“One could hold pan-European elections, of course, with voters picking multi-national slates of candidates; but, then, one could also ask every person on the planet to vote for a world president. Such initiatives would ape democratic procedures, but would be a sham. They would be Orwellian takedowns of genuine democracy, not extensions of it. There would be no relationship or understanding between ruler and citizen, zero genuine popular control, nil real accountability; coalitions of big countries would impose their will on smaller nations, and elites would run riot. We would be back to imperial politics, albeit in a modernised form.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMarch 10th, 2016 |
 43 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Agreed.
There is a Classical Liberal case for national independence.
“The world” or “Europe” is too broad to be a polity.
No common history or culture – and simply too big.
The United States was founded by people from the British isles – later immigrants adopted the culture and became part of it (at least till the 1960s – when the culture came under systematic attack from Frankfurt School Marxists falsely calling themselves “liberals” who gained control of the education system and the media – who attacked basic American culture as “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” and so on).
Europe has many different historical traditions.
Why should Russia or Germany adopt the language and culture of Britain?
Immigrants to the United States have a moral duty to adopt the language and political culture (loyalty to the Bill of Rights and so on).
But why should a Russian or a German learn English as their main language and adopt loyalty to the Queen?
A “Europe” that does not include Switzerland, or Norway, or (yes) Russia is clearly inaccurate – it is not Europe (period).
And Europe contains many languages and histories and cultures – there is no reason why they should all submit to them.
Or that we should submit to some artificial (fake) “European Polity”.
Warning – many of those who denounce the Frankfurt School of “Cultural” Marxism (the P.C. and “Critical Theory” movement) are also dodgy.
The Black Flag is no real saviour from the Red Flag.
They are both evil.
Till the 1960s hardly anyone contested that English language writers (and painters and so on) who had never set foot in the United States were part of “American culture”.
Just as to the Founders such philosophers as Thomas Reid (who never set foot in the United States) were just as much “our philosophers” as the American Samuel Johnson (the fact that both Thomas Reid and the American Samuel Johnson are now forgotten is a sign of the intellectual and cultural decline).
An American could be born in Germany or Poland (or Mongolia) but on becoming “American” such writers as Edmund Burke became part of his or her culture and such things as the Great Charter of 1215 became part of his or her cultural history.
For the non racial nature of Americanness – see Michelle Malkin (clearly asian by race) or Walter Williams,Thomas Sowell and so on (black)
“Europe” can not work in such a way.
It simply does not have a common political culture to assimilate into – and to try and create one (as they are) is an artificial effort doomed to failure.
Such a thing can only grow from below – not be imposed from above.
Further down the article Mr Heath writes: ‘… to construct a new Euro demos today would be totalitarian: it would require, despicably, wiping out many of Europe’s cultural differences and rewriting history.’
It seems to pass Mr Heath by that that is happening by ‘totalitarian’ design with accelerated, mass immigration from populations with contrary cultures and no sense of European history.
The aim is ‘multiculturalism’ which means no culture and a fragmented, poor, State dependent, conflicting mass requiring authoritan rule to stabilise it: divide, impoverish and rule.
The hallmark of a good post, the initial salvo, a triple broadside from the Super-Dreadnought HMS Paul Marks, the shells falling from Magna Carta to the 1960s, via Mongolia. 🙂
The emphasis on the impossibility of developing a common European culture is a little misplaced: after all, the United States Constitution allowed slave-owning states to live (at least for seventy years) with anti-slavery states, and states with established religions to live with states of a free-thinking bent.
I don’t think that federalism is really possible in a Europe whose ‘unity’ movement believes in the virtue of centralized government, but it might work with a different cast of characters and more modest goals. The American Constitution is a pattern-book for setting up a central government that leaves room for a great deal of local autonomy; but note that it grows out of the power of the separate states, grudgingly and only partly yielded up out of necessity, and not out of any enthusiasm for unity in itself.
Yep, it did look good on paper – still does.
John B, Not much passes Heath by. Unlike some Eurosceptics, he isn’t anti-immigration per se, and is broadly in favour of free movement.
“The Black Flag is no real saviour from the Red Flag.”
Paul, who is the Black Flag?
The black flag represents the “anarchists”.
Is there such a thing as “anarchists” denouncing the Frankfurt School? Where?
Any “Union” without cohesion is fissiparous. A “Union” of governments is not exempt; on the contrary.
It is NOT governments that produce social orders; rather social orders produce governments.
Exempting a narrow NW corridor (the Dutch States, basically)the social orders of continental and eastern Europe have produced Administrative States, largely from their particular peasantry derivations. The English social order, from its mix of cultural derivations did not – and has not, though the trends are there. The U S has begun to.
The differences of the expressions of power by the populations of the different social orders of differing derivations inhibit cohesion; or, in the U S case, to dilute cohesion; making the social order fissiparous.
The Union created in the U S was fissiparous initially, becoming sufficiently cohesive around 1840-50 with the “roots of continental empire.” The earlier events in Europe, and again in the last century, sought imposition of a particular social order to achieve cohesion. They failed.
It appears the formation of the EU has been taken as the establishment of a governing authority which would produce a social order or at least fill social needs in ways equivalent to a social order, which takes us now to its disintegration.
Carroll Quigley in his analysis of the disintegrations of civilizations, equally applicable to social orders, ” he found the explanation of disintegration in the gradual transformation of social “instruments” into “institutions,” that is, the transformation of social arrangements functioning to meet real social needs into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.” [Harry J. Hogan in a foreword]
The EU rapidly became such a Social Institution. It is disintegrating.
Cristina,
There are anarchists, namely some among the “anarcho-capitalists, who would readily denounce the Frankfurters. One such is Prof. Randy Barnett, who is an American libertarian attorney and the Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University. Such anarcho-capitalists want free markets, and believe that “private security firms” which compete in the marketplace for clients, to do policing and public defense, would make an inclusive, overarching State with its “monopoly of force” unnecessary,
Not all anarcho-capitalists are true* libertarians like Prof. Barnett, so one must be careful, as names guarantee nothing. However, people like these are usually considered to be anarchists, at least by most in libertarian circles in the UK and America.
*True libertarians. To me, a libertarian is one whose motto is,
“I am the boss of me and you are not the boss of me, and likewise you are the boss of you and I am not the boss of you. Therefore, we will get along just fine if you keep your hands off me and my stuff and I keep my hands off you and your stuff.”
If that were all there is to interpersonal relations, if everyone saw every situation in precisely the same way, then disputes would never arise among True Libertarians and there would be no need for laws or even rules, so no need for adjudications.
Alas, we do not live in such a world, thank God. :>))
I don’t know about black flag anarchists attacking the Frankfurters, but the left are always infighting about something.
Anarcho-capitalism’s colours are black and gold, for anarchy and capitalism.
I wasn’t aware there were non-libertarian ancaps, as the philosophy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion – that government is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.
Julie, labels aside, that is only part of the motto – as it begs the question: “But what happens if I lay my hands on you or your stuff, or vice versa?” That question, and however one answers it, is what brings us back into the real world.
Andrew: government is incompatible with the NAP only in the absence of the full consent of the governed. That is why decentralization, combined with a certain degree of free movement, is so important. The US federal model has been one attempt towards decentralization of government (however successful or not), with the EU model being the polar opposite.
Not just the “anarchists” – meaning the communal anarchists (not fans of Charles and David Koch and other “capitalists”).
The Black Flag also represents the Fascists.
Say you come upon an organisation that proclaims “Smash Cultural Marxism” (i.e. the Frankfurt School – Mr Obama and co). Sounds good…… till one finds out that the organisation is Fascist.
Indeed the “Libertarian Alliance” (Sean Gabb and co) pushes both sorts of Black Flag person.
The Fascists (clue they say “England” not “Britain” or “the United Kingdom” this stuff is about RACE to National Socialists – the sort of people who think Churchill was the bad guy in World War II, if challenged they will say “but Churchill himself said England” – but he did not mean what they mean) and the communal “anarchists” – or “mutualists” or whatever little faction one is dealing with.
Ask them (Black Flag types – of any sort) what they think of the United States of America – not just under Mr Obama, but ever.
Look at the faces of the Black Flag types (not just the Red Flag types) and see their faces twist with hatred when the very words “the United States of America” are spoken.
Or “Israel”.
Or “The Koch Brothers”.
Although Charles and David Koch are not in fact Jewish.
As for the communal “anarchists” (and other such) – they are happy to cooperate with the Red Flag types (the Marxists) in such things as the Chicago Teacher’s Union.
Sure they may be “anti E.U.” – but for all the wrong reasons.
One does not cooperate with Marxists or with Fascists (the “English race”) or with communal (anti “capitalist”) “anarchists” in opposing the E.U. – or in anything else.
Not unless one is a complete idiot.
Or one just loves being “naughty”.
As for individual consent as opposed to majority consent.
Yes John Locke cheated when he moved (without saying what he was doing) from individual consent to majority consent – Gough (Oriel Oxford) pointed this out many decades ago.
However, the alternative is something like the Commonwealth of Poland – where a single noble could veto any tax or other measure.
Thus Poland was left open to its enemies.
Majority vote on national defence (on taxes and so on for the military) is not perfect – absolutely not.
But till (say) private companies have orbital battle stations (with nukes and so on) I can not see any workable alternative to taxation and so on. When and if anarcho CAPITALISM (pro private property “anarchism) comes along as a real alternative I will consider it – till then…….
Taxation for defence by majority consent in an historical polity.
An historical polity being a unified political culture.
And people from all over the world can join such a polity – if they really want to and really make an effort (learn the language, history and so on).
Switzerland is a rare example of a multi language historical polity – created by historical choices over a very long period of time (and with unified culture in many ways). And with one language rather more equal than the others.
Alisa,
The way I look at it is that the principle as I stated it, in homely fashion for a change, is antecedent to what should be done when that principle is transgressed.
“What to do?” is a separate issue that has to be reasoned out to a conclusion that is consistent with the Basic Principle, as well as with other principles one might hold AND with “the way people are.”
But it’s downstream of the Basic Principle of libertarianism. The Basic Principle is the criterion for judging the acceptable, and it’s also one of the inputs to solving what-to-do-about-X problems.
The Basic Principle of Bridges is that a (good) bridge will bear the weight of its traffic. What you do when a bridge fails to do that is a non-issue unless you first have the concept (the principle) that is the criterion for knowing whether you have a proper bridge.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
If government has full consent, I don’t believe it is a government anymore.
Not quite, Andrew: some people actually like being governed – in fact, most people do, to various degrees. People at either end of the spectrum – those who want to be left completely alone, and those who’d rather be slaves – are rare, with most fitting somewhere “in the middle”. As someone who finds herself very close to the former end of it, I still can’t say that if someone actually consents to life of slavery or bondage, their consent is less real than my consent to have a root canal done. Consent is consent.
I disagree, Julie, because the ‘what to do about it’ is why we have the first part of the principle in the first place. If the NAP was built-in in all of us, and aggressive impulses “built-out” likewise, then we wouldn’t be even discussing any of this. To use your bridge analogy, even before we think about how do deal with failure, we need to think how will the bridge work – i.e. how will it optimally resist the various physical forces (read: human aggression) that would toss us into water against our will. Your part of the principle only states that we don’t want to find ourselves in the water. Well, duh 🙂 I mean, yes, it does need to be stated, as we need to be clear on what the purpose of this whole bridge business is. But then how do we go about implementing it, before we even think how to deal with failures.
In constructing the EU our betters built a house on our land without valid permission and without foundations. We should be in no mood to let it stand and trying to underpin it so late in the day with something akin to democracy* may still not prevent its collapse.
Even if the public ever demonstrated an overwhelming desire for a democratic United States of Europe then we should begin again with proper foundations. Anything less is to accept what the cowboy builders have done.
* The political consensus would insist that oil cans and rubbish were suitable alternatives to concrete.
I can only repeat my point, and I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people, the overwhelming majority I’d imagine, that want some of governance. But if that governance requires full consent then it is not a government, it is a business offering a service.
Yep, the service of governing.
No, because in a market there wouldn’t be any single organisation offering everything or even close to what a modern government does.
Cristina,
On your question “Who is the black flag?”: The best short, concise, comprehensible answer I’ve ever seen is in a remark that Paul Marks left at the Bleeding Hearts Libertarians site at
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/bhl-symposium-on-libertarianism-and-land-april-23-27/
(Note that the Bleeding Heart Libertarians are a perfect example of a group of self-styled libertarians who, by my definition or understanding of “libertarian,” are anything but.)
Paul writes:
(The boldface is mine.)
Anarchists in general are people who think one can get along without a State. Nowadays there are some non-violent anarchists, such true-libertarian anarchists; but historically and traditionally, anarchists have not been held back by reverence for non-violence. (See Wikipedia,
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag
and
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag
From the authoritative OED (Compact Ed. of 1933 with Addenda, copyright 1971), which makes no reference to today’s libertarian inclusion of non-violent. i.e. NIOF- or NAP-respecting, anarchism, but at least makes clear the historical usage of the term, which is still what the general public largely takes it to mean:
To add to that, you often see these “anarchists” at protests in the UK demanding more government. But they’re definitely against the state. And they’re definitely not just socialists trying to look cool.
Alisa,
It seems to me that we have somewhat differing intellectual interests in these topics. To be dreadfully hyperbolic and off-the-wall, it’s as though my interest is in the mathematical basis of the theory of quantum tunnelling, and yours is more “yes, and that’s all very well, but it doesn’t tell me how to get from here to Canarsie.” Do you think this is anywhere near the mark?
My first intellectual interest is always to get the foundations of a system of thought right. To me, you cannot decide what to do based on the fundamental principle until you have a fairly clear idea of what the fundamental principle is.
(Of course, one does have some realization that Life is an Engineering Discipline™, and there is back-and-forth-ing among foundational/fundamental/basic principle, edifice erected on fundamental principle, what to do when edifice so erected falls apart. The last two in particular tend to proceed in tandem, both during the design phase and as the structure is actually built. That latter, for example, is why we come to have all those Amendments to our Constitution. But the Amendments and the Const. itself are built on the principle (or understanding) that “we are endowed … with unalienable rights; that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
First the principle, then the edifice + fixes to the edifice (or dealing with the collapse of the edifice if it comes to that).
I grant you that there may be no practical reason to bother with a foundation if nothing is to be built on it (other than the satisfaction of working out a major puzzle in one’s head).
Anyway, you wrote:
But in your first response to my comment, your question or observation or criticism was that the principle I stated says nothing about what to do when the bridge goes flooey, i.e. when somebody transgresses the principle. For on March 11, 2016 at 9:41 am, you wrote:
And then you note, rightly, that that question brings us back into the real world.
I don’t know what to say beyond pointing out that a fundamental principle isn’t supposed to be an instruction manual. It’s only supposed to tell you what the ideal is that you’re aiming for.
It is, however, something that has to be included as a standard to be kept to as we work out getting the edifice designed on paper, and then built in reality. That’s what I meant when I said the basic principle is the foundation, and it’s also an input [into the designing and building processes].
. . .
Anyhow, from your point of view all that may just be unnecessary jabber, though I hope it isn’t. It still seems to me that what’s really at issue in your mind is, “Yes fine, but what do we do about it?” And, as part of that, the issue of the fix when somebody won’t play nice. Same issue as in the abortion discussion, I think.
Which is fine, of course, assuming I’m not presuming too much. :>) I’m just trying to get at where our minds are failing to meet.
Andrew, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you are still making the mistake of ignoring people who don’t like freedom, and therefore do like government in the full sense of the word. I see no reason why such people shouldn’t have the possibility to get what they want (long and hard, if it so happens), as long as those who prefer otherwise are not forced to be part of that arrangement.
That said, what Garret said.
Julie, to me, principle means ‘how things work’* and/or ‘how we want things to work’** – where the things in question may be inanimate objects, or humans.
*In the realm of the inanimate, gravity and variations in material strength are given principles. In the human realm, people will use unjustified aggression – and this too is a given principle. In both cases these are the principles given us by mother nature.
**So what do we do about that? In the realm of the inanimate, for our prospective bridge we choose the right materials for the expected loads and then some. ‘Not falling into water’ is not a principle, it is the desired outcome (as opposed to the natural one). In the human realm, we agree amongst ourselves not to lay hands on each other (property being an extension of ourselves) unless given consent – i.e. we agree not to use aggression against each other if unprovoked (“to play nice”). This too is not a principle, it is the desired outcome (as opposed to the natural one, where people steal from and kill each other just because they want to). So what do we do to achieve that outcome? We set principles that would guide us as to how to deal with people who don’t much care for this outcome, either on a regular basis, or now and then. Or people who do care, but make a mistake or are caught in a moment of moral weakness. Etc.
Does any of that help?
Ok, let’s say 20% of the population like things exactly as they are, to the point they’re willing to keep paying the same amount for it (I don’t believe this, but I’ll get to that in a second).
That’s an immediate drop in the now voluntary government’s budget of 80%, probably much higher as I imagine those who put the most in will not want the system to continue, and they’ve still got to offer the same services over the same area (probably) with, I’d imagine, similar costs. And they’ll be competing in a market and they’re not used to that. They’re going to struggle to survive.
And even if we make the argument that 100% of the population likes things as they are that still doesn’t equate to one monolithic organisation being the sole service provider. The market would provide the same services but at a higher quality and lower price.
Regarding fans of government: in the USA, sales tax is one of the few (the only?) tax that doesn’t seem to be universally enforced. In other words it’s essentially voluntary in a lot of places.
And the overwhelming majority of people choose not to pay it. I don’t have the figures to hand (I can find them if you like), but I believe in most states less than 3% of people pay, in some less than 1%/.
Out of those 97%+ that make the decision not to pay, I’d be willing to bet there are plenty of people who’d tell you they love government, love paying taxes, believe it’s a necessity for a civilized society, etc.
It’s only when you remove the gun from someone’s head do you get their real preference.
And you would be absolutely correct not to believe this, because that is indeed not the case, and I never argued anywhere that it was. In fact, nowhere have I mentioned the current situation, or any other particular one. But since you did, I’ll offer a guess of my own: most Americans hate the way things are right now, but most of them (most, never all) would also be perfectly… well, maybe not perfectly, but reasonably happy* to have some sort of flat tax levied on them at a reasonable (in their opinion) rate, to pay for national defense, police and courts, and possibly some sort of minimal “safety net” for the unfortunate. That was the hypothetical I had in mind when I wrote that government is incompatible with the NAP only in the absence of the full consent of the governed.
*And in any case, it is not happiness we are discussing, but consent. So to get back to the second part of my first comment, decentralization is the key to successful implementation of government that enjoys the consent of the governed, because lots of small states are better than one huge state at creating more choices for those who are not content with what the majority of their particular state are.
My apologies, I assumed from the phrase “government in the full sense of the word” that you were referring to government as it is, not some sort of nightwatchman state.
Consent comes from being able to say yes or no. A tax is a compulsory payment. You can’t have it both ways, you’re either forcing people to give you money or you’re not.
It does: you vote for a certain form and rate of taxation, and also (possibly) for a limited ability of the government to change either of those. If the government or the people wish to change any of that, it comes up for a vote again. If the outcome of the vote is such that you no longer wish to consent to, you can leave to a different state, as there are many, and they are in fact different (remember, this is an hypothetical).
If the government changes things without the majority of the people consenting for the change by way of voting, then we are in a different territory altogether (the current one, actually).
Sorry, but this looks like a circular argument – where does it say so?
I think we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about a market system, not a democratic one as I don’t view democracy as full consent, it’s just a form of socialism. You have two options you need 51% of the vote, you have three you only need 34%. That’s not full consent, and it’s certainly not NAP compatible.
And the “you can always leave” argument is circular. It assumes what it’s trying to prove, that these people have the legitimate right to tell you what to do.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax
And what other payments does anyone refer to as a tax?
Who said it has to be 51%? You can set things up to require any kind of majority percentage.
That’s because I consented to the arrangement in the first place. And ‘you can always leave’ was not argument I made. You can leave when the opinions of the overwhelming majority no longer match yours – it happens in life all the time, in free-market settings such as private companies, families, neighborhoods and circles of friends. You can’t always get all you want, neither in society nor on a desert island.
From your link:
Where is the compulsory part? Tax in our context is payment collected by the government for services it provides – it can be compulsory, or it can be consensual. It is compulsory in reality, everywhere, save maybe for small communities here and there – which is exactly what I am advocation for through decentralization. In my hypothetical, and arguably in the model established by the US founders, it is the reality throughout almost an entire continent.
If you’re not going to get specific with your hypothetical, then I have to make my own assumptions.
It can only be consent if there’s a reasonable way to opt-out. Leaving your family, friends, and work is not reasonable.
You’re saying someone can leave if they don’t like how things are. That is the “you can always leave” argument.
The vital difference being that in a market there will be different options, and if there’s not you can create your own. Democracy is a top-down imposition of one solution, like it or lump it.
Right here:
You chose to use the definition from a different context of the word.
Fair enough. I have no interest in a political solution as I don’t believe it possible.
Well yes, I got the feeling along the way that I was forcing the discussion on you – sorry for that, and thanks all the more for bearing with me.
In all the cases that I have been aware of in employment disputes over the years, I cannot recall a single case where an employee losing a job, and thereby an income, has not wanted the most tax-efficient payoff possible, so that the employee gets the most, and the government the least, possible of the money heading the employee’s way.
I am still baffled by this phenomenon. Is it simply human nature?
Alisa, thanks for your reply above (way above!), and apologies for my beigng AWOL yesterday.
It does help, a bit at least. I’m not sure how far apart we really are on the question, as opposed to having different ideas of what the word “principle” (or any reasonably common substitutes, such as “code of ethics”) is supposed to mean.
It’s true that “each of us keeps his hands to hisself” is the foundation of what I will call, this time, the libertarian ethical code.
I would put my view like this: A “code” in this sense is a guide about how to act. An ethical code is a guide about how to act in doings involving other humans. Yes, the code is aimed at achieving some end. Yes, that end (not a “finis” end, but rather an ongoing condition or state of affairs in the society) can be stated in the same words used to state the code itself, but conceptually they’re different. The code, insofar as it is seen and treated as a code, is the foundation. It’s “thou shalt and thou shalt not.” We hate to put it that way, I think, because first it sounds Religious, and Religious is icky. More importantly, it sounds like a command from on high, a Humean Ought-that-can’t-be-derived-from-an-Is, a moral duty put upon us by the very Universe, regardless of any human needs or wants or desires or understandings. A moral duty that is such precisely because the “why” of it is beyond the grasp of human reason.
Sorry for the extended explanation, but to me it seems necessary. Because that really is what a moral code or an ethical code or a code for maintaining personal health is: it’s a guide to conduct in order to achieve some state of affairs.
So there is the difference: the code is not its own aim. The ethical code that is the foundation of libertarianism is a list of shalts and shalt-nots that aims at achieving a condition of society where people are neither predators nor prey, neither slave-masters nor slaves (even part-time, and no, so-called “wage slaves” are NOT slaves at all).
This is getting too long again, so I’ll stop here. But to avoid any possible confusion, I do want to note that for me, “ethical” refers to conduct regarding others, whereas “moral” refers to all conduct (including, in fact, brushing your teeth). But some people use the words with the meanings switched.
Always a pleasure, Alisa. :>)
Exactly. That’s why I refer to the shalts and the shalts-not as ‘principles’ (the how), while the condition you are describing as the ‘desired outcome’ (the what) – the idea being that if we act in accordance with the principles, we may attain the desired outcome.
Now, my original point was that you only stated the desired outcome – the what, which is of course the necessary prerequisite to stating the principle (the how). For example, it is no use saying “Son, you have to work hard in life”, without adding “…if you want to have nice things that cost money”. But it is also no use saying “I want to have nice things that cost money” without explaining what are you going to do about it – which is what you did 🙂
BTW, talk about AWOL – I hope you are still reading this…
Alisa, at this point our disagreement is clearly over the meaning of the word “principle” in this sort of context.
I understand that it’s possible to take my phrasing of “the code” (so to speak) as a statement about desired outcome; but, again in this sort of context, I simply wasn’t using it that way but rather as a way stating “shalts and shalt-nots.” I did state it reciprocally, which usually isn’t done (and isn’t logically necessary if one understands EITHER “I” or “you” to stand for Everyman); and also separated out both branches, “me/you” and “my/your stuff.” Perhaps putting it like that suggested something other than what I meant?
I think that this, “principle” as in “a principle of conduct,” meaning “the right way to act,” is the way the word is usually used in this sort of context. I’ve never heard of this word’s being used as a statement about what one should do AND why one should do it, or putting it another way, as a statement of what one expects of oneself, or of what one considers good or proper behavior, AND as a statement of what expects to get out of it. (“Desired outcome.”) In other words, the principle itself is not the same as the reasons for following it, nor are those reasons part of the principle; rather, the principle is the conclusion about what to do, as indicated by or deduced from the reasons.
It’s perfectly true that my phrasing of the “principle” could also express a desired outcome; although in this case, to get the real desired outcome you would have to add something about “in order to have a society where everyone is free to flourish” or “where I would be most comfortable” or some such.
The Mosaic Code includes the statement “Thou shalt not kill [or murder]”. There’s nothing in there about the outcome. Maybe “because if thou dost thou shalt throw up.” Maybe “because God won’t like it.” Maybe “because the victim’s family will come and either beat you up or murder you back.”
But “Thou shalt not kill/murder” is still a principle of good behavior, as God is said to have handed it down to Moses.
So in the end, it comes down to how we use words, what we mean by them, getting it straight what others mean by them. Highly necessary to clarity of communication and thinking, and quite a fruitful discussion from my POV.
. . .
And with that, we can sign off or continue, just as you prefer. :>)