I just had an interesting and pointless debate with a guy on Facebook. I don't want to say it was fruitless since it has expanded my thinking a bit on larger topics than the one we were debating. The debate began with this statement I posted:
Anthony Weiner's initial strategy of keeping his mouth shut is looking like that was the best course of action now that the media is in a feeding frenzy and more photos are now surfacing. Weiner's confession made about as much sense as a chick relenting and giving a blow job in the hopes of avoiding a date rape. It just makes it worse. LIFE TIP: Always keep your mouth shut.
Now, the argument I made here was not that Anthony Weiner was some victim deserving of the sympathy of a rape victim or that the media is evil on par with a rapist. In fact, I made no moral judgments whatsoever. My argument was that confessing to an indiscretion in the hope that it will alleviate the media scrutiny is not a winning strategy because it isn't going to happen. Whether you lie, confess, or remain silent, they are going to make hay out of it. It is a no-win situation. A confession implies a bargain. But this was lost on a fucktard who just ran with the rape analogy. I imagine if I had used an analogy of a terrorist renditioned to a CIA run secret prison it would not have mattered. The empirical fact that a guy like Arnold Schwarzenegger who did confess made no difference is lost on people.
The gist of this essay isn't to keep arguing the debate but to probe deeper into why this particular person wanted to ride what he perceived as a moral gravy train. He is like me--an atheist and a libertarian. Like him, I have no quarter for Anthony Weiner, and I am glad he is facing disgrace. But I simply made an observation on strategy, and this guy blows a fucking gasket. He spends the rest of his time building a straw man trying to say that I was defending Anthony Weiner's actions. He expected an apology for something I never said. He wanted me to be at fault for his misunderstanding. What is the best strategy in this situation? If I confess to the crime I didn't do, I am fucked. If I don't confess, well, I am still fucked, but I at least get to keep a shred of dignity.
It isn't my fault that other people are stupid. I try to take all people's statements in what I call "good faith." This means being charitable and giving the best interpretation to the opposing argument. It would be far easier to deliberately misinterpret the statements of another since this makes my job easier. But the result is that the argument doesn't advance knowledge but error. This is the kind of shit we witness on cable news programs. This is when leftards accuse libertarians of being "heartless" or fasctards accuse libertarians of being "unpatriotic."
The trick behind this is to turn every argument into a moral argument. This is the justification behind the welfare/warfare state. This state is failing in its aims, but this doesn't matter. The policies are "right." If you disagree, you must be some sort of Nazi. This would be Godwin's Law which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)." This is a bit of humor aimed at people who turn every argument into a moral argument.
I don't do moral arguments. I have done this in the past, but it is an intellectually disingenuous way to argue. The fact is that nothing is good or bad per se in a transcendant sense. This is where people accuse me of nihilism, but nihilism is not a precise way to describe my position. Essentially, because there is no such thing as a God or natural law, there really is no such thing as right or wrong in this ultimate sense. Things can only be right or wrong in a relative sense. I will now explain.
Rape is not morally wrong. Having a woman slice off your penis and balls after the rape is not morally wrong either. This is why I tell people that rape is not a winning strategy. This is because you run a high likelihood of losing your private parts. Throw in social and criminal sanctions, and there you have it.
The reason we behave the way we do is because it makes good sense to us. It contributes to our flourishing and well being. Even theocratic arguments imply this same thing. You shouldn't rape women because God will punish you. What difference does it make if it is God or society or the victim who does the punishing? It makes sense to not rape because it is in your rational self-interest.
The reason God and natural law are invoked is because there are situations where the perpetrator of a crime has a high likelihood of getting away with it. This would be in situations of war, government corruption, being caught in remote areas, being a persecuted minority, etc. If we can convince the powerful that they will be judged for their crimes and suffer divine retribution, they might let us off without hurting us. Unfortunately, powerful people are quite adept at twisting these arguments for their benefit. Kings ruled by divine right. Those rape victims were prostitutes. You are not one of our race, so this makes you an enemy. You are not a member of our religion. Convert or die.
All moral arguments are useless. This is because no gods exist to back them up. This is reality. We all live at the mercy of our fellow human beings. This is a frightening thought. But this fear is a universal fear. The king might claim divine right for his own evil actions, but he also wants to claim it to keep an angry populace from storming his palace and lopping off his head. Today, no ruler claims divine right except maybe in the Middle East. Rulers rule at the mercy of their subjects. They play a dangerous game.
The basis of all morality is reciprocation. We trade. You don't hurt me, and I won't hurt you. In time as people follow this reciprocation, they see the benefits of non-aggression. By trade and mutual respect, they enjoy better lives than if they tried to live by looting and violence. This is not a matter of theology or philosophy but empirical observation. We all seek our well being, and these strategies are the ones that contribute the most to our well being.
At this point, people will say that I am a utilitarian, but this is not correct. Utilitarianism argues for a uniform well being for all people, but this is impossible. Because people are varied, you cannot prescribe for each person what is right or wrong for their well being. In addition, in promoting one person's well being you may decrease another person's well being. The best we can do in this matter is bring it to the common denominators of life, liberty, and property. These are enlightened views that many people cannot grasp. This is why stupid people end up with stupid governments and stupid laws that diminish their well being. This is why tyranny waxes and wanes with the generations like a heaving bellows. It is a constant battle between the enlightened and the belligerent. This is how the USA can abolish slavery and outlaw Jim Crow but loot people's paychecks and violate their Fourth Amendment rights at the airport.
Philosophical libertarians try to argue from a moral framework of first principles. This is merely a variation on natural law. They inevitably endorse an anarchist position because this one is the most consistent position. Then, they become devastating in their arguments in much the same way that leftards and fasctards are so effective in their arguments. This is because it is the same trick. Leftards and fastcards routinely and categorically ignore evidence. This is why after the collapse of the Soviet Union and ample evidence showing the failures of communist and socialist policies, Marxism is still alive and well. This is because of the moral argument. The most atheistic scientifically minded leftard can be as dogmatic and as close minded as any religious fundamentalist.
The same thing is true of philosophical libertarians. This is why they seem to take on the flavor of a religious cult with accusations of statism leveled at libertarians like myself and even Ron Paul. They refuse to vote since this would be a moral compromise with the tyranny of the state. And they look to the future anarchist libertopia in much the same way that Christians look to the Second Coming. Like the Marxists, they see this libertopia as an inevitability much like the worker state Marx envisioned where all class distinctions would vanish. But none of these dreams has any scientific or historical basis. Human history is replete with regressions to savagery and belligerence. There is nothing inevitable about any of these things. Governments and tyrannies can and have lasted for a thousand years or more.
I believe the future could go either way. Things can get better, or they can get worse. What I do know is that moral arguments are not necessarily true arguments. This is why I deal with the cause and effect. What happens when you do one thing and when you do another? This empirical knowledge is ultimately what writes our codes. The Bible says nothing about the dangers of absestos, but science does. Armed with this knowledge, people avoid the shit and sue the hell out of those who make the shit. Similarly, tyranny triumphs because people are ignorant of economics and history. This is why people get upset over climate change but think nothing of massive government deficits and fiat currencies devalued by the day.
The challenge for the libertarian is to try and follow one of two approaches. The first approach is the empirical approach. This involves collecting data, doing studies, and presenting evidence. The other approach is to take a shortcut and rely upon moral arguments based on first principles. This is much easier, yet the evidence speaks for itself. People come away from these moral arguments as if it is a trick. This really pisses them off.
When I make arguments for reducing the size and scope of government, I just go with the facts. These arguments are disarming. Failures of the drug war, foreign intervention, and the like introduce doubts and questioning. When people in Arab countries see evidence on WikiLeaks, they revolt. When others see successes in other countries with their revolutions, they revolt as well. This is because people act to preserve and increase their well being. They respond to facts. Philosophical libertarians argue that voting is immoral because it colludes with the state and its methods. Well, moral arguments are the same thing. This is why governments love secrecy and propaganda and religion. They all short circuit this empirical approach. Denied the information, they go with what they know which is usually whatever they have been told.
People can and do respond to moral arguments and impulses. This can result in many beneficial things such as acts of charity and respect for others. But it causes much harm as well. Actions must be judged by outcomes. Some outcomes can only be achieved by following certain strategies. All of philosophy and morality is essentially the study and practice of strategies. This was the Greek way which was lost in the Christian conquest of Western culture where philosophy, religion, and morality were merged.
To tie this back in to the Facebook fucktard, why was he so desperate to make a moral argument? Why did he want to make hay out my statement in the same way that the media wanted to make hay out of Weiner's dick? Because moral arguments are tyranny. This is a way for those without power to exercise power over those with power. For the media, it just makes for good stories which will titillate their respective audiences. For the philosophical libertarian, winning the moral argument is a way to feel power in a world where he is powerless. By winning a moral argument, he can feel that he is not at living at the whim of his fellow man. There is some higher law that all must obey. But there isn't. Even the anarcho-capitalist presuppose this in their arguments.
There is nothing stopping anarcho-capitalists from forming their own private defense companies and defying the government. This is illegal and will probably result in government aggression. The chances of success in this endeavor are virtually nil. But if they are morally right, why do the consequences matter? Isn't doing anything less a compromise with tyranny? If we follow their arguments to their logical conclusion, if voting is collusion with tyranny then paying taxes is much worse. Taxes actually fund the state while voting does almost nothing except serve as a propaganda that we live in a truly democratic and free society. So, to be logically consistent and morally correct, the philosophical libertarian anarcho-capitalist has a moral duty to defy the state, cease paying taxes, and prepare for armed response. I don't see any of them doing this. This is because they will lose, go to jail, or be killed. This is not a winning strategy.
Like it or not, we live at the whims of our fellow human beings. Our freedom is and always will be dependent upon their enlightenment. Winning a moral debate in a bull session alleviates the suffering and anguish these people feel for a bit. But it changes nothing. There is hope though. There is a final arbiter, but it isn't God, natural law, the US Constitution, the government or We, the People. It is reality. Reality is the ultimate authority. Kings and tyrants of old triumphed, yet they lived lives that were nothing like the poor people of America have today. If they got gonorrhea from one of their diseased whores, they had to watch and cry as their peckers became gangrenous and fell off. Tyranny comes at a price even for the tyrants.
I am a consequentialist. I go with what the evidence tells me. Moral arguments may trick a few people, but they are not based in reality. If people can respond to the lies, it makes sense that they will respond even more to the truth. The truth is hard and difficult. It requires effort and work. Sometimes, we find we are the ones who are mistaken. But the empirical strategy is the winning strategy. The moral strategy is not. Liberty and flourishing depend upon truth and reality not word games and demagoguery.
0 comments:
Post a Comment