, does anybody have any good empirical examples of why a theory that states "murder is moral" fails? I'm thinking like some ancient "warrior" culture or something. I realize it's not necessary, I was just stunned at how good of an example communism was for disproving "theft is moral" theories.

Thanks for the answers, Stef.  

 

By the way, I'm in a class named "Toleration." And the big question of the class is whether or not just "not discriminating" is enough, or should governments act positively to support certain aspects of religions. I'm constantly arguing against any government action at all, but for the past few days I've been working on a rational proof of why "positive toleration" fails. This is a proof that just focuses on government action with respect to religions and I think it might actually win them over. (Since it doesn't come right out and say "the state is evil and immoral" there is a chance they might be open to it. This is a college class, remember. It's like I've broken into a statist concentration camp and I'm trying to rescue a few of my friends.)

So I was wondering if I sent you this proof -- right now it's just an outline in word -- if you'd mind looking it over for any holes. Let me know if you, or anybody else on the board, is willing.

Thanks again.
 

I wrote an article on abortion which might help...

http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/02/preventing-tragedy-free-market.html 

Forget the "ancient warrior culture" - just look around you.

Statism itself is predicated on the theory that "murder is moral." 

Stef, do you essentially take the Rothbardian position on abortion when it DOES happen? Does it bother you when liberals (of the American kind) all use their own arbitrary benchmark to determine when life begins rather than forming a logical argument for abortion which assumes life begins at conception?

Well I don't know -- what is his position?

I do know that I would not shoot a woman who wanted to have an abortion.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well I don't know -- what is his position?

I do know that I would not shoot a woman who wanted to have an abortion.

 

I edited my post to add a second question. If you can, please answer that question as well. 

Rothbard's position is essentially that a fetus is initiating force against a mother. He assumes life begins at conception and defends abortion on the grounds of stopping force against the mother.
 

Well I don't believe that taking the morning after pill is the equivalent of infanticide. I also believe that killing a baby minutes before it is born is the equivalent of infanticide.

I do not believe that a woman can be morally forced to bring a baby to term - particularly in the case of rape and incest and so on.

There is no objectively definable moment when a fetus becomes a baby - any more than there is and objectively definable moment when a child becomes an adult. Still, we all generally know the difference between a child and an adult. I believe that this will just have to be worked out by voluntary negotiation in a free society...

Also, the debate about abortion cannot be reasonably concluded at the moment, because of the influence of superstitious religion (i.e. the "soul" of the fetus).

Does that help? 

Walter Block tried to find an objective moment based on property rights. He said the woman cannot be forced to bring a baby to term, but it is also not allowed to kill the fetus/baby. He came to what is know as evictionism. The woman has the right to evict the baby, but the friends of babies society can try to save the fetus/baby. As technology advances that moment from which the baby is able to survive will get earlier and earlier.

Off course this has some problems also, but I thought it was a nice compromise.

Actually, I think Rothbard espoused evictionism. However, how does Block suggest people treat the woman who killed the fetus rather than go to the hospital for an eviction?

I think if it was before the moment technology could have kept it alive, not as a murderer. But if it was a week before the kid was supposed to be born, she would be a murderer. It gets difficult if eviction requires a ceasarian for the baby/fetus to stand a chance. Is the woman a murderer if she does not allow that, but also refuses to carry it to term ?

I should never have brought up the abortion question huh? lol

 

pcrs:

I think if it was before the moment technology could have kept it alive, not as a murderer. But if it was a week before the kid was supposed to be born, she would be a murderer. It gets difficult if eviction requires a cessarian for the baby/fetus to stand a chance. Is the woman a murderer if she does not allow that, but also refuses to carry it to term ?

This is the part that stymied me about evictionism.  It seems to me that the woman would have to have the cessarian if she wanted to evict the child, because if there is a way to do it, she has a responsibility to keep the child safe (assuming she's not a rape victim, and of course, that she doesn't want to initiate force, or her DRO doesn't want her to initiate force).  Of course, if there's some medical reason she cannot have the surgery, or if it would cause long term damage (she has scar tissue from childhood, ect.) she won't want to evict the child, and any reasonable DRO and father would respect that.  If she simply doesn't want to have the surgery because she's a sociopath, the father, charity, or her DRO could offer substantial financial incentives and/or threaten to drop her if she doesn't comply.