Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism (Read 659 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6278
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #20 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 3:23pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 9th, 2018 at 4:39pm:
I didn't. I pointed out that both religion and science evolve with new human input. Individual human input has changed both religion and science.

Piss off with the idea that I require your permission Chief.

Religion provides no (correct) answers about the origins of Man(kind).   (Abrahamic) Religions are based on ancient texts written by unenlightened goat herders.

Science offers theories.  Scientific theories are based on observation, experimentation, and empirical evidence  - based in reality. This doesn't mean evolution is a fact.  It just means that evolution a much more reliable explanation than "God did it."

Religious beliefs should never be compared to science.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6751
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #21 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 4:14pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 8:59am:
There are some moral absolutes lizard, ones that libertarians believe.

It is wrong to murder.

It is wrong to steal.

The reason these things are wrong from a libertarian viewpoint is because they violate other people's rights.

You muddy it up as usual by saying things like 'morality is either absolute or nothing but a subjective fantasy' when what you should be saying, and would say if you were a libertarian, is that it is absolutely wrong to murder and  wrong to steal.


That is what I said. See?

The Opposition wrote on Jun 9th, 2018 at 9:14pm:
Violating rights is wrong, and anything that does not violate rights is permissible.


My argument proves that in a way that you don't understand. You just call it muddying because you don't understand it.

You have the same problem with me that Don Ki does: You think anyone smarter than you must be trying to take advantage of you.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 30381
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #22 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 4:42pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
Religion provides no (correct) answers about the origins of Man(kind).
Neither does science. There is not enough evidence.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 30381
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #23 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 4:44pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 4:14pm:
My argument proves that in a way that you don't understand. You just call it muddying because you don't understand it.

You have the same problem with me that Don Ki does: You think anyone smarter than you must be trying to take advantage of you.
No, I think you consistently make absurd and absurdly wrong statements that you aren't prepared to (or can't) back up.

You should have learned something lizard.

Edit: Dork thinks he is far smarter than you are. Who am I to judge?

Edit 2: I know you are far smarter than I am, but you failed to learn, so your intelligence is wasted.

Don't blame me or force me to pay.

Right now, I'm thinking you hate the Common Law because it holds everyone responsible...

That means individually responsible. Responsible for what they do and nothing else.

That is very anti-collectivist, so you hate it.

The only thing you have to support your positions are "feelings", and you "feel" that whatever you happen to think or "feel" must be right because you "feel" like a supergenius.

Most of your positions are obviously wrong, although you do try to muddy things up so that people might read your words and think you are a proponent of individual liberty.

You are nothing other than clever. Like a rodent.

Ha ha.

Edit 3: Only the Snark is more transparent...


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6278
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #24 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 5:34pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 4:42pm:
Neither does science. There is not enough evidence.

Only the blind and ignorant reject the mountains of scientific (anthroplological/physical/ fossil/DNA) evidence which supports evolution.

Scientists have discovered the oldest known modern human fossil outside of Africa, estimated to be between 177,000 and 194,000 years old. 

That was LONNNNGGGG  before Adam and Eve frolicked in the Garden of Eden and chatted with talking snakes!   Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3106
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #25 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 5:49pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 9:12am:
There isn't much at all in the way of a fossil record of human ancestors, and there is no apparent connection to any other animal life form prior to the earliest known hominid. There is also scant or no evidence that modern humans evolved from any of the early hominids. As I said, hominid remains are scarce.
Theories often sound absurd. I thought the theory that our early ancestors once lived in water was a bit of a stretch, but certainly not absurd.


Right.  "fossil record" should be put in quotes because the word "record" implies a conscious attempt to document in a way that can be stored and accessed later.  As with so many of the Darwinian explanations, it is almost impossible for it to be explain it without the use of language that implies intelligent effort.

The fossils could be called evidence.  They provide strong evidence that there were countless species that used to live on earth but do not seem to be here anymore.  They do provide a limited amount of support for the theory that existing species evolved from prior existing species, but only in a pretty circular way.  There is zero evidence of ancestors to humans that had any "adaptations" to allow them to live in the ocean the way aquatic mammals do. 


Quote:
There are absurd theories all around us though, always have been... Take for instance the theory that belief in God is a break with reality... That's a real corker! Cheesy


"Theories" intended to promote one political belief over another can't really be considered theories.
  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 30381
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #26 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 7:06pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 5:49pm:
"Theories" intended to promote one political belief over another can't really be considered theories.
Yes yes blah blah on the "evidence" BS.

Evidence is great, but if you don't have much of it, it allows lots of different theories to arise concerning what the evidence means.

As far as how we humans came to be as we now are, it's interesting, but not important.

Theories of political economy are great too, but there is a massive amount of evidence showing that a system of limited government etc. etc. that promotes and protects individual Liberty is the best known system of political economy.

It's been studied scientifically for hundreds of years.

"Progressives" deny the evidence because they are ideologically motivated rather than scientific.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3106
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #27 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 9:13pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 9th, 2018 at 9:14pm:
I'm both. Genetically I'm an r-type Statist. I have come to believe that only libertarianism is morally correct, however, and that Statism is wrong.


You get what you need and not what you don't, mainly due to the waste of energy factor. High IQ also has advantages when the ability to plan ahead will benefit you, but living in the immediate and being unable to plan ahead will actually benefit you if others will only steal all the food you just stored. And the larger carrying capacity of places with abundant food will see to it that there are always others around.


Right.  I attribute the American tribal people's relative lack of advancement to one factor:  the bison.  That animal provided nearly all the raw materials they needed for their lifestyle and it was hunted, not farmed.  There is no record of even a pastoral domestication of this animal the way animals such as sheep were tended as the first step toward genuine ranching.  Instead, the tribes hunted the bison as a form of sport, much as they viewed battles with enemy tribes.  Being proficient in group hunting required no more intelligence than that of wild dogs, so no reason for the smarter tribe members to reproduce at a stronger rate than others.

Keep in mind that Darwin requires not only that there be differences among members of the same species that can be attributed to natural selection but rather that completely new species be created attributed to natural selection of genetically mutated members of an existing species.

Quote:
I see some significant differences with respect to these two types of behaviour where hot (but not desert) versus cold climates are concerned. If food is abundant year-round, it's probably best to stop thinking about the future so much, stay cool (the brain makes a lot of heat) and just get what you can on an opportunistic basis. Cold climates necessitate not only planning ahead, but cooperation. If one thief starts stealing the stored food and horking it down because he's living in the immediate, the rest have to get rid of him.

Rodents are among the smartest animals. They're also among the few animals to actively store food. Well, what do humans do in cold climates that they don't do in hot climates? And where are the highest IQ areas concentrated? Where are the lowest IQ areas concentrated? It's like someone drew a line on the equator and slashed peoples' IQs in half. (Minor hyperbole, but I feel it works.)


Absolutely. I think a lot of cultures already have. People with an instinctive desire to live in a place where people don't waste energy on stealing will favour police existing who have the power to force those thieves not to steal.

I think a lot of cultures - the ones with no cheaters - already do better under Statism. The government saps a lot of resources with its chronic inefficiency and bureaucracy, but the cheaters sap more. And where there's little invested in deception-detection and the cheaters are protected from tyrannical punishments with rights, rights, and more rights, cheaters prosper and the society loses.

In libertarian societies, the EV (Expected Value) of committing a crime is often positive. If it is only moral to extract reparation for damage done (As Rothbard believes), the Expected Value of crime can only be positive, even if the chance of being caught and punished is 99.999999999%.


Absolutely not. I use the word absolutely quite intentionally.

Case 1: Morality is not absolute. If so, it's just up to the individual and it's pointless to try to find common ground.

Case 2: Morality is absolute. If so, it's not dependent on how many people are hurt or helped, or how, or why. Violating rights is wrong, and anything that does not violate rights is permissible.

So libertarianism, morally, must still be implemented, and those who end up on the receiving end of deception, or suffer because they follow rules that aren't there, will simply be disadvantaged until they die off, as they should.


I agree.  But my question is about what would be moral if humans did adapt to the captivity of statism.  For example, when I transport my dogs, I put them in cages in the back of my pickup.  I often get comments from busy-bodies who think it's cruel.

If they were human, putting them in cages would indeed be immoral.  But since they are dogs, it would be immoral to put them in the truck "free" since they might jump out and hurt themselves or another dog or another person.

If humans were to evolve in such a way that captivity is best for us, do you not think it would be immoral to set them free?  Or do you believe that they should be set free to let natural selection again make them human, as Jeff would rightly have it?

  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6751
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #28 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 10:12pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 9:13pm:
If they were human, putting them in cages would indeed be immoral.  But since they are dogs, it would be immoral to put them in the truck "free" since they might jump out and hurt themselves or another dog or another person.


When I was eleven, I begged my parents to let me keep the dog I found wandering around 7-11. This exact thing happened. The dog was placed in the cab of the truck at first, then scrambled out the back window into the bed of the truck, then jumped. Thankfully it was unharmed and we simply stopped and collected it.

SnarkySack wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 9:13pm:
If humans were to evolve in such a way that captivity is best for us, do you not think it would be immoral to set them free?  Or do you believe that they should be set free to let natural selection again make them human, as Jeff would rightly have it?


In this case I think he's right.

Keep in mind that because of being a supergenius (but not because of the raw intellect itself) I have a unique perspective on this.

In some ways, most people are that dog to me.

Humans hurt themselves and others all the time. They drink themselves to death, tweak out on lottery tickets spending their rent money and believing they'll win, and I just have to let them do it because they have rights.

I know this is harsh, but many people can't make the sorts of rational decisions I can. Not only do I have to let them ruin their own lives and call it right, I have to let them ruin the lives of their children, make more and more welfare babies I have to feed, and vote for whichever candidate promises them the most free shit even though that sinks the boat I'm afloat on, too. All this, I must call right.

I encounter people every day who, if rationality is a factor, should not have rights. If every human has rights, it logically follows that rationality is not a factor.

Rights, as Rothbard says, are simply unique to humans and that's the end of it. Animals don't have them regardless of how rational they are, so it's not wrong to cage a dog if that act is for its own good.

For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

(Even though beavers do everything on the list.)

It is wrong to cage a human, even if it is for its own good.

I'm very good at accepting tenets of a philosophy, and the only time I'll complain is where they self-contradict. In this case, that's children.

I was formal operational at four or five while some adults never are. I could have proven myself on any test they threw at me, so you're not going to sell me that children or the mentally retarded have to have their rights given into the charges of others while adults who have proven they can't make their own choices get free pass after free pass.

I've accepted libertarian premises completely, even the ones that fly in the face of fact. I am willing to accept that Rothbard is allowed to define man as special. If the premises self-contradict, though, I can't do anything about that. Accepting a lie that beavers don't transform their environments through cooperation and division of labour is easy. Accepting a contradiction is impossible.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6278
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #29 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 10:26pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 10:12pm:
Rights, as Rothbard says, are simply unique to humans and that's the end of it. Animals don't have them regardless of how rational they are, so it's not wrong to cage a dog if that act is for its own good.

Except the right of self-defense.   That right is common to all animals. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy