Oh, sweet irony -- my day today

There's no word but "ironic" to describe this blogpost since my last discussed the infrequency of my postings, and this one is posted right afterwards.

Another reason for the infrequency, however, is because, while I may be thinking about philosophical subjects, I tend to avoid recording them. This will not be the case for this post.

Two things; both sprouting from discussions I've been thinking about in school.

About two days ago, I started my second semester in community college taking "Art Appreciation", "Macroeconomics", and "History of Religion in America." Of course, all three of these hit very close to my heart; the last two for obvious reasons. Art, in my opinion, is the aesthetical representation of philosophical values, which is why it is a topic of consideration, as well.

1. In Macroeconomics, we were discussing the definition of GDP, and the purpose of studying economics and the professor posed the following question.

"If population grows by 5% and GDP only grows by 3%, is this a good thing?"

I think it would be a temptation, especially for mainstream economists, to say that it is not because the economy isn't growing "fast enough" to sustain the population growth. To me, this is a fallacy. GDP growth does not equal a sustainable or "healthy" economy.

This fallacy buds from a simplistic view of capital. Austrians identified a concept called "Capital structure". Some goods are closer to consumer goods (lower in the capital structure) than other goods. Goods higher in the capital structure are more "capital intensive", in that they take a longer time to produce profitable yields. An example of a consumer good would be a can of coke. An example of a "capital intensive" good would be the aluminum used to make the can (or the ingredients in the soda itself). These goods have to be produced, and are bought by manufacturing firms, etc. but they are not directly sold to the consumer in most cases.

Consider these examples by economist Robert Murphy; if we spent every penny of capital in the nation on tractors, GDP would rise, however we'd all starve to death because we didn't buy any food. Or, if we produced hammers, but no nails.

If your view of capital only looks at the number, you miss the long term effects of a policy. This is the reason why so many mainstream economists missed the housing market crash; they only saw the GDP growth during the boom period, but they ignored the inevitable bust.

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate, but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group, but for all groups." -- Henry Hazlitt, the one lesson

2. In my "History of Religion in America" class, we were discussing the Lutheran reformation, and its theology, and Calvinist theology. While much of it was very accurate, some of it was a caricature of what Calvinists actually believe.

The issue here is that he misrepresented views on free agency vs. free will, and misrepresented views of predestination and the assurance of salvation. One comment the professor made about Calvinists was that they spend their time trying to figure out who is "truly elect" when, in reality, we know that those who are elect are granted faith, by the grace of God, which grants salvation.

And so I'll leave you with Romans 9 to consider.

Hope to post more, soon!

 

 

I'm back!

When I started this blog, I figured I would be updating it regularly, which I've failed to do. I know (or, I hope, I should say) that somebody somewhere is disappointed, so I will try to make an effort to be more frequent on updates.

The issue is, however, that I feel my style and tone are underdeveloped, and that impedes what I'm willing to actually publish on a semi-formal basis. I've noticed this issue with everyday discussions as well, where I'm a little "off-game" as it were. Hopefully, reading Hazlitt, Austen, Tolkein, and Lewis will remedy this. If any bookworms want to recommend stylistic authors, please post below! How sad it is to never receive comments on a blog such as this.

Now, to be consistent with my inner-narcissist, I have to talk a little bit about a few thoughts that have been troubling me. This is MY blog, after all.

As I've said before, something I noticed is that the more I learn, the more I find out how little I know. When asked to defend my views, I notice a delay (sometimes very long) before I am able to respond to the answer. This becomes worse with things such as very philosophical questions such as, "what is your epistemological basis for using praxeology to study economics?" or "how can anarchy work in a fallen world?"

These are, of course, incredibly complex questions, but even things such as "gun control" or "health care" give me a second of pause before I can produce an answer.

Also, I've had some requests to discuss a few items. Hopefully, I will be posting a blog post on ending drug prohibition and decriminalizing all drugs for recreational use (a topic that turned me to libertarianism in the first place). The other item is much more broad, and it is a defense of the libertarian worldview in an anarcho-capitalist flavor, while maintaining its validity. This request comes from my former English teacher, as well as a few friends who would like to see a presentation on the issue.

So, all in all, this is why my updates have been so infrequent. These are questions that, I believe, take a lifetime (if not generations) of scholarship to fully understand and answer.

more faulty foreign policy

For the past week, I've been following the American intervention in the Libyan civil war by imposing a no-fly zone, and enforcing it with bombings. There are three fundamental flaws that I see with this style of intervention. Since I've posted it on facebook before, I'll simply copy and paste them here.

‎1. First of all, if we're talking about American dollars and (soon) American lives, it should be in the American people's interest. Anything else is an initiation of force without just cause.

2. It also is not in Libya's interest. In order to establish a deterrent in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had to create a long-term presence, and it still didn't work. Karzai's government is ridden with corruption. Of course, this is nothing new, as we saw in Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Force and guns do not create sustainable societies. Only trade, diplomacy, and setting an example can.

3. There is also the concept of Blowback. Our meddling in the affairs of others has not helped the image of America in the Muslim mind as an imperialist superpower, which was further not helped by the fact that we supported these regimes (Mubarak and Qaddafi) for decades. Al Qaeda's stated goals were the removal of these dictators and the removal of the state of Israel.

The political side shows even more hypocrisy as pundits on the right question the prudence of this war (even though they supported similar intervention under Bush) and pundits on the left who support the war (even though they opposed similar intervention under Bush).

What this conflict shows, however, is the left, just like the right, has no interest in a true non-interventionist foreign policy, which they demanded from the Republicans. Congressmen Kucinich (D-OH) went on Fox News and quoted a candidate Barrack Obama saying the following:


"The president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Libertarians: still waiting for a true anti-war movement.

philosophy pt.2, take two

This post will replace the previous "part 2" post on philosophy that I had. I've reexamined my thinking on this issue and figure that I would like  to be more specific on what I am saying.

I've been reading a book by philosopher Stefan Molyneux called Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics. I haven't finished reading the book, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the libertarian rights theorist (LRT from now on) justification for a body of ethic.

One important thing to note about the LRT is that it's essentially a form of neo-nihilism, and you can see that from the title of Molyneux's book, "preferable".

The argument goes as follows. An individual has self-ownership, or the most legitamte claim to ownership of his own body over any other individual. One might ask why a rock does not own itself, and the LRT-ist might say it is because a rock is not a rational, conscience decision maker. However, regardless, this right to self-ownership is universal, because no rational justification can be given for one person to have these rights, but not another.

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

- Lincoln

Now, an issue comes with Hume's is-ought problem, which states that you cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement, which is called Hume's guillotine. An example of this is the Biological Imperative. The argument is that there is no rational link between the two.

However, if I said I wish to go to east Washington, it would be perfectly rational to say you "ought to travel East".

So, let's take everything so far into account and try to see how the LRT ethic would work.

Self-ownership (the idea that you have the most legitimate claim to your person) is universal to all men, because it's impossible to justify any other sort of ethic. However, simply because you own yourself (is) does not mean that people should respect your property rights (ought).

However, if you're a murderer, you have no reason to ask people to protect your property rights. Since most people want their property rights protected (universally preferable), most people will accept other's property rights, or risk being ostracized from society!

If I understand correctly, that was the basis of Locke's "social contract" theory, that I went over last time. However, in my opinion, the validity or necessity of such a thing could be disputed.

Regardless, this ethic gives a very powerful basis for natural rights; not because we're obliged to nature or universality, but because we prefer, ourselves, to be protected.

A Christian may interpret this ethic for his own, however, and say that all property rights belong to God, and, if one wishes to please God, he should obey his ethic. Not because it guarantees us salvation, but because we love God, and wish to serve him and act out his word.

There is also stewardship, and dominion over the land. God wishes for us to use and protect and allocate our resources properly. Socialism has been shown as a waste of resources; therefore, socialism violates the dominion mandate.

We respect individualism, and prefer voluntary, non-coercive engagements because of respect for God's property. The debate between the Libertarian atheist and the Libertarian Christian is now rests on the existence of God, and the implication of his son's death. It is an argument over aesthetics; over what is beautiful. Christians must content, therefore, that Christ is beautiful, and is the greatest ally we could have.

philosophy

A few conundrums have popped in my head; but before I can explore them, I'll have to explain a little bit about my view on property rights.

John Locke derived his "life, liberty and property" are unalienable rights from a single axiom; self-ownership He saw that we must have the most legitimate claim to our person, giving us life and liberty. Objects outside our body were considered unowned, and we would appropriate them to our person with the first-occupier homestead rule, which states that the first person to homestead an object by mixing his labor with it, has the most legitimate claim to that object; giving us property.

In his view, these were natural rights awarded to men, but that we give some rights up in a "social contract" (ugh, I hate that term) to the government for protection services. 

Frederic Bastiat further expanded on this idea, and explained in his work "The Law", and explained that the government, by definition, is the initiation of force, which is only justified in order to protect justice, or defer injustice. Therefore, the government cannot protect both justice and something. If it protects justice and philanthropy or justice and morality, or education, or welfare, then, by definition, it is using force for something that is not injustice, and therefore is injustice itself. He describes this as the process of legal plunder; where the law is taken and turned on its head, and used for something contrary to the law. This is embodied in the Libertarian "non-aggresion principle/axiom".

"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!"

This is why, in the Libertarian view, it would be immoral for the government to provide any services beyond protection, and why it has an obligation to be as small as it could possibly be. (For example, this would be why Libertarians will say it is immoral to throw sick people who use drugs in jail where over 80% are raped, brutalized, etc.)

Murray Rothbard held the view that "all rights are property rights" and that rights to free speech are not independent rights, but are an extension of the fact that you own your body. Rothbard also argued for 100% self-ownership, and viewed that this is the only justifiable rational ethic for man. From this, he viewed the state as nothing more than a "gang of robbers writ large"; an organization with the legal monopoly over the initiation of the use of force.

I'll continue this topic in a future post; regarding some implications for Christian ethics, and my attempt to show how these two viewpoints are not only not contradictory, but are logical outgrowths of each other.