Libertarians Love Homesteading Theory Except If God Exists
I don’t want to link to our comments because nothing he said was unusual, but last week I got into it with a critic here about God violating people’s natural rights. In other words, my critic was claiming that we can use our reason to derive rights that human beings possess, and that’s how we can know it’s wrong to murder, steal, etc. We certainly don’t need a God in order to understand right from wrong. Moreover, my critic continued, the God as described by the Christian Bible (or at least, as vocal Christians today talk about Him) violates such rights all the time, if He actually does the types of things Christians attribute to Him.
I think this is balderdash. If you want to say, “C’mon Murphy, your ‘God’ doesn’t exist, give me a break!” OK I understand that; at least your objection is coherent. But it makes no sense for someone who believes in Rothbardian-type natural rights to say that the Christian God initiates aggression against humans.
If the Christian God exists, then He created everything; He is the author of the entire physical universe, as well as our very souls or essences. He created the very idea of you and me. In this context, it makes sense to say He gave us reason, and using that we can define our natural rights. It would be immoral and a crime for James to shoot Billy out of the blue. However, no matter how Billy dies, there is a sense in which God made that happen. So either God murders no one in a criminal sense, or He murders everyone; but zapping someone at age 31 because he dropped the Ark of the Covenant, instead of zapping the guy’s heart at age 120 because he was a pretty obedient servant all his life, doesn’t really give a reason for libertarians to condemn one and praise the other.
For an analogy: It makes sense to say that Anakin Skywalker committed an atrocity when he wiped out his colleagues. It makes absolutely no sense to say that George Lucas committed an atrocity when he “made” Anakin “choose” to do that.
Look, guys like Walter Block love posing extreme thought experiments to make the point. Suppose some guy creates a new planet out of material that he justly acquired. He owns every molecule on that planet. Then you find yourself on that planet somehow (we’ll be vague on how you got there). Yes, perhaps the guy can’t shoot you. But he can certainly say, “Stop breathing my oxygen and stop standing on my rock. Get off my planet or I’ll evict you.”
Thus he ends up killing you, especially if it turns out he owns the whole physical universe except people’s bodies. And I’m pretty sure the straightforward application of standard libertarian theory says this hypothetical guy who owns the entire non-sentient physical universe, violates no one’s rights if he decides to let them all perish. Depending on the circumstances he’s probably a huge jerk of course, but he’s not violating anybody’s rights.
So if homesteading theory means anything, God arguably owns everything including your body, but for sure He owns every non-sentient thing. Thus He is perfectly within libertarian rights to set whatever rules He wants for our use of His property.
Locke kind of waffled on this point: on one page, he wants to say suicide is forbidden because God owns us, but a bit later, without explanation, we own ourselves.
Agreed. I think the temptation of Jesus in Luke 4 illustrates God’s right to a particular action, but He willfully chooses to exercise His rule in a different, loving manner. I’m very thankful for this characteristic of God, I don’t want to be in a world filled with either divine robots or beaten-down slaves.
@Gene
Yeah, I think the best argument against suicide is not ownership, but ingratitude. Our life (be it pleasant or unpleasant) is what was given to us. To throw it away, is like a [metaphorical] slap in God’s face; essentially saying, “Not good enough for me.”
Admittedly this is easier to say when you are reasonably healthy and happy, but even if you were in pain and miserable, to “quit” is to place your will above His. I believe Cicero made a pre-Christian ingratitude/resignation to divine will argument in the Dream of Scipio.
Personally, my understanding is that human rights (self-ownership, etc.) stem from the nature of human beings as actors (not merely argumentation, as Hoppe argued) – and am working on formulating a formal logical argument for this.
But a significant part, and something I have never seen really acknowledged, is the nature of *uncertainty* with regard to moral judgment. Part of my argument (as currently formulated in my head – so I reserve the right to change my mind) regarding the NAP is that action can be taken to prevent immoral action – but that action, outside of the violation of self-ownership and homesteading, cannot be (or at least has not been yet) definitively shown to be immoral by human beings. As such, human beings must refrain from acting to prevent supposedly immoral action when there is this uncertainty in intersubjective determination (i.e. no rational argument can be made to prove the immorality of an action). God, on the other hand, does not suffer from uncertainty about the future or the morality of action, as an omniscient being that exists outside of time.
Hmm, i just finished listening to one of you talks about the recession and the depression. The gist of your talk was how would the economy have to look for Keynesians to admit they were wrong. So my question is how would a world have to look like for you to conclude that their was no intelligent design? I’ll outsource the unintelligent design of the universe we live to
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Wow I vaguely disliked that guy before, now I’m really sure. I realize I’m not giving you a good answer.
I agree. Thank God there was a lecture on Banking by a Dr. … (making sure I get this right – it says,) Murphy posted by a “misesmedia” in my “Recommended” sidebar.
Not following you Matt Tanous. There are tons of things I could say about NdGT’s commentary, but I’m swamped. So I was at least admitting to Adrianc92 that I wasn’t giving him a good answer.
Ah, sorry. I meant I was agreeing with you when you said “I vaguely disliked that guy before, now I’m really sure.”
I only got a minute into the commentary there before I couldn’t take it anymore. The very obvious point that only *part* of a design actually does what the design is for seemed to completely be ignored. I might as well criticize the design of the iPhone because only the screen tells me things – there are all those parts that don’t display anything, and if I try to use them directly, they don’t help me at all!
Here’s Neil deGrasse Tyson at least partially contradicting himself. Starting at 7:24 of his “sermon” he states that he “basks in the majesty of the cosmos.” Doesn’t sound like “stupid design” to me.
In a slightly different objection to your critic, we could also say that God is not a human individual and therefore he cannot violate an individual’s rights. It’s much like saying a dog ‘aggressed’ against a human and violated his rights when it attacked him. But the non-aggression principle is not a principle between dogs and humans nor Gods and humans, but between humans and humans.
What about the atheist libertarian natural rights proponent who holds that should a human ever create from scratch a sentient species that has the ability to reason, that the human creator ought not claim ownership over either that sentient species’ body or their productions, trades, and original appropriations?
If an atheist libertarian natural rights proponent is aghast at the prospect of a human declaring themselves owner over an entity with reason, even if said entity is the creation of the human, then isn’t it the case that the atheist libertarian is not being inconsistent if they say “Your God violates people’s natural rights”?
Make it extreme. Ask the atheist libertarian natural rights proponent if a human that clones another human has ownership over that cloned human as well as everything that cloned human creates. My guess is that 99.99% of those asked, the atheist libertarian will say the clone has natural rights, because they have reason, which is the attribute that underlies the entire Rothbardian schema. Of course, the egoist will say that the atheist libertarian’s natural rights doctrine is another attempt to make a concept absolute over the Ego, under which all Egos are to obey, in the same way that a theist believes all Egos are to be under God, and obey God’s commandments.
Couldn’t a theist libertarian say “While God created everything, God forfeited his ownership rights over a portion of His (former) property as soon as he created animals with reason”, and not contradict his faith?
If so, then the atheist libertarian would have to add another component to the list of what legitimizes a human’s property claim over a good: “Original appropriation, production, trade…..and oh, the good also cannot have reason.” LOL
————————–
You wrote:
“However, no matter how Billy dies, there is a sense in which God made that happen.”
This “there is a sense” is somewhat of a cop-out, isn’t it? An attempt to reconcile your faith that God is the supreme Ego, with your Earthly conviction that you have an Ego? You won’t say God strictly determines your actions, because that would eliminate your Ego. Similarly, you won’t say you strictly determine your actions, because that would eliminate God’s Ego.
Choices choices! Who has this unique Ego concept that you can’t shake yourself from? Why does it persist?
The immoral disgusting Earthly egoist, while you may abhor them, or weep for them, at least they do not have to reconcile mutually exclusive “senses”. They hold that their Egos are unique and not separable. There is the Ego and there is the non-Ego. Period. They hold that if God exists, then God exists in the non-Ego, and if God has His own Ego, then God has an Ego that only extends as far as the Earthly human Ego extends, and no further. In other words, the egoist does not believe that God’s Ego is all, which is to say the egoist believes that “God” is not God, but a mental spook of egoists. To the acknowledged egoist, “there is no sense” in which God determines the egoist’s actions. The egoist takes full, 100% responsibility for everything he does and thinks. He doesn’t try to escape his own Ego and think “there is a sense” in which that Ego concept rests with a God.
Egos are not separable. They are unitary. Either you have an Ego, or you don’t. Either God has an Ego, or He doesn’t. In egoism, there is no requirement to reconcile two mutually exclusive notions and couch them in a “there is a sense” holding of both as true.
that the human creator ought not claim ownership over either that sentient species’ body or their productions, trades, and original appropriations?
Egoist I can’t tell if you are advancing that view, or are bringing it up to knock it down.
Anyway, even if this is what we think (and it’s plausible), it doesn’t change the conclusion of my post. There is nothing humans can make that they did with previously unowned materials. There are no original appropriations that are physically possible if the God of the Bible exists. Any material you used, necessarily was God’s property.
Egoist I can’t tell if you are advancing that view, or are bringing it up to knock it down.
Just bringing it up because there are natural rights proponents who believe it, that’s all.
Anyway, even if this is what we think (and it’s plausible), it doesn’t change the conclusion of my post. There is nothing humans can make that they did with previously unowned materials. There are no original appropriations that are physically possible if the God of the Bible exists. Any material you used, necessarily was God’s property.
OK, that’s fair. I get what you are saying. You are saying that if the atheist libertarian says “God violates people’s property rights”, then they are introducing God into the discussion, and if they introduce God into the discussion, then they are intellectually obligated to accept that God owns everything. So saying “God violates people’s property rights” is illogical. It would be tantamount to saying “God violates His own property rights.”
OK, but what about me “using” my body material?
If you are going to be consistent, then you will have to say that because God created all material (and God owns His created materials) that he necessarily owns the material that makes up my body. God would have to own the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, iron, and everything else that my body is made of (without which I wouldn’t exist). My usage of my body is insufficient to making my body my property.
In other words, you would have to say that no human is the legitimate owner of anything, since everything is the property of God, and at most all I can be is a sort of steward or caretaker.
——————–
What then would you say to a Christian who claims God wants communism, and he cites me passages in the Bible that are consistent with that claim, and I now have to respond to him, and I am standing ready to use force if he does not obey MY commands?
There was a period of time, spanning hundreds of years, that communist ideology came to the world in the form of a theistic millennial creed. What could the anarcho-capitalist theist do?
“There was a period of time, spanning hundreds of years, that communist ideology came to the world in the form of a theistic millennial creed. What could the anarcho-capitalist theist do?”
First, point out the complete vacancy of actual theological evidence that this was true – to the point where even Rothbard, as an atheist, recognized such doctrine as heretical and contrary to the Biblical statements.
Second, point to the fallacy of using force to resolve apparent disputes over the teachings of a religion in which the holy figure is referred to as the Prince of Peace.
First, point out the complete vacancy of actual theological evidence that this was true – to the point where even Rothbard, as an atheist, recognized such doctrine as heretical and contrary to the Biblical statements.
Point out where Rothbard argued that such doctrines are contrary to the Bible. Heresy against the establishments priests is not necessarily anti-Bible. See Luther.
Second, point to the fallacy of using force to resolve apparent disputes over the teachings of a religion in which the holy figure is referred to as the Prince of Peace.
The Prince pf Peace who came with a sword, and who said he came to put father against son, mother against daughter?
Having a name of something something of Peace, does not mean one is actually peaceful. Many communists claim that they are against personal violence, and believe that squatting or confiscating someone else production against their will is not violent. To them, things become violent when the owner uses bodily force to stop the communists. Not saying they’re right, just saying that’s what many of them believe.
“Point out where Rothbard argued that such doctrines are contrary to the Bible. ”
Rothbard pointed out many times in his criticism of early Communists that their beliefs were contrary to the Bible, both by being antithetical to the individualistic ideal of salvation contained therein and, in some cases, declaring that some men *became* God to lead a wonderful bit of communism in the “third age of the Holy Spirit”.
“The Prince pf Peace who came with a sword, and who said he came to put father against son, mother against daughter?”
What else will you take literally, even though it is obviously metaphor? The parable of the mustard seed, perhaps?
Rothbard pointed out many times in his criticism of early Communists that their beliefs were contrary to the Bible, both by being antithetical to the individualistic ideal of salvation contained therein and, in some cases, declaring that some men *became* God to lead a wonderful bit of communism in the “third age of the Holy Spirit”.
Point out where Rothbard argued that such doctrines are contrary to the Bible.
What else will you take literally, even though it is obviously metaphor? The parable of the mustard seed, perhaps?
The Bible is only metaphorical in the parts that contradicts your interpretation of it.
“The Bible is only metaphorical in the parts that contradicts your interpretation of it.”
Yes, Jesus literally came with a sword. As an infant, coming out of the womb, he carried a sword in his hand. That just goes unmentioned until this later point because it’s so *obvious*.
It is not hard to tell metaphor from literal statement as long as you aren’t absolutely nuts.
“Point out where Rothbard argued that such doctrines are contrary to the Bible.”
Where in the Bible does it proclaim that ordinary men will “become God”, lead a charge to save “the elect”, and then get hacked to pieces?
Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that God doesn’t really exist. It’s just that persons belief.
Bob, what is the libertarian view of parents’ rights as regards children? And can’t God be considered a universal parent?
Keshav there are arguments about it, but Rothbard’s position was pretty hardcore (and followed straightforwardly from the rest of his system). The parent didn’t own the body of the child, but had no legal right to care for him/her.
What’s your personal view as a libertarian?
‘Thus he ends up killing you, especially if it turns out he owns the whole physical universe except people’s bodies. And I’m pretty sure the straightforward application of standard libertarian theory says this hypothetical guy who owns the entire non-sentient physical universe, violates no one’s rights if he decides to let them all perish. Depending on the circumstances he’s probably a huge jerk of course, but he’s not violating anybody’s rights.”
Doesn’t this statement show how absurd a libertarian ethic based upon natural rights and homesteading is ? An ethic that says its ok to kill people as long as you happen to have a certain set of property rights “assigned” to you is bizarre.
If it is “killing” someone to let them die without helping them, then you, I, and everyone else on the planet “kill” people every day. I think such a definition is the real absurdity.
I agree that the side-effects of our daily action may be at the margin have serious consequences (including death in an extreme case) for others.
I don’t see how this fact would lead us to conclude that therefore its OK for us to allow others to die just because we deem ourselves to have “property rights” over resources that are needed to keep them alive.
I don’t see how this fact would lead us to conclude that therefore its OK for us to allow others to die just because we deem ourselves to have “property rights” over resources that are needed to keep them alive.
Matt’s point is: *you yourself* are doing that every day.
I don’t see how this fact would lead us to conclude that therefore its OK for us to allow others to die just because we deem ourselves to have “property rights” over resources that are needed to keep them alive.
Is there a legal or ethical framework out there that would not ‘allow others to die’ because of the way goods are allocated?
I can’t think of one. No matter what system you have, goods are scarce. Some person or some group is going to have make a decision over who gets what goods and when, an therefore who lives and who dies.
You could certainly argue the natural rights ethic leads to injustice, or a bad outcome, but I don’t see how you could say it is unjust simply because it will “allow others to die.”
I agree that all societies must have a system of allocating scarce resources and this system will indeed sometimes determine who lives and who dies.
History seems to show that societies based upon clearly defined private property rights have been sustainable and successful.
However I think it is an extreme position to say that the right to “own” private property gives the owner unbounded rights over that property. If “private property rights” was being used to justify the avoidable deaths of humans then I think limitations on those property rights would be ethically justified.
TXer,
Ok, but it still strikes me that any system that recognizes some degree of individual property rights will be subject to your critique “that its ok to kill people as long as you happen to have a certain set of property rights “assigned” to you.” By that logic alone, individual property rights at some point go out the window.
I think this is why the ‘natural right’ ethic is attractive despite its sometimes ‘extreme’ conclusions. It provides a defense of where the line is drawn.
Of course there may be other robust consequentialist or even deontological arguments that ‘limit’ property rights more ‘equitably’. But, like the natural right ethic, I think they would have to show where that limit on individual property rights can’t be crossed, even to prevent an ‘avoidable’ death.
RPM:
Not really. I don’t think God makes rather than allowing it to happen. I think your reasoning is flawed there cause of your rigid (and incorrect in my opinion) view of time and by extension your view of free will.
I wonder what your view is of the world after the last judgement when the heavens and earth will be transformed into the heavenly realm where there will be no death or evil. Does God have like software program for everyone that makes peoples decisions for them till infinity time?
P.S. One thing that I think will be a problem that will clash with Austrian economics is your view of free will (at least the impression I get of it).
“I don’t think God makes rather than allowing it to happen.”
God created a universe in which human beings will inevitably die. He could have made a universe in which they lived forever. (Arguably, initially He did, and introduced death as a result of Adam and Eve’s actions in the Garden.) Either way, He caused there to be death in general, and thus caused Billy to die eventually.
However, I don’t view this as any more wrong than giving you a gadget, knowing that it will eventually break, as if God exists so does the soul separate from the body. And this I think is the really powerful critique here – that God is not “killing” people in the sense of eliminating their existence. Death in the Christian understanding is not the same as the atheist’s conception of it.
In the Orthodox Church belief, and many other Christian church beliefs, there will be a judgement and the everlasting life in this world it being transformed. This is different from current death followed by a temporary existence heaven.
Besides all that there are current life extension medications that extend life. It’s unknown by how much yet but some people expect to live to 150, 200, or 1000 years with current+upcoming medicines.
” if it turns out he owns the whole physical universe except people’s bodies.”
This seems pretty imprecise. Atoms are exchanged constantly. Your body will be very different in a week if you look at which atoms are in and which are out. So what do you own, when? If he can deny you ‘his’ oxygen why not ‘his’ other atoms.
Argument of the beard (continuum fallacy)
Actually it’s the reverse. Bob needs to grapple with and define this to talk about property rights in the body but not in the air you breathe. He wants a SHARP distinction when only a gradation exists.
The gradation only exists at a level beyond human comprehension, and thus not really at all. Your argument would be on par with arguing that the screen of a video game is displaying a blur of nothingness, since the apparent sharp distinctions between objects and characters is really just a gradation of different pixels when you get zoomed in really far.
You complained of the imprecision, as if that rebuts Murphy.
“but zapping someone at age 31 because he dropped the Ark of the Covenant, instead of zapping the guy’s heart at age 120 because he was a pretty obedient servant all his life, doesn’t really give a reason for libertarians to condemn one and praise the other.”
Yep. Which is why a consistent person would maintain that both instances are murder (even if one is more lamentable).
“Then you find yourself on that planet somehow (we’ll be vague on how you got there). Yes, perhaps the guy can’t shoot you. But he can certainly say, “Stop breathing my oxygen and stop standing on my rock. Get off my planet or I’ll evict you.””
No. How he got there is the most important part. If he chose to be there and didn’t take out a breathing-contract with Block, then sure, he dies without issue. But if Block engineered him from molecules that he owned, Block doesn’t come to own that person any more than parents can own their children.
The most consistent position I can think of is that it is unlibertarian to create another life in the first place. It’s a non-consensual use of another person. And yes, I am aware that this viewpoint is likely to be extremely unpopular due to everyone’s status quo bias that it’s okay to have children.
.
“Thus he ends up killing you, especially if it turns out he owns the whole physical universe except people’s bodies. And I’m pretty sure the straightforward application of standard libertarian theory says this hypothetical guy who owns the entire non-sentient physical universe, violates no one’s rights if he decides to let them all perish.”
There’s a difference between letting someone perish and proactively striking them with a lightening bolt. But sure.
“Depending on the circumstances he’s probably a huge jerk of course, but he’s not violating anybody’s rights.”
So what would make you say “Our God is a jerk”?
“So if homesteading theory means anything, God arguably owns everything including your body, but for sure He owns every non-sentient thing”
Under normal libertarian theory, you can’t use someone else’s property unless they give you permission. And then when there’s a conflict over said property, there’s no “first owner” card. The appeal goes straight to the original owner, who in this case is very difficult to call into court. So if you’re Christian I don’t see how you resolve property rights disputes.
“But if Block engineered him from molecules that he owned, Block doesn’t come to own that person any more than parents can own their children. ”
Fine. But Block can still evict him from what he still owns – the rest of the bloody universe, and everything in it.
“status quo bias that it’s okay to have children.”
Yeah, that’s it. “Bias”. Because there is totally a rational viewpoint that extinction of the species is sensible. ಠ_ಠ
“There’s a difference between letting someone perish and proactively striking them with a lightening bolt.”
Not when you are the Architect of the natural forces that cause someone to perish absent the lightning bolt. Although, technically the lightning bolt is part of the natural forces that just happen to cause the perishing that one “lets” happen.
“So if you’re Christian I don’t see how you resolve property rights disputes.”
The disputes are not then over complete ownership, but in fact stewardship (earthly ownership). The problem you pose does not in reality exist.
“Fine. But Block can still evict him from what he still owns – the rest of the bloody universe, and everything in it.”
If Block has done nothing wrong, yes. If Block has committed a crime against the person, then no. It matters how he got there.
“Because there is totally a rational viewpoint that extinction of the species is sensible. ಠ_ಠ”
Nope. There’s no metaphysical law that says human reproduction has to be libertarian.
“Not when you are the Architect of the natural forces that cause someone to perish absent the lightning bolt.”
Yeah it depends if you think God just set the universe in motion, or if he planned out and micromanaged and is responsible for every single event. I think Bob subscribes to the latter.
“The disputes are not then over complete ownership, but in fact stewardship (earthly ownership). The problem you pose does not in reality exist.”
There’s no basis for making this distinction, nor thinking that stewardship rights would trump God’s property rights.
And God does have earthly ownership over his stuff. That’s what it means when Bob says God owns the earth.
“It matters how he got there.”
No, it doesn’t. Unless he was forcibly taken from Point A to Point B – and being created at Point B doesn’t count – it is of no relevance.
“There’s no metaphysical law that says human reproduction has to be libertarian.”
Except it is, and there is no rational argument for it to not be. Creation of an individual cannot violate the rights of that person – they do not yet exist until after the act of creation.
“Yeah it depends if you think God just set the universe in motion, or if he planned out and micromanaged and is responsible for every single event.”
No, it doesn’t. In either case, the option existed for the creation of a universe without death, and that option was rejected. Thus, all death was preordained, at least in the sense that God could have avoided it and chose not to.
“There’s no basis for making this distinction, nor thinking that stewardship rights would trump God’s property rights.”
It is the only rational idea that exists here. If we presume God owns everything, and God cannot be reached, then there must be a way to determine who “stands in” for God in the use of resources – who is the steward of this subset of the earth.
“And God does have earthly ownership over his stuff.”
Right. It’s not me typing on this computer, but God exerting His earthly ownership. Or, it’s totally possible that you completely ignored what I meant by the term and its distinction from complete (or ultimate) ownership.
“No, it doesn’t. Unless he was forcibly taken from Point A to Point B – and being created at Point B doesn’t count – it is of no relevance.”
Being created by what? By natural processes? Sure. By Block’s own designs? Different story.
“Except it is, and there is no rational argument for it to not be.”
Uhhh really? Because reproduction works according to the rules of biology. What if biology said we can only reproduce if the female bites the male’s head off (spiders)? Or if the male chases down and forces himself on the female (lions, IIRC)? It is easily possible to imagine non-libertarian procreation patterns.
“Creation of an individual cannot violate the rights of that person – they do not yet exist until after the act of creation.”
It can violate their rights immediately after the fact. You’re forcing someone else to live, breath, and experience.
And this is different, say, than if we were biologically wired to simply “grow” another human every 10 years or something. That is passive, and there can be no blame for it. So it’s entirely possible for there to be libertarian procreation. The question is whether active procreation is libertarian.
“No, it doesn’t. In either case, the option existed for the creation of a universe without death, and that option was rejected. Thus, all death was preordained, at least in the sense that God could have avoided it and chose not to.”
Look, I’m just telling you what some christians believe. Whether or not it is consistent… well…
“It is the only rational idea that exists here. If we presume God owns everything, and God cannot be reached, then there must be a way to determine who “stands in” for God in the use of resources – who is the steward of this subset of the earth.”
No. If you come to a plot of land, know it is owned, but cannot contact the owner, you don’t get to do whatever you want with it.
“Right. It’s not me typing on this computer, but God exerting His earthly ownership. Or, it’s totally possible that you completely ignored what I meant by the term and its distinction from complete (or ultimate) ownership.”
Did you mean that you have to be physically present in order to “earthly” own something?
“Being created by what? By natural processes? Sure. By Block’s own designs? Different story.”
Nonsense. Block’s action ceases before the point of creation. It does not matter that Block created this person – at most this means he can only evict them. Which means they would die anyway.
“It is easily possible to imagine non-libertarian procreation patterns.”
So? None of them apply. And they cannot apply to a being that is a purposeful actor, such as man, who can choose, as all of those are instinctual and unnecessary to the actual reproductive act.
“If you come to a plot of land, know it is owned, but cannot contact the owner, you don’t get to do whatever you want with it.”
Except the owner has left a little note, in all understandings of his existence, that says human beings are to steward his creation. You cannot accept the existence of God without accepting some religion – all of which include some sort of a command to “fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” The only question here is “which one of us is to subdue this particular *part*?”
“Did you mean that you have to be physically present in order to “earthly” own something?”
No. I meant that even if I, as an earthly being, “own” a thing, and do with it what I will, God – at all times – has the power to prevent me, and chooses not to. Thus, He has the ultimate ownership, and my “ownership” is more a revocable stewardship when the existence of God is taken into account – but a stewardship only revocable by God.
“Nonsense. Block’s action ceases before the point of creation.”
Err, you keep talking past me. I’m don’t mean to consider if life grew naturally on the planet after Block created it, but if he intentionally bio-engineered life (like God).
“So? None of them apply.”
Apply to what? You were trying to argue that there’s no “rational” reason for reproduction not to be libertarian. Except… all those examples.
“as all of those are instinctual and unnecessary to the actual reproductive act”
Actually, in the lion example, the female simply doesn’t ovulate if she can’t be chased down… Just stop trying to weasel out of the fact that it is possible for reproduction to be unlibertarian (if only by biological accident).
“Except the owner has left a little note, in all understandings of his existence, that says human beings are to steward his creation.”
And “steward” is completely vague. So what do you do when you have a dispute over property if you aren’t the true owner?
“You cannot accept the existence of God without accepting some religion”
Are you HIGH? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
“I meant that even if I, as an earthly being, “own” a thing, and do with it what I will, God – at all times – has the power to prevent me, and chooses not to. Thus, He has the ultimate ownership, and my”
Might makes right huh? No. You’re switching tracts. God is supposed to own everything because he “created” it, not because he can kill you with a thought.
Hmmm, by implication it is OK to consign future generations to debt, because we can’t violate their rights until after they start to exist. I’m not entirely comfortable with that implication, but the simple fact is that you can’t jump forward in time to ask permission so any system of “natural rights” that requires impossible actions is a useless system and not worth considering.
“Hmmm, by implication it is OK to consign future generations to debt, because we can’t violate their rights until after they start to exist.”
I don’t think so. There is a delimitation here between the cases. The act of creation ceases at the moment of creation. The act of borrowing from future generations doesn’t actually end until the debt is repaid. Creation involves the rearrangement of matter, which just happens to later become a human being. I don’t think they really are so similar.
^Oh, this is me btw. I switched web-browsers and it blanked my name/e-mail.
I still like you!
Oh I like you.
if god exists, as machiavelli says he’s a tyrant
Bob is making Hitch’s point: it’s *good* there is no god.
Because eternity spent in bliss would be such a drag?
And now he’s making Hitch’s other point that god really does not exist! It’s a simple reductio based on an all-good all-powerful god denying anyone bliss.
God must not exist, because He hasn’t designed the universe and eternity the way Ken B. or Christopher Hitchens would have. They have all the relevant information and value system to make that call.
Actually we do. If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, he should not let children die in agony. Simple. Simple does not mean easy Bob. I wish there was a god. In that I differ from Hitch. But I’m glad there is no Allah or Old Testmament Yahweh, or any other, senile, capricious, hate-addled ‘jealous god’.
“If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, he should not let children die in agony. Simple.”
Simplistic is more like it. Screw free will and decision making in imperfection. God’s all powerful, right? And if I can’t understand why certain bad things might be allowed to happen, then clearly they disprove God’s existence.
Ken when you said “and now he’s making Hitchens’ point that it’s good god doesn’t exist” I thought you were endorsing the point. You meant, “But both Hitchens and this guy are crazy for saying this, so I’ve got your back here Bob”?
Actually it disproves the existence of an all-good God, which was Ken B’s point.
Ken, suppose an individual thinks it is good if another individual lets babies die, because he thinks it is good if an individual values his own interests that just so happen to be doing something other than saving babies from death.
If God lets babies die, then to this individual, God is good.
On a side note, wasn’t Jesus spending time lecturing people instead of healing dying babies?
I know all the excuses: maybe they don’t feel it; maybe they deserve it; maybe it stimulates their unused capacity and has a high multiplier. But if you cannot apply logic to thinking about god, why think about him at all?
“I know all the excuses”
Conveniently leaving off the fact that most of it is caused by human beings, and to cancel this would be to eliminate the very purported reason for the creation of humanity as a being that possesses individual free will.
The loving parent argument is the most obvious here.
That’s the best part Matt. I only need one example in all of history. I cite that baby girl chewed by wolves in the vicinity of the Loire valley in 12,000 BC.
I cite that baby girl chewed by wolves in the vicinity of the Loire valley in 12,000 BC.
You have to go back that far to find a human killed by nature?
Ken if every human lived to be 500 years old, doing nothing during his life but eating sumptuous meals and drinking fine wine, those people would complain about the one girl who broke a nail that one time. How would a loving God allow such an atrocity?
It is hilarious that you are pointing to a girl chewed by wolves as something no God would allow, but don’t realize that Marie Curie also died and hence is “proof” that God must not love her. You don’t think Marie Curie dealt with a lot of hardship during her life? Atheism FTW. You don’t need to go back to 12,000 BC if suffering is proof against God.
Irony challenged today Bob? Your litotes recepetors gummed up with debris from DK’s bombs perhaps? I mean get real. What girl — as an example to cite — can I possibly mean. I thought I used a trowel!
Tannous was saying ‘most’ suffering was caused by humans, as if that answered my point. I pointed out that I only needed one example logically. Hence the rhetorical flourish.
“Tannous was saying ‘most’ suffering was caused by humans, as if that answered my point. I pointed out that I only needed one example logically. Hence the rhetorical flourish.”
Alright, let’s limit it to only that suffering and death caused by nature, with no cause by the actions of men whatsoever. I fail to see how this “disproves” the existence of God. You are, at a minimum, ignoring the possibility that enduring some suffering or death at time T1 actually saves the person from a worse suffering/death at time T2 – something only an omniscient God would know. And the idea that suffering and death are brought into the world to teach fallen and sinful man certain lessons.
My point was far more broad than you think. In general, what you write off as excuses are merely reasons that YOU, as a single human being, don’t think are sufficient. But who the hell are you to make that judgment – some kind of perfectly moral, all-knowing being?
If the Christian God exists, then he would be sufficiently powerful to have made everyone obedient slaves if he wished to do so. The fact that he voluntarily chose not to do this, implies that he has relinquished any property rights over us. You may decide you want to be God’s willing servant, but that’s not slavery because you can change your mind about that any time.
The problem with homesteading theory is not God, but the historical record. Every patch of Earth has several iterations of claimants, each driven out by the next. In a place like Europe it probably goes a dozen levels deep. If you wanted to really support the idea of natural rights you would need to track down every peasant farmer who was driven from his land by war or tyranny and give them back what they had — completely impossible of course and never going to happen.
“Every patch of Earth has several iterations of claimants”
Every single one? Even the ones where no human has ever really been?
I disagree that you have to sort out the proper owners for all the cases. I think it enough to search for a proper heir to land that we know was stolen and remained in the hands of the thieves, while strictly applying the natural rights system towards the future.
Hmm. Maybe natural rights are only applicable to Antarctica. Worth checking out Matt.
Oh lots of nations already claim Antarctica. Not many people want to live there but Japan claims the right to pull whales out of the nearby water, something Australia and New Zealand dispute.
Point about homesteading is why shouldn’t I claim that some resource waaaaaaaay over there is part of my little homestead? I bagsied it, so it must be mine right? Who could say my claim is weaker than anyone else’s?
What I’m getting at is the only time you have worthwhile property rights is either [A] a massive military force decides to police those rights or [B] a general agreement exists by which all parties lay down the rules and keep an eye on each other to follow those rules. Perhaps some blend of the two happens in practice.
I hold Robert P. Murphy as a laboratory model of the human capacity for compartmentalization.
Confronted with the absurdity that an anthropomorphic fiction might own and dispose of something, including people, the otherwise intelligent Mr. Murphy triumphantly sticks out his tongue and proclaims that he will maintain the contradiction.
Fine. This works as long as the faith compartment doesn’t rub up against the reason compartment.
But, alas, the compartments do rub up against each other. The Great Sky Father issues his commands (try to obey the frankly murderous commands of Deuteronomy 13, o ye faithful) and the little pigeonhole of reason scurries to temporize, equivocate, and otherwise besmog the clear light of the mind. And it shrinks. And squeaks with the voice of a mouse….
“Murphy triumphantly sticks out his tongue and proclaims that he will maintain the contradiction.”
Yep. Bob demands a plenary exemption from logic for god-talk. He expresses this demand in several ways. “With faith all is possible” is one. Or sneering that those of us who point out contradictions are pretending we know enough to judge god and his eternal plan. (Actually we are judging opinions about god.)
Just to clarify, and to give the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church its due…
There is no doubt that a great number of people will cling to superstition for many years to come. Yet superstition will pass. In this the Catholic Church has a leading maieutic role to play. Those who cannot help themselves in their belief must be directed to this beautiful institution which will keep them muzzled and on a short leash until the crack that it has opened to reason at last shatters the rock of Rome.
As I elaborate here:
http://www.chineseimperium.com/essaysPending/CatholicArchitectonics.htm