What I will attempt to do in this series is lay out, in the simplest manner I can, the justification for the peaceful and complete abolishment of government as it currently exists. I will show how government is unethical and how every “good” the government accomplishes can be done ethically using the mechanics of the free market.
I am a believer that the definitions of words are very important and that when you use words like government, ethical, free market, etc. a definition is required. I will be defining each of them as they arise in my discussion.
Let me start with a claim: Ethics are subjective.
My support for the above claim:
Just like when defining any word or concept, we must agree on the definition of the word in order to move forward using that word. We must have the same frame of reference or else we would be talking about two separate things. If I see an apple and say that the color of the apple is called “red” and you say that “red” is what the color of the sky is called, then all rational conversations between us about things that are red will and should end in confusion and disagreement. The same can be said of the words good or evil, immoral or moral, ethical or unethical. Even more so as these words and concept are much less concrete than the color of the apple or the sky.
When it comes to “ethics”, I’d say a generally agreeable definition is a set of principles that can and should be applied to human action. These principles being a set of rules that when violated generate an “unethical” action and when adhered to generate an “ethical” action. Now, if that is not your definition of ethics then we disagree on the foundation of this discussion and therefore will disagree on all of our conclusions.
So how do we decided on this “set of rules?” Just like our definition of “red”, we must agree on a definition or categorization of an action as “good” or “bad” – “ethical” or “unethical.” The number of different actions a human can take is vast and is limited only by time and creativity. To create the set of rules, we have to find a common attribute of all actions and determine a binary qualifier so that all actions can be vetted against our qualifier and categorized as “ethical” or “unethical.” The founding of a common attribute and the binary qualifier are subjective decisions made by the individual. Once we determine this attribute and this qualifier we can then make objective decisions about the ethics of an action. If a large amount of people agree with you on this set of ethics, then you are seen as justified in using that attribute and qualifier to form a framework of ethics. For example, most people have subjectively decided that murdering an innocent person is unethical. So much so, that we write and enforce objective laws that determine “guilt” and an enforcement policy against such action. However, the original decision that murder is unethical was a subjective one. This can be extrapolated across all actions. The determination that an action is ethical is a completely subjective decision made by an individual.
In the next article in this series I will attempt to determine a generally agreeable universal attribute and a binary qualifier than can be used to set up a framework of ethics. I will then use this framework to examine actions of individuals and eventually the institution of government. Make sure to follow to see the next article. Comment below to let me know what you think, agree with, disagree with.
As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.
Check out Episode 2 here :
Episode 2
A term I once read that covers consensus terminology and when methods and theories need to overlap to enable collaboration, is "Intersubjectivity". Like agreeing that blue is the name of the colour of the sky, and "wet" means being soaked with or covered in water. And water is that stuff that falls out of the sky from time to time and makes plants grow. And plants are generally green. Darkness is black. etc.
Intersubjectivity is the only reality we can both apprehend and describe and share. So it is fallacious to talk about objectivity. We can only, like a blockchain, share the data, replicate the experiment, and add our confirmation to the chain of data. What it is may be something entirely other, but we cannot describe what we have no words for, and we cannot communicate our description unless others use the same words for experiences that are demonstrably analogous.
Once we use intersubjectivity and we agree on the terms, it is possible to form objective judgments. For instance, say we subjectively decide "wrongs" are punishable in some form. Say we both subjectively agree theft is a "wrong." We can then objectively conclude theft is punishable in some form. As long as the subjective definitions of "wrongs" as punishable offenses and theft as a "wrong" stay the same, the objective conclusion that theft is a punishable offense also remains true.
Take the brain in the vat example. You must either make the subjective decision that what you see is reality and you're not a brain in a vat or not. If you make the subjective decision that what you see is reality then you can make objective decisions about that reality - that killing yourself or others would end your or their perception of reality and that you or they would, in reality, be dead.
Objective is an absolute and that is why there is a need to make a distinction. Democracy works on a basis of consensus also, but without a cost in risk of making a false confirmation, using the blockchain analogy, it is possible to bend the consensus to your benefit. This is why the democracy in a private company is based on stake, and why stake matters here. With no "skin in the game" you can manipulate the consensus without you suffering the results of the manipulation. This cost is externalised.
Reality, by definition, has no absolutes, because you cannot measure them. Absolutes are limits in mathematics, they take infinite confirmations, infinite processing.
I refer you to of Law and equity, specifically his one "sacrifice is the measure of credibility": if you have nothing to lose, your opinion cannot be credibile. This is where the crime of perjury comes in, your evidence must be tested and if it can be shown you deliberately lie to benefit, it is a very serious crime, up there with murder and rape.
I agree. That's why I try to make clear that my "objective" ethical judgments are only "objective" within the framework I have subjectively arrived at through my own personal emotions and values. Consensus merely confirms or denies what I already hold to true within my subjective framework. In the end however if you arrive at a different subjective framework than I do, the "objective" judgments you make within that framework will be different than mine.
So essentially you are correct. Each person arriving at a differing subjective framework, might make differing objective judgments with respect to their framework. So are they really absolute? No. Not outside of their subjective framework.
The points you bring up are exactly why I disagree with Rothbard's assessment that "natural law" is the objective truth (with respect to no framework - just 100% objective and therefore absolute). Self-ownership may or may not be an objective truth (given your conclusion on the brain vat problem) but the value of the sovereignty that comes from self-ownership is a purely subjective argument.
Your points are exactly why I thought it so important to have one whole post dedicated to establishing that all ethical judgments are truly subjective at their core.
Yes, in fact, it goes so far as to the point where a central thinking problem we have in our world comes from the convenience of using absolutes when none can be grabbed onto and held in the real world. But this is not relativism, but rather, consensus building. Once enough confirmations are on the blockchain, the 'truth' is considered to have been recorded.
Looking forward to you developing your premise. Thank you.
Thanks for taking the time to check this out. Much appreciated.