/liberty/ - Liberty

>Why is it never described as the most fitting system for communication and organization of 2 or more armed individuals, not necessary interested in well being of each other?

because then if another system is found to more convenient you could easily disregard it

>>81801

> Why is it never described as the most fitting system for communication and organization of 2 or more armed individuals, not necessary interested in well being of each other?

Because that's what private property is, from which the NAP comes. You should have lurked enough to know about natural rights and you wouldn't be asking this. It's presented as an ethical principle, not moral.

>>81809

Explaining how things work, what is scarcity, etc is not the same as "ethical principle", which basically acts as a basis of a moral system by implying some absolute value on a certain thing, or action.

>>81806

Isn't it the point? Morality is not some kind of fail safe foundation of society, there will always be scams, lies, betrayal and all other stuff you may find personally unpleasant, but bragging about such stuff in no way saves you from all of this, decreases the chance of happening at best. It actually acts the same way victimless crimes are defined and advocated. By pointing out a system, that can easily and reliably manage all sorts of problems(like, for example, theft and other violations of NAP) we are actually facing the problem, instead of masking it, while hoping that no one will notice.

>>81809

And yeah, i see that problem in natural rights too, they imply that life or freedom is inherently valuable, and therefore presents itself as a system of moral realism. Actually, it really seem to boil down to "should we allow abortions", even in the most politically mature board in here(IMO). How i think a situation should be seen is "how would the prohibition of abortions be handled, if a person or a group decides to enforce it on someone willing to do it?" Nothing says there cannot be one single court(not enforced) in ancap city, yet the concept of private courts still exists. It is really more of "how could stuff be managed if there would for some reason not be a person or a group to enforce its will on others?". These times happened throughout the history multiple times, and might happen in the future, with all the space exploration and stuff. It looks more interesting and rational to explore a system that could form during such setting, rather than being another group of believers, formed in a political party, and pushing its agenda. Yeah, slavery sounds bad for most people, but it does not mean that it does not have a niche and does not work under the rules of the market.

>>81813

>they imply that life or freedom is inherently valuable

They don't assume inherent value to justify anything. It's irrelevant whether you value anyone's right to life. What matters is that you want yours to be respected and you will have to reciprocate if you want anything in return. We don't let people near us randomly murder others at their own whim because we would not tolerate the same happening to us or somebody we care about.

The Christian reasoning was that only God can judge who lives and who doesn't, and since all is his creation, all ultimately belongs to him and you're damaging property handed to you for temporary use. Rothbard doesn't bother with that.

>>81811

Both Rand and Rothbard deal in Objective ethics based in reality. They do imply absolute value. Normative ethics and logical positivism don't belong here.

>>81825

Well, thats weird. Austrian economics cannot really exist without the idea of subjective value, and it seems wrong to assume that it does not spread on human interactions themselves.

>>81824

Well, some people definitely do, and would prevent, lets say, murder, if they saw it. But it is wrong to assume that every person inherently would act like that, as, you know, this stuff exists even today despite a giant state trying to look like it is solving something. Is Tucker not considered ancap? Some of his statements seem more adequate. It really seems views of anarcho-capitalism boil down to either some system, that still needs support from its members(social contract/ancom societies come closer) or as a natural state of economics, that exists in any place, except for the ones where rules forceful coercion(communism, war, etc). I really doubt that force will not find its place in free markets, as violence has been used to sole all kinds of problems pretty effectively throughout the history(unless not applied enough). How do you think contract killing would be treated in an ancap society?

>>81835

>it seems wrong to assume that it does not spread on human interactions themselves.

Why? It seems arbitrary to declare that your moral theory must follow the exact same rationale as your price theory. Ethics doesn't concern itself with the buying and selling of commodities, but with what ought to be done.

>>81840

Because value itself s not different when you either buy a drink, pay for protection or hire someone for a job.

>>81840

>but with what ought to be done

This is actually the reason i see no place for universal ethics in capitalism, as it implies some kind of system to support its propositions. This is no longer capitalism, as it is not about trade between individuals, but about enforcing someone's opinion on a certain subject.

>>81835

>But it is wrong to assume that every person inherently would act like that

We don't and we haven't. It only states what is the correct choice of action. It does not say how people will choose to act. The only assumption made is that negative action will be met with reaction.

>>81835

>Austrian economics cannot really exist without the idea of subjective value

It doesn't affect Austrian Economic theory. It does not make exact predictions of specific future actors. It does not make value statements.

Saying that aggression is theoretically detrimental to the good of all acting participants is not the same as saying you know why and how they'll act.

>>81850

>ought to act

But why is it deemed as negative? You cannot actually tell, and in some village full of /pol/acks, a black could be easily killed. Are you saying that doing something is wrong, or that doing something is generally not beneficial for participants/bystanders/anyone? Because violence, for example, is definetely beneficial for the one who uses it, as if he succeeds, he'll gain plenty, and it is just about possibility that some other people might intervene. Ethics on the other side just states that something is bad, and it implies that ethical actors need to prevent "bad" things. Therefore, it is collectivist by nature, and so the collectivist construct named universal ethics cannot exist in an ancap society, as it is the absolute of individualism as a system.

>>81851

Also, ethics neither affect economic theory, nor it make any reliable predictions. It just makes statements within itself, and implies that they describe something other than itself. idea of subjective value, while not itself predicts value, but tells that universal value cannot exist, helping to determine it within needed conditions, as it states that value cannot be determined without context. I did not get what you meant in your last sentence, though the possible outcome of using violence determines the willfulness to use it, in general and not talking about emotional aspect, of course. Individuals are really called this way because they are not some kind of hive mind, but independent actors, even though they have some inner mechanisms dependent on others, empathy, most notable, but even it simply recreates the emotions of a subject proportional to likeness of their personal traits. So, it is not inherent for people to make decisions based on the "good of all participants", and so such value system is still able to exist, but still only within subjectivity of value.

>>81801

>NAP as a moral system

No, but it fits in almost effortlessly with a lot of moral systems. Christianity for example.

>>81801

The NAP is not a moral principle it's an ethical principle. Where morality describes the obligations people have in order to align themselves with goodness, ethical principles are just the limits of what a person can do. It's a subtle distinction but important.

Ethics, at least the NAP, isn't an opinion it's derived from inalienable natural rights that can be discovered through empirical observation and an analysis. Just because natural rights aren't a physical thing that can be derived through experimentation doesn't make it arbitrary or an opinion.

Hope that helps.

>>81977

Is it really different? Natural rights(or natural abilities, i should say) are simply abilities, or opportunuties that are inherent for our biological bodies(and minds) and cannot(at least for now) be changed without damaging them. If you are saying that NAP is about what a person can do, then it is horribly wrong, because it is really self evident that violence and forceful coercion will exist as long as one individual can influence the existence of another. If it is not the case, and it is not, then NAP implies self-worth of these traits, therefore acting as a basis of a moral system, which can clearly be seen during many discussions involving it, which is not really the only vision of it, just the absolutely dominant one, hence the thread question. Thank you for you effort, though.