Quote from: da2ce7 on December 09, 2012, 12:47:27 AM

Quote from: cunicula on December 08, 2012, 03:56:15 PM

Ugh. Excuse me while I vomit for a while.

Philosophy is also based on faith-based axioms. While that is reprehensible, regular philosophers have an excuse for being jackasses. They study stuff which lacks any real world manifestation. So if you ask them, "why don't you take that to the data?" They can say "gee, we would really like to, but in our field there are no observable data at all."

Firstly, I'm sorry that presenting such ideas makes you ill. As I'm quite healthy; I can only make the assumption that you, cunicula, are sick.

See, this is why you have such a problem with 'libertarians' is that they reject the core of your argument on moral grounds. They unmask you as a sociopath.

You hold a fundamentally incompatible premise:
Aggressive violence is reasonable if it leads to better economic outcomes.

While an Austrian would hold:
No economic outcome is reasonable if it makes use of institutionalised aggressive violence

Since you dont believe in the non-aggression principle; you show that you dont restrict yourself to moral thinking. That you believe that any means is justified by the end.
Being moral is an end in itself. There is no requirement for an economic reason. The philosophy that such an action is moral is enough.

Austrians (and libertarians) do not believe that the end justifies the means! They believe that how you get to an outcome is critically important. They want to create a environment that is healthy, so that good and healthy fruit can be grown.

Yes, I prefer to think for myself rather than restrict myself to your so-called 'moral thinking'. I don't agree with your "axiom" that the "morality" of the means used should be given infinite weight. I don't even agree with your categorization of means into moral and immoral. I would prefer to think freely rather than encumber myself with dogmatic restrictions. My morality is different from yours. It does not admit a God. It does not admit a Natural Law that acts as a stand-in for God. It depends only on my own sentiments and feelings.

That is why I compare you to a theologian. You are telling me what to think. You are telling me what you think is moral and immoral, and you expect me to agree with you. If I disagree with your axioms, then you call me a sociopath. The theologian would call me a heretic. The theologian speaks of forbidden fruit. You speak of healthy and unhealthy fruit. To me they are just fruit. I hate you both passionately.

Though it does not justify my conclusions, it is worth noting that my concept morality is close to that of Adam Smith and thus to the original foundations of economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments Austrians introduced gross perversions into what was once a sound concept of morality. Some people can't resist contaminating everything with theology.