Recent comments

The 19 consisted of one Lebanese, one Egyptian, one from United Arab Emirates, and all the rest Saudis. We did not invade any of these countries, strangely. If you play at Empire, you would be naive to expect no consequences at all from it. Our ruling class does not care about the 3000 dead Americans, other than as tools to advance their interests. That's all we ever are to them.

"I am not agnostic about Thor, I have concluded, for myself, that he does not exist." Okay, but earlier you wrote: "I call atheism a "belief-system", since it is far more rational to be agnostic, since there is not a preponderance of proof "for" or "against" there being a "first cause", as Thomas Paine so thoughtfully put it in his treatise, Age of Reason." So what do you consider the preponderance of evidence against the existence of Thor?

"As Ricky would say, "You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy." Agreed, but the concept of God does nothing to advance the explanation. Either the Universe sprang into being uncaused or it exists as an infinite regression of causes. Both alternatives confound intuition, but one must be right because the universe indisputably exists. For God there are three possibilities: Either he sprang into existence uncaused or he exists as an infinite regression of causes or else he simply does not exist. While the universe indisputably exists that's certainly not true of God.

G'day GeoffreyTransom, Thank you for the reply. Don't know if you noticed, but I made no mention of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, or any other "revealed" religion's tome. The only thing I did make mention of, by name, is Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. If you haven't read it, here is a link to it, so that you can. In it you may find a God more to your liking. P.S. For future accuracy, you might be interested to know that Sarai was not, in the blood-sense of the word, Abram's, (there was no letter V in the ancient Ibriy (Hebrew) alephbet), "half-sister". Abram reportedly said "yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife", based on the following concept, brother. A careful reading of Genesis 11:31 will prove this out. Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother... It's that or Abram flat out lied, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, since lying is how Yacob (no J or V in the ancient Ibriy) stole his brother's paternal blessing.

G'day John T. Kennedy, Thank you, "men interacting" is fine with me. And thank you; for what it's worth, I agree "right and wrong is not properly defined by what is best for the group". Right and wrong are discovered, by each of us, by what we would not like done to us, or have forced upon us, by other men, without our consent, which, coincidentally, is what is best for the group. "The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it." ~ Thomas Paine I am not agnostic about Thor, I have concluded, for myself, that he does not exist. And, neither am I agnostic about the Big Bang Theory. "According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure." "...sprang into existence..."??? Now, there's a scientific explanation, if I've ever seen one. "Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe." As Ricky would say, "You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy." But, we stray ever farther from the topic, "There's the law, then there's The Law", and for that I apologize.

"If you would be so kind to give us your definition of "society", please." Men interacting. "Also, you said "society is not the standard". Not sure I understand what you mean by that." I'm saying that right and wrong is not properly defined by what is best for the group. "And, you are certainly free to conclude (believe) that there was, or is, no "first cause", no Santa, no Odin, no Brhama, and/or no Zeus, if you like, but I think you will agree, it serves no useful purpose to make a mockery of those who come to the opposite conclusions (beliefs) on any, or all, of these things. " I don't think it serves a libertarian purpose, but I think religion is irrational and thus a legitimate target of criticism and even satire. It's not something I spend much time doing. "Thomas Paine, is a prime example of one of those who came to the opposite conclusion (belief), he wrote, "incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it". " I think there is difficulty in wrapping one's head around the idea of a first cause and also the idea of an infinite regress of causes so I don't have a settled opinion on which condition exists. But I see no reason why a first cause would be God. I think the Big Bang is a plausible first cause, and there is evidence for the Big Bang. Yes, the idea that the Big Bang was uncaused is counterintuitive, but that is not a conceptual difficulty that God escapes.

G'day John T. Kennedy, If you would be so kind to give us your definition of "society", please. Also, you said "society is not the standard". Not sure I understand what you mean by that. If you care to explain, please keep it simple, for I am a simple man. Stuff like "intertemporally stable Nash equilibrium", "non-trivial time-dimension", as examples, lose me to the point that I won't even know if I have "truncated horizons", or not. Sheeeeesh! Albert Einstein, who was a reasonably intelligent man, once said “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” "I'm with you, Al." You wrote: "I'm an atheist who's perfectly comfortable with natural law. What the founders thought of as Natures God, I think of as simply Nature." Perfect! Wish everyone was as willing, and/or able, to "simply" do that. And, you are certainly free to conclude (believe) that there was, or is, no "first cause", no Santa, no Odin, no Brhama, and/or no Zeus, if you like, but I think you will agree, it serves no useful purpose to make a mockery of those who come to the opposite conclusions (beliefs) on any, or all, of these things. Thomas Paine, is a prime example of one of those who came to the opposite conclusion (belief), he wrote, "incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it". "Fine with me, Tom, just don't try to force your 'belief' on anyone else and we can get along just fine."

I think we're talking past each other - it makes no sense to speak of 'my "efficiency"' when efficiency is defined as that which results in an intertemporally stable Nash equilibrium. In that context, an individual agent's "own" efficiency is a fiction - it would be like pretending that a recipe that uses five times as many eggs as required, is still 'efficient' from the point of view of the cook. A Nash equilibrium is defined as a payoff structure from which no agent has any incentive to deviate (even though it may not be the highest possible payoff for any given player). In the situation you mention as a counter-example, in which your 'morality' permits forced expropriation from others: there is a distinct incentive for at least one other agent (one or more of your victims) to seek to deviate from that payoff structure. Furthermore, there is incentive for others to try to jump on the same "steal from others" lark. As such, it is absolutely NOT 'efficient' intertemporally. For whatever reason, there are some folks who are highly allergic to the idea that morality derives from a search for efficiency: they see morality as being metaphysical, and the search for moral values as being a quasi-spiritual endeavour, in strong counterpoint to the quest for efficiency, which these sort of people will characterise as 'ruthless' or 'mechanistic'. But *NEITHER* is true. Man is a goal-oriented animal: he seeks happiness (NOT wealth, NOT power, NOT income, and NOT goods, sex, or whatever... all these things are sought because of the expectation that they will bring HAPPINESS). Those who were taught economics PROPERLY, are taught that agents seek to maximise their *expected* 'utility' or 'felicity', subject to a set of constraints (prices, preferences, discount rates and so forth) that are outside the agent's control. Most students ignore the 'quest for happiness' meme that underlies the pedagogic tools (which they see as a dry set of optimal control problems - to be solved on exam day, and thereafter forgotten). Economics is about man's quest for happiness. And how does man become the most happy given the constraints under which he operates? By doing everything in the most **efficient** way: that does NOT imply the 'least cost' way, either in production or consumption, or even in investment. And moreover, 'efficiency' has a temporal aspect: if you seek to add to your happiness by stealing from others, then you have to squander a decent chunk of the pelf in paying for your own security - AND you set up a dynamic process whereby a bunch of OTHER folks decide they would like to horn in on your action. Thus the State has, for thousands of years, been riven by internal strife, invasion from outside, and crippling costs of its own protection. The State is, therefore, the epitome of inefficiency (in the game-theoretic sense). They are Homer Simpson in the tar pit, seeking to pull out his legs with his hands, then his hands with his face. Morality (which is just a word meaning "the way folks 'ought to' behave toward one another") *derives* from efficiency, and it *augments* efficiency - there is a virtuous circle from the quest for stable Nash equilibria, to objectively discernible modes of behaviour. The 'metaphysical morality contrasted with ruthless efficiency' types would prefer that we were nice for nice's sake. That would be... well, nice: but it's not necessary, and it's certainly not sufficient, since there are observably people who are willing to be NOT nice (willing to live by force and fraud) to further their short term objectives. Part of the reason I am an anarchist, is that I understand - from alpha to omega - the Public Goods rationale for government... which you might be shocked to know rests on the claim that by intervening in certain markets, governments INCREASE economic efficiency. And I know the conditions that make it a huge lie (hint: WAR blows up triangles of consumer surplus). I can do the 'government ameliorates market failure' case like a performing seal - from suboptimal output in the presence of externalities/publicness, to the case for progressive taxation (due to diminishing marginal valuation of money)... even through to the presence of asymmetrically publicness and the notion of 'optimal taxation'. (My lecture notes were used by my best friend when he later became a tutor in Public Finance 15 years ago, when we were both grad students). From there it's all downhill though - because of war; because of diseconomies of bureaucracy; because of the lack of a properly-formulated optimisation problem. Because, in short, of a LACK of proper drivers for **efficiency** (and the fact that the government's objective function is NOT the same as some weighted sum of the objective functionals of the society it purports to represent). All that said: what I have seen of Stef's work on universally preferable behaviour is excellent, but leaves me slightly cold because it still rests at bottom on the idea that we 'should' do 'X' simply because it's "right". For me and others like me, it's "right" because it's efficient. Voluntaryism is efficient, in part because it eliminates the diversion of resources that happens when you permit a State. But more deeply, a voluntaryist system woud have internal dynamics that were self-reinforcing: the State does not.

John, Not sure how you can know this about someone's personal life? In the sense that you speak *more likely* they are less human in all the meaning you and I attribute to life. There is always a price to pay.... It would make more sense that doing monster work would make monsters. If that is not so then having stolen luxury is hardly getting off the hook. Perhaps you could provide something that would actually convince anyone that Stalin was not continuously paranoid and that is a good way to live? But you must be a fast reader indeed because the link I provided covers the issue you mention. Or perhaps you have read the works of Tannehill?

“a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” While this may be true of natural law, I reject the utilitarian formulation. Fidelity with natural law may be good for society on the whole, but society is not the standard. "Notice that he makes no mention of a god. And, you who are proselytizing for your atheistic belief-system by using such words as "sky-wizard", you won't win many converts over by being childishly insulting." I don't think making converts is a bid deal, but you're right that this has nothing in principle to do with God. I'm an atheist who's perfectly comfortable with natural law. What the founders thought of as Natures God, I think of as simply Nature. I don't consider myself agnostic about God for the same reason I don't consider myself agnostic about Santa. Neither explains anything I see in the world and I find no useful evidence for either so I conclude they don't exist. I could in principle be wrong, but that is my conclusion. It would seem to me that by the standard you're trying to apply it would be irrational for me to disbelieve in Odin, Brhama, or Zeus. Are you agnostic about Thor, the Norse god of thunder, or do you conclude Thor is not real?

One the saddest things I see is that some people who argue against the "Natural Law" [I put those "scare quotes" in for you, John T. Kennedy (wink)], apparently don't even have a clue what the Natural Law of Man is. "The natural law is defined by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, "honorary 'professor of ethics and the law of nature' at the University of Geneva", to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694 Notice that he makes no mention of a god. And, you who are proselytizing for your atheistic belief-system by using such words as "sky-wizard", you won't win many converts over by being childishly insulting. I call atheism a "belief-system", since it is far more rational to be agnostic, since there is not a preponderance of proof "for" or "against" there being a "first cause", as Thomas Paine so thoughtfully put it in his treatise, Age of Reason. Question for you nay-sayers; bees and ants and lions and wolves, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, each have their own peculiar "natural law" for survival of the individual, as well as the group, so how is it that you "believe" that man is somehow mysteriously exempt from the "natural law of the human world", as Frank van Dun, Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy), Dr.Jur. (Doctor of Jurisprudence) - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law, (someone obviously far less intelligent, or thoughtful, than yourselves), for clarification, called it?

@GeoffreyTransom (and many of the rest of you): So we adopt a set of supposed objective morals because they are "efficient"? Something is "right" because it is efficient? The "laws" created to reflect what the collective believe are "rights" and "wrongs" are just a set of "shoulds." I never said there are no objective, natural "laws" (like gravity, or other laws of physics governing the natural world). But let's not confuse those types of immutable, objective "laws" with "laws" that we're talking about--a set of "shoulds" that do or are proposed, to govern human interaction. Hey, nobody is a firmer, more resolute advocate of the non-aggression principle than me. "Do not initiate aggression on persons or their property" is my mantra. But can we really say that that "should" rises to the level of being an objective, "natural" truth or law handed down by some "sky-wizard" (great description, GeoffreyTransom--love it!)? I want the non-aggression principle to be an objective truth or to form the basis for an objective morality. But what if, hypothetically, MY morality, my "efficiency" dictates that I take my neighbor's money and property; gee, that's very efficient then, for me. I get to fund all my wants and desires with little effort. Are my actions therefore "moral"? According to G.Transom, the efficiency inherent therein make them so. Can we really say that the non-aggression principle is objective? Don't get me wrong--we need a set of "shoulds" to govern human behavior; to lessen the conflict that is concomitant with many people vying for scarce resources and who have competing goals, objectives, needs, and wants. But the NAP is, after all, just another "should." I'm not saying it is not the "should" to be adopted as the girding of an ethical system. On the contrary, the NAP IS the "should" that would not only be the most "efficient" and workable at reducing conflict and making things "work" (free market would flourish; happiness; peace, harmony, etc.); but it would also satisfy MY personal morality and, I suspect, that of millions of people--including everybody involved in this discussion. I'm not knocking the NAP; I'm not supporting the arbitrariness of positive law and the suffering it has brought; I'm not reducing all morals to the same level and arguing that every system of proposed behavior ("shoulds") is equal to the other. I'm just saying that (to quote from "Noesis" during an excellent discussion on this topic--link below) "objective truth and objective morality are two different things," and "it is perfectly valid to say: 'It is objectively true that morals are subjective.' Just like it's also true to say: 'It is objectively true that dreams are subjective.'" Once we admit this to ourselves, it's perfectly okay to move forward and discuss why it is better or not to adopt a set of "shoulds" (laws) to govern human interaction for reasons of efficiency, universality, etc. etc. Do I want a universally applied set of "shoulds"? Of course. Are they God-given? No, sorry. Gravity is "God-given" so to speak. The NAP is not, as much as I want it to be. But again, I'm not dismissing the NAP as a wonderful, workable, personally-adopted morality which I urge every human being to adopt....why? Because it is feels "right," it is efficient, it works, it lessens conflict and promotes the best and most efficient use of resources, etc. etc. It's just that the "Sky-Wizard" didn't create it or dictate it be the basis for our collective morality. And Tzo, you wrote: "One of the defining features of anything that is called 'law' is universality. If the law should be applied to murder, then murder is either always preferable or never. The logical answer should be obvious, considering that we are autonomous survival units. That is what we all do and strive to continue doing. It is quite objective to say 'Living, good. Dying, bad. So murder bad.' " Yes, I've read all that Stephan Molyneux stuff about "universally preferable behavior" etc. I agree it's good to adopt, collectively as a society, a universal blueprint for behavior (shoulds or should-nots; or maybe more accurately "must nots"). Such a universal blueprint doesn't exist as a God-given blueprint; we must persuade why that blueprint is the best and most "moral" (if we want to couch it in such terms). For decades I have tried to persuade people that the NAP is that blueprint that should form a basis for a collective morality or ethics. For an excellent discussion on this topic--page after page of wonderfully thought-provoking discussion and which goes in far more depth and does it better justice than I ever can--see this link: board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/29310.aspx?PageIndex=1

@tanhadron For to start with you are mistaking Natural given concept, with a fairy tale character given concept, nobody spoke of God or Superman, nor any other fictional creature, so your poin there is invalid... Natural law is according I think to each individual and tends not to trespass your neighbor's boundary, while Artificial Law is according to a collective and tends to impose what you must or must not do only by the means of benefit certain individuals, who believes to be superior to us, the common people, name them Kings, Ministers, Chancellors or Presidents, that is my understanding of this article. Read your comment again and you will note if you are intelligent that you used a lot of words just to say nothing of help. I can only hope that you break your chain soon enough. Kind regards and best wishes

"Can we ever get America to be the principled, morally sound society of freedom under the Rule of Law that the Founders envisioned?" I'm afraid that what you identify as state capitalism *is* what the Founders envisioned. The Declaration of Independence was better than the Constitution but still flawed: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Consent of the governed is a logical contradiction.

"So, the money for your retirement isn't there. The money should be there because you did pay it. You were forced to pay it, and the rationale was that paying your money into this government program would provide you with some financial security in your old age." On the other hand you probably approved a lot of the spending the government did on your behalf with the Social Security funds. And the books were always open for you to look at - the disposition of those funds was always a matter of public record. So it's kind of hard for me to be sympathetic with someone who crosses their fingers for 40 years and doesn't look at the books during all that time and then says "Yikes, I was robbed!". Wasn't this robbed citizen supposed to be the government's oversight for those 40 years? Taxation is wrong, but those who paid social security taxes don't have any special claim at recovery - a tax is a tax. I see an AARP commercial with seniors against Social Security benefit cuts saying "That wasn't the agreement!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWjpV3OMZ3w&feature=relmfu And I want to answer, "Hold on. You made an agreement with who? Your elected officials? And you let them spend your retirement fund for 40 years without checking on them?? And you re-elected them in many cases for spending that money on your communities? And now you want someone else to pay to bail you out? Are you kidding me?"

Support "black" markets whenever and wherever practicable. Quietly. Sam

"Let me remind you that given the technology and resources everything can be forged..." Okay, do you believe two planes crashed into the World Trade Center?

It is so, in the first stage of any investigation to assume so, and what I say is that it never reached further because of your governemnt have the power and tools to cover the truth, that Tool is called Media Press, and about the 19 "identified" I don't know if you remember that power structure aparatus are based on torture when need is to obtain data at any costs... what else will you suggest??? The Videos where Osama Bin Laden proclaims he is the one responsible behind these crime??? Let me remind you that given the technology and resources everything can be forged, let alone the fact that most of common people might know aarbic languages... maybe you come to think that I am a bit of a paranoid, but get out of your nationality ID and try to see the US as is seen outside your borders, and of course I don't mean the individuals for I don't know all of them, but I see it that way even today ten years after. It is nice to debate with you folks, for at least you are open to argumentations!!! Kind regards

"There is no "objective" natural law. Sorry, but there just isn't, as much as we want there to be. The best we can do is try to come up with a framework or convincing justification for why one set of laws--or type of laws--is better than another..." A justification based on what, other than objective reality?

In the right hand column of STR I see depictions of two practitioners of non-violent resistance - Thoreau and Gandhi. Gandhi I believe was a moral absolutist on non-violence holding that violence was wrong even in self defense. Thoreau did not preach violence that I'm aware of, but on the other hand he was a fan of Captain John Brown. I take the view that violence can be justified, but only when practical. I hear a lot of loose stupid talk about violence against the state that won't come to any good. I greatly prefer Gandhi to McVeigh even though I am more fundamentally at philosophical odds with the former than the latter.

Unfortunately, if one doesn't accept the notion of "God-given" natural law, the whole "positive law is bad, natural law is good" argument is far less useful. There is no "objective" natural law. Sorry, but there just isn't, as much as we want there to be. The best we can do is try to come up with a framework or convincing justification for why one set of laws--or type of laws--is better than another; or why one set or type of behavior MUST be subject to laws and others not. Towards that end, I would say the better discussion or argument, instead of "natural law v. positive law" is that although all laws are positive laws, that those centered around enforcing NEGATIVE RIGHTS are more valid or justified than those centered around POSITIVE RIGHTS. In other words, let's scale the tens of thousands of positive laws "on the books" (most of which presume to protect or enforce or obligate people relative to others' positive rights) down to just a handful of positive laws that instead protect or enforce NEGATIVE rights (with NO obligations on people to provide relative to others' positive "rights").

Well done Davi!

"The law to which Bastiat referred is the Natural Law, which is the logical discovery of an objective set of rules that define ethical—and thus lawful—human behavior." ~ tzo If my 'friend', Frédéric, could speak to you from the grave, he would say, Mon Dieu, tzo, quel article! Ceci est un exemple parfait de la façon de frapper la racine!

But if said unpasteurized fluid crosses a state border, it becomes subject to federal interstate commerce law, and anyone caught in the act is breaking federal law. Goodness, voting privileges may be permanently revoked from such offenders. And if a Vermont farmer comes under suspicion of transporting milk to customers in New Hampshire, the Feds will invade. Actually, all the raids I have read about have been federal, I believe, and not state. Most states probably don't really care too much one way or another, but the feds sure get a kick out of practicing their SWAT tactics. Actually, after all is said and done, the states' opinions don't come into play at all when it comes to food. Here is an example from where I live: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2008-09-12/671872/