Topics

1

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Skype

« on: July 07, 2016, 07:16:38 PM »

Hey! I thought it would be interesting to talk/debate/pontificate about anarcho-capitalism, as well as discuss related topics, over Skype. If you're interested, please add me: grauss1357

2

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Donation vs. Investment

« on: May 07, 2016, 01:49:24 AM »

Assuming that everyone agrees that charity is a good thing, imagine this scenario: You have $1000 of extra money. You can either donate that money to charity and help someone who is less fortunate that you are, or you can invest that in your business, so that you can donate more next time.

I usually find myself choosing the latter. Of course, if I had an extra $2000 the next time, should I choose to reinvest that again? Maybe I should donate a little bit of money this time?

My questions are this: When should one donate their money, and when should they invest it for the purpose of earning more money to donate next time? Is always donating a portion of your money, regardless of investment potential, the solution? If so, how would you decide what the best proportion is?

I look forward to hearing your responses!

3

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / When should you stand up for your beliefs, and when should you stay quiet?

« on: May 07, 2016, 01:43:30 AM »

The title says it all. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this important topic.

4

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Is it moral to take a federal grant?

« on: May 07, 2016, 01:40:24 AM »

Is it moral to take a federal grant? After all, you did not earn that money through voluntary interaction. Some people argue that it's justified, as you are only taking back what was stolen from you in the first place. If that's the case, what about public school teachers? By working for the government and receiving payment, are THEY merely taking back what was stolen from them? What about police officers?

I have my own thoughts own this topic, but I'd love to hear yours, for another perspective!

5

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / The Moral Argument (Does it work?)

« on: April 26, 2016, 02:17:09 AM »

Hello! I'd like to share with you all one of the biggest philosophical dilemmas I've ever faced:

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with the non-aggression principle. Basically, it's a belief that states that "infringing upon property rights is immoral, and should be avoided". This belief, essentially, is the foundation for the libertarian belief system. Us libertarians, because of this principle, live our lives without initiating violence.

Of course, there are some situations in which most of us would abandon the non-aggression principle. For example, stealing food from a store when you are starving is something that most people would do. Would that be immoral, though? I would say yes. (Some people disagree with that, and I would be happy to defend my position in another post.) Technically, you ARE stealing property that's not yours. Of course, in that situation, your life is more important than your moral integrity, so while it's not moral, it's practical.

A socialist then, might say, "So, you would choose to be immoral if it was more practical?"

I would say, "Yes, in a life or death situation."

"Well, I deem poverty to be a life or death situation. Therefore, a welfare state is the better choice, even though it's technically immoral. You know what? I deem transportation to be a life or death situation! Free cars for everyone! I also think it's more practical for everyone to receive free candy. Woohoo! Practicality rules!"

As you can see folks, lifeboat scenarios open up the objectivity of the non-aggression principle to subjectivity, therefore allowing any statist/socialist/leftist to disregard it if they deem it to be "impractical".

At first, I thought, "That's a bummer. I guess I'll have to stop using the moral argument against socialists and liberals now. I'll have to start making the economic argument, or the practical one."

BUT THEN...

I realized that some issues can ONLY be solved with the moral argument. For instance: Rape. You could never convince a rapist to stop raping on the basis of practical reasons, but you'd have a fighting chance if you made the moral argument. What about 1800s slavery? The abolitionists wouldn't have been able to abolish slavery on economic grounds. (Yes, I know that some people believe that slavery wasn't economically feasible, but just set that idea aside for the time being, for the sake of example)

To simplify my WHOLE philosophical dilemma: If there are some situations in which breaking the non-aggression principle is the better choice, it's application becomes subjective, which prevents us from using it as an argument. If that's the case, though, we also wouldn't be able to use the moral argument to convince rapists to stop raping, or murderers to stop murdering.

What do you all think? Is the world nothing more than a jumbled-up mess of ethics?


Regards,
Galen