 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Asher/One Love: The Concept of Ownership, Round 3 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 5:51 PM (GMT -6) |   | Brandon: OK. Let’s look at Asher’s post(s) here. Asher wants to say that we have a final say as to resources. As far as I’m concerned having final say essentially entails “our say so” our deliberation and decision making. Two statements he made.
Asher says: “
Yes, I may consult God and He may say to me that He wants me to give (or surrender stewardship, whatever...see how convoluted even the simplest of words "give" becomes if we say "Away with ownership" ) any of those items to someone else...or He may give me no clear idea whatsoever about those items...someone else may come to me and say "I believe God wants you to give/surrender stewardship of that item to me/some other person/some cause." And some other person says, "No, I believe God wants you to give/surrender stewardship to me/some different other person/some different cause"
And
“Tom, please move from where you currently are, I want to be in that exact space. No, don't move there, I want to be there in a few seconds at my whim, so vacate that space so I can occupy it. No..not that space either. Or that one. Or that one.”
Now this, to me (especially the second quote), is where some of his liberalism is kicking in. I as the individual want to occupy the same space that you have. And when I do this I do this at my whim.
But that can’t happen with responsibility because at that point injustice would occur.
------------------------
Man, this thread has too many cooks, using too many recipes.
Dude! Perhaps I need to label posts that I make that aren't straightforward. Or perhaps you need to read me more carefully, I don't know. The second example of my posts that you point out is OBVIOUSLY facetious if you read all the connecting posts by me and Tom. The sole point of that post was to show Tom that there will still be scarcity in the eschaton...at least of space, time, and unique entities such as individual human beings. It wasn't an attitude that I actually hold or advocate.
Just so everyone knows...many times I take Devil's advocate positions...not because I agree with them, but because such positions can easily be used to cast light on other commonly held beliefs that simply have insufficient warrant.
I know you like to label me in the classical liberal mold...and I'm not offended by that, because there are some definite overlaps in the classical liberal position and my own...but that position and my own do not coincide exactly, there are some differences...that you don't take account of...and to that extent, many times when you are engaging me and you attack a traditionally liberal position, thinking you are attacking my position...and you just aren't. We probably have more similarity of beliefs than you realize. That's not meant to lessen our differences, though...we definitely have them.
-------------
Brandon: But that can’t happen with responsibility because at that point injustice would occur.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is exactly the point I am making. That the laws of economic praxeology apply fully now, but will still apply partially even in the eschaton.Post Edited (Asher) : 11/17/2010 4:54:56 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/17/2010 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Everything D said.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/17/2010 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | “Hear, O my people, and I will speak;
O Israel, I will testify against you.
I am God, your God.
Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you;
your burnt offerings are continually before me.
I will not accept a bull from your house
or goats from your folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know all the birds of the hills,
and all that moves in the field is mine.
“If I were hungry, I would not tell you,
for the world and its fullness are mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?
Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and perform your vows to the Most High,
and call upon me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me."
Hmm...yeah...
The very instruments that the people were to use to "offer up" worship to God belonged to God already. Those "things" that God graciously gave them were meant to be instruments of original thanksgiving and fidelty, the TRUE worship God desires!
Same principle applies with our human bodies and "hearts".
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/17/2010 5:41:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: But if in heaven I happen to prefer something at a particular time which is incompatible with what you prefer at that same time (given, say, physical limitations), then I haven’t suggested that we become something other than self-determining creatures. I’m suggesting that once we understand that our truest happiness and highest good cannot possibly be at stake in such situations but that it is rather achieved in the mutual interdependence of love, and that all the incidental preferences which only variously express a form of the satisfaction which is ours in Christ, and that given the overwhelming possibilities and endless span of eternity, none of these preferences need ever go unfulfilled—THEN what you’re supposing to be a ‘conflict’ is no conflict. Instead of defaulting to what “I” want from “you” or how what “I” want can only be had at the expense of what you prefer, I believe the fundamental orientation of our will or psyche will be for unanimity, and if not unanimity, then a seemless peace at the heart of reforming our preferences. Maybe you and I will think, “Doing some third thing together is better than either of us getting what he wants at the expense of the other.” Who knows? It’s easy (for me) to imagine a social network of loving relations where no scarcity ever restricts love.
------------------
Scarcity is an economic term that has specific meaning. It is related to the common usage of the word scarce, but has nuances. You're probably going to think I am being too rigorous again. But if I can only say what I want to say by being that rigorous, should I just leave unsaid what I want to say?
Definition: Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human needs and wants, in a world of limited resources.
Now, I as you, draw distinction between the SOFA of the current age, and that of the eschaton. For example, in the above definition of scarcity...if we take the word "needs" out, then I think the definition of scarcity still applies in the eschaton.
We will still have seemingly unlimited wants...that goes hand in hand with having free will...there will be no needs that eat away at our being, THANK GOD!...but we will still have an extremely wide range of option to choose from at any given moment that we will want. And because we are all different, we will have different preference schedules. Given options ABCDEFG
we may both want all of them, but you may have a preference schedule that looks like this BDACGEF and mine may look like this FEADGCB And we can manage cooperation any number of ways. We may say, "Let's choose preference G, we both hold it equally, and that way we can still do that thing together, because frankly doing G with you is more preferable to me doing any of FEAD without you." Or we could say, "Tom you choose option B this time and next time I'll choose what I prefer the most." Or we can say, "You do B and I'll do F...I heard Dwayne is gonna be at B, and Jeff is gonna be at F, we'll seek them out." So, yes, there is conflict, but it's not the same as now.
In heaven there will still be limited resources of space, time, and unique entities such as individual human beings. We won't be able to be in two places at the same time. We can't both occupy the exact same space at the same time. Each passing moment of time is unique, and then gone, even in heaven. So, there are limited resources, but I'm not saying that those limits will have the bite to them that economic limits have on us now. They are simply logical limitations. But they are a link to the economics of the eschaton and the economics of now...because the limits of the eschaton are limits now also...it's just that now there are some additional limits that we have to deal with. And we have to deal with them!...because they exist...they exist now...they won't exist in the eschaton...so the way we will do things in the eschaton cannot fully equate to the way we do things here and now. In other words, it is impossible to live a fully eschatological existence right now. We can push it as far as it will go, I'm not saying not to do that. I'm just pointing out there are exigencies here and now...and saying, "We won't have to deal with those exigencies in the eschaton." does nothing to eliminate those exigencies...even if by having an eschatological mindframe we reduce the existential, psychological bite those exigencies would have without seeing a vision of the future bliss of God.
So, when you point out that there will be no conflict, I partially agree with you. We will likely both have similar values and goals, but differentiated by our individuality of being. Right now, conflict often leads to violence or at least harsh words or ill will. I am not saying that that kind of conflict will still obtain in the eschaton, in that much I agree with you. But there will still be logical conflict. and when we each have mutually exclusive goals...none of those goals will be aggressive against the other...but our satisfaction may be less than it possibly could have been. But we're both still in heaven, we're both still loved by God, we both still love each other. And that's enough I think. Sounds pretty good to me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/17/2010 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
So, when you point out that there will be no conflict, I partially agree with you. We will likely both have similar values and goals, but differentiated by our individuality of being. Right now, conflict often leads to violence or at least harsh words or ill will. I am not saying that that kind of conflict will still obtain in the eschaton, in that much I agree with you. But there will still be logical conflict. and when we each have mutually exclusive goals...none of those goals will be aggressive against the other...but our satisfaction may be less than it possibly could have been. But we're both still in heaven, we're both still loved by God, we both still love each other. And that's enough I think. Sounds pretty good to me.
Imagine all human beings being continually filled with the Spirit, continuously demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit, continuously living out of the unity and power found in the Spirit...and the fullness of joy in that existence. How would such a people handle perceived "mutually exclusive" goals?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/17/2010 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
In heaven there will still be limited resources of space, time, and unique entities such as individual human beings. We won't be able to be in two places at the same time. We can't both occupy the exact same space at the same time. Each passing moment of time is unique, and then gone, even in heaven. So, there are limited resources, but I'm not saying that those limits will have the bite to them that economic limits have on us now. They are simply logical limitations. But they are a link to the economics of the eschaton and the economics of now...because the limits of the eschaton are limits now also...it's just that now there are some additional limits that we have to deal with.
I believe that at least some of the limitation that we experience is because of our perspective of reality, not simply "logical" limitation. IMO, to say that human beings will perceive the exact same sense of space, time and such as they do currently simply because of embodiement seems to be an underestimation of the transformative power of the Spirit upon human apprehension of reality.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | And one more time to try to clear this up...
I don't care one whit whether we call it ownership or stewardship, if we are talking about the same thing.
When I use the word "ownership" the only thing I am pointing to with that word is that some individual person has the final say so over that particular resource. Whether that resource is his own body...which incidently also takes up an exact amount of space that cannot be occupied by any other matter at the same time...his right (or whatever other word you prefer to use, I'm not married to the word "right", though I don't shrink from it the way many of you seem to...if there is some other word that can easily be used here, I have no problem with it)anyways, his right, to make decisions for himself...his right to act (non-aggressively) to bring about a better SOFA than the SOFA that currently exists...his right to his time (which is a component of all the other things)...the ownership or stewardship of matter external to his own body that he has gained possession of either by first use of that resource, or by some contractual trade with someone who legitimately had it before him.
And that owner/steward can decide about all those things.
And if he is a follower of God, he will want to consult God about how he should make use of each and every thing.
But what if he is an atheist? Yeah, we all agree he is mistaken. We all agree that his atheism puts him into any number of logical performative contradictions. But does he have final say so of resources in his STEWARDSHIP...even if he doesn't believe there is a God to be a steward to?
I say he does. And that's what freedom of conscience is all about. For example, in some Muslim countries, it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity. Is that a just law or an unjust? And if it is unjust, does it have any validity over an individual under it's jurisdiction? Should a Muslim remain a Muslim so as to be above board with the legal system? What if he decides that Christianity is true? Should he be a secret Christian, but still practice Islam in public? Can he decide whether or not he should be a public Christian or a secret Christian? Can one man choose to be a public Christian and another to be a secret Christian? See, the unjust law causes all kinds of problems that simply wouldn't be there without it. So, freedom of religion or no? Freedom of conscience or no?
And what of someone who is peaceable...they don't act aggressively against any other person, or that person's objects of stewardship (that sounds ridiculous to me, but I'll use it) They are lawful from the heart. They are not a threat to anyone. And as a matter of conscience they have decided that ALL governments of men have force as their bedrock foundation. Not the kind of force that responds as counter to some unlawful person's initial use of force...the kind of force that itself acts initially, aggressively against people and against those people's objects of stewardship. And having seen that, that person decides he doesn't want to be affiliated with such a government. He doesn't want to move. He lives in a home that has been given to him to steward. He often opens his home in hospitality to others, his flight from government is not a flight from his fellow men. He is not stingy with his resources, he gives to needs of others as he sees fit before his God. He looks to government, knowing that that government takes resources from him that were his to steward, and he sees that government doing all the following:
1) the government gives to some human needs that he himself would have given to freely
2) the government uses much of the resources taken from him and others and gives to things that he would not have ever given to freely. He sees rampant waste of resources. He sees the government incentivising ways of behavior that he considers destructive to human kind. He sees the government disincentivising ways of behavior that he considers valuable to human kind.
3) the government uses much of it's collected resources to fashion implements of violence. Sometimes those instruments are used as counter-force to initial use of force. But more often, those instruments are used as initial force.
And thankfully...probably because there are so few people who agree with him...the government does not see him as a threat when he decries it's actions..as long as he keeps giving over his stewarded resources...so that the government can keep doing ALL the things it does. They let him say what he wants.
Then his friends come along. They insinuate that he is wrong to not want to give his stewarded resources to that government. "Yes" say they, "It is shameful that the government does much that it does. But it is your social responsibility to give your stewarded resources to the government." And when he says, "Why? When I already freely give to causes similar to the just things that the government does. Why must I waste what has been given to me to steward by surrendering it into the hands of scoundrels, who are both unjust and inefficient in carrying out the just?"
So much for that man's freedom of conscience. He is caught in a hopelessly intricate web of other peoples beliefs about both government and religion. And when he points out a very simple system, that clears away much of the injustice, and allows people to do the just as their conscience guides them...that restricts only aggression against other people's person and against other people's objects of stewardship...
He is seen as more of a threat than the government. "Give us a king! We want a king like all the nations around us!" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: I believe that at least some of the limitation that we experience is because of our perspective of reality, not simply "logical" limitation. IMO, to say that human beings will perceive the exact same sense of space, time and such as they do currently simply because of embodiement seems to be an underestimation of the transformative power of the Spirit upon human apprehension of reality.
Look, we can diminish limitation as much as God can. Do you think I would be against that happening?
The simple fact that we are FINITE and ALWAYS will be means that there will ALWAYS be LOGICAL LIMITATION. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/17/2010 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: If the clingy possessiveness (based upon greed or neurotically-perceived scarcity) demonstrated by politicians is, in part, generated by what they ultimately believe about reality...what does that mean?
J: It means that what they believe about reality is not something which can ground a rational inference that I would ever make. We have different starting points.
That's why we're over 100 trillion in debt (or so they say) for unfunded liabilities (pensions, etc) alone (as I understand it, that's JUST the federal government). IOW, there are going to be transfers of wealth NON-stop to continue the postponing of economic collapse.
They will get more ridiculously shameless with time, because all they can possibly do to keep it going is to perpetually rob the middle class. You've got to give cost of living adjustments to the poor to keep them from resorting to violence. Politicians won't ultimately take it from the rich because the rich pay for campaign financing, bribe, etc.
And little by little, this thing called wealth redistribution that is done in the name of moral idealism is actually a way of destroying the middle class so the rich can keep their government aid (whether in the form of protective tariffs, tax exemptions, corporate welfare, or whatever) going.
And as always, it will result in a collapse of even a modicum of civility, whether from within, from without, or both. Math is not fuzzy. It isn't even inductive. It is what it is. People who think there is a way out of anything are deluded. Prophets can prophesy smooth things til the cows come home. Math is still math.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/17/2010 7:12:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 8:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Math is still math.
Wow! What an oppressive thing you just said.
Don't you know that Marx taught us about polylogism?
Your dependence on math is ingrained in you by your class. You should disavow your bourgeois class and surrender to the TRUE class, the proletariat. Because the logic of the proletariat class says that your statement "Math is still math" is just your bourgeois way of oppressing others. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/17/2010 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Math is still math.
Asher: Wow! What an oppressive thing you just said.
Daniel:  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/17/2010 11:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Aw! Here's the rub!
God owns everything.
Everyone is stewards of all resources given to them.
God has given free will, free thought, etc.
So that, even an atheist, who is given resources by an owner he doesn't even believe in, is still allowed that freedom by God, the owner...maybe even that the atheist while having to deal with the exigencies stewardship brings will be led to his owner.
And every person who isn't an owner...that means YOU...who forces any other person (steward) in ANY way, save aggression against other stewards and their vouchsafed resources, by telling them under threat of force, what they MUST DO or MUST NOT DO with the resources vouchsafed to them is supplanting the Owner.
Yep, supplanting the Owner.
So that, when a government comes to a person and says "You must pay taxes." And to the extent that you endorse the government action, you are complicit in the government's supplanting of the Owner.
This is where you tell me "But the Owner has instituted government"
And this is where I tell you "Not everyone believes that, are you prepared to force your religious views on others, and deny stewardship of freedom of conscience?"
And this is where I also point out that if your view of government is correct, then government is the only steward there is, and all our stewardships are illusion, meant to keep us quiet, but disempowered from actual stewardship.
And also that government has shown itself time after time to be wasteful and inefficient...sinfully so. That government has always shown itself to stand "stewardship" on it's head.Post Edited (Asher) : 11/17/2010 10:30:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/18/2010 1:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: Everyone is stewards of all resources given to them.
Daniel: People are born into pre-existing social conditions. What is "given" to them might very-well already be the product of mis-relation. Which is to say we are all culpable at birth. You are the steward of some property wherever you live. You were not the first person to live there. If you live in the USA, then you are part of a nation that has murdered, cheated, and waged war to attain the land you live on. To recognize this is to recognize that the problem is most often systemic, and not a deliberate choice. The fact that you are a steward of something is historically located, and that history is ubiquitously full of violence. Our stewardship is already tainted.
Asher: So that, even an atheist, who is given resources by an owner he doesn't even believe in, is still allowed that freedom by God, the owner...maybe even that the atheist while having to deal with the exigencies stewardship brings will be led to his owner.
Daniel: We can hope so. But we cannot expect the atheist to properly relate to his fellow humans. Proper relation is only found in Spirit-filled community. We can't force her to take part in that community. Thus proper stewardship is only possible in proper relation to God. Because entailed in proper relation to God is proper relation to the whole of creation.
Asher: And every person who isn't an owner...that means YOU...who forces any other person (steward) in ANY way, save aggression against other stewards and their vouchsafed resources, by telling them under threat of force, what they MUST DO or MUST NOT DO with the resources vouchsafed to them is supplanting the Owner.
Daniel: Which causes some serious problems since entire societies exist as supplanting proper relations. Indeed, the only way to know what one has stewardship over is to be in relation with God. So we can't expect the atheist to properly relate. Which means we cannot force the atheist to do anything since there is no ground for her agreeing with our framework in the first place. The atheist might find force to be a perfectly acceptable way of relating to those around her. And there is nothing to be done about it since our framework of belief in God is based upon assumptions that don't operate with logical positivism. They are a priori. But wait, everyone has a priori assumptions! Certainly, but because of what they are (namely a priori) they cannot be proven, and thus must be taken on faith. Reason cannot tell us what to have faith in.
Asher: So that, when a government comes to a person and says "You must pay taxes." And to the extent that you endorse the government action, you are complicit in the government's supplanting of the Owner.
Daniel: So Jesus didn't get it?
Asher: And also that government has shown itself time after time to be wasteful and inefficient...sinfully so. That government has always shown itself to stand "stewardship" on it's head.
Daniel: And the individual has proven to be better? But then that oversimplifies the issue, because individuals can't exist outside of a cultural environmental. We're biological beings, which means we necessarily relate to other biological beings. And culture, or society, has proven itself time after time to be wasteful and inefficient (if efficiency is a virtue?). So the problem isn't government per se, because governments arise from social frameworks, they don't simply appear.
So the solution doesn't seem to be a dissolution of government. The solution seems to be to create a new sort of society, like a people set apart for a good purpose of some king. Maybe something like the Church. And even THAT institution has fallen prey to social influence over the years, so the solution isn't even the Church. The solution is found in Christ. And I don't remember Jesus advocating for the dissolution of the Roman government. His method was far more subversive, and far more dangerous (mainly because it included a intentional lack of self-defense). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/18/2010 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | So, yes, you are prepared to force your religious views on others, or no?
Daniel: So the solution doesn't seem to be a dissolution of government.
No problem. Keep your government, just allow cessation to anyone that wants, without threat of violence to them if they do cede. They vow no aggressive activity against anyone still under government jurisdiction. You keep all your government benefits for those who want to partake of your government, those that cede can use their resources how they determine. It's done with Social Security, ministers can opt out ( or they could at one time, not sure if that has been changed or not)...why not with the entire range of government, except that those who cede would still be subject to criminal law, etc. There is no legitimate reason not to allow this. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/18/2010 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Daniel: And the individual has proven to be better?
Jeff: Daniel, you're taking a valid point and going to far with it. Clearly the only reason why government CAN be as pathetic at their "ministry" as they are is because so many of their constituents are as unjust as those "ministers"--possibly more unjust. But this in no way implies that what the government is doing is RIGHT. It merely means that Paul can be right about us OWING the State their "dues" because of the fact that the existence of the State, for all of its flaws, still results in a lesser of evils.
By analogy, we should defend pathetic parenting merely because its better for kids to have parents than to fend for themselves without adult supervision. That's SHEER NON-SENSE. If civility-loving people didn't continually publicly criticize the State, it would be an even MORE pathetic minister than it already is.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/18/2010 1:45:24 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/18/2010 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: No problem. Keep your government, just allow cessation to anyone that wants, without threat of violence to them if they do cede. They vow no aggressive activity against anyone still under government jurisdiction
Daniel: I'm not the one forcing my views on anyone. You're the one making universal statements about morality and human action, thus demanding, coercing, the rest of humanity to adhere to your moral framework. You're the one instituting, or insisting, on policy (of some sort, for EVERYONE), not me. My suggestions about morality and proper behavior only pertain to Christians. I would never argue about pacifism with an atheist, because they have no reason to accept my premises. Much like the Atheist has no reason to accept your premises (since the foundations of one aspect of your view, Austrian Liberalism, are completely a priori), other then you forcing your beliefs onto him. Once you get into universals, you enter the realm of coercion.
Jeff: But this in no way implies that what the government is doing is RIGHT
Daniel: Never said it was.
Jeff: It merely means that Paul can be right about us OWING the State their "dues" because of the fact that the existence of the State, for all of its flaws, still results in a lesser of evils.
Daniel: And that the change the Church was instituted to instantiate doesn't come about through a change in governmental policy. Indeed, debating governmental policy seems to be nonexistent in the New Testament. Government policy is simply a symptom of the problem! The problem is the fallenness of man. And the only solution to that is right-relating to God through Christ.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 11/18/2010 1:43:54 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/18/2010 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: No problem. Keep your government, just allow cessation to anyone that wants, without threat of violence to them if they do cede. They vow no aggressive activity against anyone still under government jurisdiction
Daniel: I'm not the one forcing my views on anyone. You're the one making universal statements about morality and human action, thus demanding, coercing, the rest of humanity to adhere to your moral framework. You're the one instituting, or insisting, on policy (of some sort, for EVERYONE), not me. My suggestions about morality and proper behavior only pertain to Christians. I would never argue about pacifism with an atheist, because they have no reason to accept my premises. Much like the Atheist has no reason to accept your premises (since the foundations of one aspect of your view, Austrian Liberalism, are completely a priori), other then you forcing your beliefs onto him. Once you get into universals, you enter the realm of coercion. Daniel: And that the change the Church was instituted to instantiate doesn't come about through a change in governmental policy. Indeed, debating governmental policy seems to be nonexistent in the New Testament. Government policy is simply a symptom of the problem! The problem is the fallenness of man. And the only solution to that is right-relating to God through Christ.
Jeff: Daniel, for you to argue with non-pacifists has the same implications as for a theist to argue with an atheist.
And neither Asher nor myself are arguing for increasing the use of force. Asher is trying to decrease force by advocating a completely market-based approach to governmental functions, assuming they are to exist at all. In that sense, he would be causing even LESS force than he is CURRENTLY by PAYING TAXES.
And I'm saying that it seems to me that the reason why Jesus spent no time on politics is because he knew the State was corrupt to the core and unredeemable, institutionally. IOW, I'm saying the only reason why we should even pay taxes is because, like bad parents, the government's use of their own authority still ends up resulting in a lesser of evils than anarchy. Otherwise, I can not even conceive of how to make sense of Paul's comments about taxes in Rom. 14.
Per your view, I'm to not worry about how to make sense of a whole passage by Paul (not to mention myriads of other passages), but I'm to wag the dog (the whole bible) with its tail (one or two verses) over a couple of equivocal statements that COULD be, if one has no real interest in over-all coherence in the first place, interpreted as a pacifist statement by Jesus.
It's not like your approach to scripture isn't VERY problematic, Daniel, on purely rational grounds. If it turns out that perfect love is only coherently conceivable in terms of UR, I say so be it. But trying to render Jesus or the Bible as pro-pacifism seems flat impossible, to me, as an inductively-thinking being.
For how is it pacifist to VOLUNTARILY subsidize an institution that exists to use FORCE on people? More to the point, if consequentialism isn't what the golden rule is a species of, what difference does it make what one does or doesn't do?
IOW, what you, Zach, etal need to demonstrate is that by paying taxes to the State you are rendering it more likely that even less force will occur in the world. So make that argument for me in a way that is consistent AND plausible. This is what would help Asher and me understand why you aren't doing the equivalent of arguing universals against an atheist. Because it certainly isn't the case that it seems plausible that the Bible (and, hence, Jesus) advocates pacifism.
When I argue with an atheist, I want to know how he/she derives his/her beliefs from intuitions that don't entail the belief that reality is teleological. Alternatively, I want to know why they expect anyone to believe any particular thing since, apart from benevolent teleology, reality is not, in any conceivable sense, normatively non-relativistic in the first place.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/18/2010 5:59:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/18/2010 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: I'm not the one forcing my views on anyone. You're the one making universal statements about morality and human action, thus demanding, coercing, the rest of humanity to adhere to your moral framework. You're the one instituting, or insisting, on policy (of some sort, for EVERYONE), not me. My suggestions about morality and proper behavior only pertain to Christians. I would never argue about pacifism with an atheist, because they have no reason to accept my premises. Much like the Atheist has no reason to accept your premises (since the foundations of one aspect of your view, Austrian Liberalism, are completely a priori), other then you forcing your beliefs onto him. Once you get into universals, you enter the realm of coercion.
Ummm....what I am pointing to is logical limitations...the very structure of reality if you will...just because postmodern society has decided that there are not objective ethics, does not mean that there are not. I understand people's difficulties with objective ethics since many proposed systems of objective ethics turned out to not be so objective. That is why the Austrian economic approach is different than all the other attempts, it starts at a different place...the logically objective praxeology of human action.
Yes, everyone has subjective goals and valuations. That is definitely subjective. But EVERYONE attempts to arrive at their subjective goals using the EXACT SAME METHODS.
From Hoppe:
Mises notices in
accordance with the strictures traditionally formulated by rationalist
philosophers, economic propositions must fulfill two requirements.
First, it must be possible to demonstrate that they are not derived
from observational evidence, for observational evidence can only
reveal things as they happen to be: there is nothing in it that would
indicate why things must be the way they are. Instead, economic
propositions must be shown to be grounded in reflective cognition, in
our understanding of ourselves as knowing subjects. Second, this
reflective understanding must yield certain propositions as self-evident
material axioms, not in the sense that such axioms would have
to be self-evident in a psychological sense, that is, that one would
have to be immediately aware of them or that their truth depends on
a psychological feeling of conviction. On the contrary, like Kant
before him, Mises stresses the fact that it is usually much more
painstaking to discover such axioms than it is to discover some observational
truth such as that the leaves of trees are green or that I am 6
foot 2 inches.11 Rather, what makes them self-evident material
axioms is the fact that no one can deny their validity without self-contradiction,
for in attempting to deny them one already presupposes
their validity.
Mises points out that both requirements are fulfilled by what he
terms the axiom of action (i.e., the proposition that humans act, that
they display intentional behavior).12 Obviously, this axiom is not
derived from observation—there are only bodily movements to be
observed but no such thing as actions—but stems instead from reflective
understanding. And this understanding concerns a self-evident
proposition, for its truth cannot be denied, since the denial would
itself have to be categorized as an action.
It is certainly not psychologically evident that with every action an
actor pursues a goal, and that whatever the goal may be, the fact that
it was pursued by an actor reveals that he must have placed a relatively
higher value on it than on any other goal of action that he could
have thought of at the start of his action. It is not evident that in order
to achieve his most highly valued goal an actor must interfere or
decide not to interfere (which is also an intentional interference) at
an earlier point in time in order to produce a later result, nor is it
obvious that such interferences invariably imply the employment of
some scarce means—at least those of the actor’s body, its standing
room, and the time absorbed by the action. It is not self-evident that
these means must also have value for an actor—a value derived from
that of the goal—because the actor must regard their employment as
necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and that actions can
only be performed sequentially and always involve the choice of taking
up that one course of action which at some given time promises
the most highly valued results to the actor and excluding at the same
time the pursual of other, less highly valued goals. It is not automatically
clear that as a consequence of having to choose and give preference
to one goal over another—of not being able to realize all goals
simultaneously—each and every action implies the incurrence of
costs (forsaking the value attached to the most highly ranking alternative
goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be
deferred) because the means necessary to attain it are bound up in
the production of another, even more highly valued goal. Finally, it is
not evident that at its starting point every goal of action must be considered
worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding
a profit (a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone
opportunity), and that every action is also invariably threatened
by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds in retrospect that contrary
to his expectations the actually achieved result has a lower value than
the relinquished alternative would have had.
All of these categories which we know to be the very heart of economics—
values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and
loss—are implied in the axiom of action. Like the axiom itself, they
are not derived from observation. Rather, that one is able to interpret
observations in terms of such categories requires that one already
knows what it means to act. No one who is not an actor could ever
understand them, as they are not “given,” ready to be observed, but
observational experience is cast in these terms as it is construed by an
actor. Further, while they and their interrelations are not obviously
implied in the action axiom, once it has been made explicit that and
how they are implied, one no longer has any difficulty recognizing
them as being a priori true in the same sense as the axiom itself is.
Any attempt to disprove the validity of what Mises has reconstructed
as implied in the very concept of action would have to be aimed at a
goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring
costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving
the desired goal, and leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly
impossible to dispute or falsify the validity of Mises’s insights.
In fact, a situation in which the categories of action would cease to
have a real existence could itself never be observed or spoken of, as
making an observation or speaking are also actions.
-----------
Read that carefully, and then refute it.
It is logically impossible to refute it, because it touches to the very foundations of ontology.
So, all I'm doing is recognizing that it is true, and spreading the word.
I'm not forcing anything. The only force involved is the same force that undergirds 2+2=4
The logical structure of reality:
In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
There's your force.
When you say I am making universal statements about morality, you are partly right, but in not stating my full view you are misrepresenting me.
Yes, what is universal is life, liberty, and property (by which I mean, human beings exist as material beings, who must also have a constant intake of other matter)
This is what I have called Set A of ethics...it's true of everyone. It's axiomatic, so that to deny it you are using it's affirmation in constructing your denial.
But, I haven't said that that exhausts the whole field of morality, so in that sense I have not made exhaustively universal statements about morality. Yes, Set A ethics are foundational...but everyone also has a Set B of ethics, and with Set B we once again enter the realm of the subjective. To have a full bodied moral ethics Set A and Set B are used together. And since we live in a pluralistic world in which everyone has different components in their Set B, how do we all get along? By providing the widest possible berth to everyone. We are logically limited by Set A, but that's all, any other limitation is subjective. So, an ethical society abides by Set A, and when Set A is not being acted against aggressively by someone, an ethical society allows every individual to work out his Set B ethics to as full an extent as possible (again, limited only by adherence to Set A...which mean no aggression against life, liberty, or the property that is required to sustain life) That is why I became a libertarian. It just is exactly that. It respects Set A ethics, and leaves people alone to accomplish their Set B ethics.
If someone's Set B conflicts with someone else's Set A, then to that extent their Set B is invalid. Logically limited by ethics. That doesn't mean that I am making life, liberty and property out to be the end all and be all of human existence...no, it is minimal...there are definitely things I would give my life for, there are things I would lose my freedom for, there are things for which I would surrender my property...and any person CAN do exactly that...they can surrender their own instantiation of Set A ethical components...but what they can't do and still remain ethical is aggress against some other person's instantiation of Set A components.
So, there is no force coming from me to enforce these things. What there is is this...if you say 2+2=6 then I will say, "No, you are wrong. It's 4" And if you aggress against Set A ethics...then I will say, "You are wrong. You are acting unethically."
In a world I imagine, an Austrian libertarian can live next door to a socialist. And they can be the best of friends. Because the Austrian is not forcing the socialist not to be a socialist, he's only against the socialist forcing anyone else to be a socialist.
He may even be very interested in the socialist's experimentation with socialism. So, all political and economic positions can be tried by anyone who so desires. The only limitation is the logical, ethical limitation of Set A
This is partly why there was confusion between me and Jeff about the concept of anarchy. I've never been against government functions (protecting life, liberty, and property) so in that sense Jeff is right when he says what I believe in is just a different form of government. But, because I picture a competitive marketplace fulfilling those functions, not a monopolistic GOVERNMENT, in that sense I am an anarchist. There would not be a one-nation government who monopolistically held the power of all proper governing functions. There would be many, many corporations, organizations, etc that would fulfill those functions. For example, there are some places now, where police protection is pretty much non-existent...so much for monopolistic government fulfilling it's functions! But if a corporation had security guards for hire, then those communities could be protected, without depending on an absent government. Another example, the governmental court system is inefficient and has way more case load than it can handle. There are already private arbitration organizations that ALREADY lessen the courts case load...why not amplify that...arbitration companies and organizations could fulfill that governing function far more efficiently than the government courts are doing.
Daniel: Once you get into universals, you enter the realm of coercion.
Not if the universals are the logical foundation of being. Unless you want to say that "to be is to be coerced to be" in that God, nature, whatever, gave you no choice, but to be...and that's something you'll have to take up with God.Post Edited (Asher) : 11/18/2010 5:29:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/18/2010 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a quote from Brand Blanchard about logic that I thought was excellent:
Blanshard, Reason and Analysis, pp. 269–75. Regarding the many-valued or open-textured logic
proposed by Friedrich Waismann, Blanshard notes:
We can only agree with Dr. Waismann—and with Hegel—that the
black-and-white distinctions of formal logic are quite inadequate to
living thought. But why should one say, as Dr. Waismann does, that in
adopting a more differentiated logic one is adopting an alternative
system which is incompatible with black-and-white logic? What he
has actually done is to recognize a number of gradations within the
older meaning of the word “not.” We do not doubt that such gradations
are there, and indeed as many more as he cares to distinguish.
But a refinement of the older logic is not an abandonment of it. It is
still true that the colour I saw yesterday was either a determinate
shade of yellow or not, even though the “not” may cover a multitude
of approximations, and even though I shall never know which was the
shade I saw. (Ibid., pp. 273–74) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/18/2010 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | Daniel, it seems to me that you are doing just what Zach will always do. Namely, resort to not only arguing that scripture doesn't have to provide us any plausible beliefs, but even arguing that there are no HUMAN intuitions which could serve as grouds for determining DEGREES of plausibility. Once you're there, bro, there's literally nothing left that needs to be said. It's literally a waste of every one's time once you get THAT epistemologically skeptical.
I have no problem, even, with D's view that government may have a role in promoting economic justice. I just see no scriptural evidence that it was authorized by God to use force except in terms of just recompense. But it can still deter theft by just recompense for stealing. It can praise charity. It can advocate collective bargaining by the relatively powerless to increase their economic power. It can enforce contracts--which is a form of avenging covenant-breaking. And so on. I just see nothing in scripture that impies or indicates that it has the God-given right to redistribute wealth.
Even in the Torah, there was no government, until Israel wanted a king like the other nations, to FORCE the 50 year restoration of land to the tribes. And I'm not sure it was ever forced BY kings once kings were reigning over Israel. Typically, the rich OWN government, and it would not have been in their "this-worldly" interest to restore land every 50 years.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|