"Freedom means freedom: not necessity, but choice; not responsibility, but the choice between responsibility and irresponsibility; not duty, but the choice between accepting and rejecting duty; not virtue, but the choice between virtue and vice."
--Frank Meyer, In Defense of Freedom, 1962

Meyer has incorrectly defined freedom. Freedom is not mere choice. The proper end of freedom is the good, and therefore, a choice for vice is a corruption of freedom.

Yes, and Meyer's just using the word "freedom" to talk about what we would more carefully term "license." As much as I resist going the Kantian route, I'll still say that contemporary man would be well served by a good Kantian kick in the pants. *Human* freedom means being able to choose the (comparatively very narrow) path that reason dictates.

I thought we had freedom under the law?

Limited freedom made a virtue simply because we also have the equal protection of the law as well as the limitations.

"The good" is a subjective and incalcuable concept. Because there is no way to calculate what makes other human beings happy, or what will create the most happiness, the only way to ensure justice is to protect Negative Liberty- by refraining from regulation of personal actions.

The fundamental flaw of a conservatism that seeks to establish itself through government intervention-is that the conservatives in question equate their own wants-and what makes them happy-with universal, fundamental truths, that apply to all human beings, and then seek to enforce them through forcible coercion.

Of course, if the conservatives were correct, and their wants and needs were universael wants and needs, they would not need to appeal to forcible coercion in the first place.

So of course, what Ralph's assertion really comes down to-since "the good" is such a subjective and unmeasurable idea, is that freedom really only means the freedom to do things Ralph approves of.

Ben-T, don't pick this fight w/ Ralph. Just a friendly warning.

Unless Ralph has come up with a way to empirically verify measure, his argument rests on sands.

In fact, it does even if he has, because he suggests the state has the right to coerce, through force, people into being happy.

empirically verify and measure happiness*

Side 1 of BenT's mouth: The good is "subjective," so we cannot base political ideas on it.

Side 2 of BenT's mouth: The good is the maximization of what makes people "happy."

Reflection Questions: Is making people happy the good/goal of politics? Is it measurable and "calcuable" and empirically verifiable? Is only the empirically verifiable and measurable true?

Ralph: a choice for the bad is still an exercise of freedom though, isn't it? Unless Meyer goes on to say that freedom (and not the good) is what we want for itself, then I don't see any problem with what he says.

Skeptic,

It's still freedom, it seems to me, in the sense that the National League is still baseball, i.e., in a degenerate sense (sorry, Brian, I couldn't resist).

Ben-T,

In addition to Skeptic's, I have a few questions of my own.

(1) So there are no activities that are bad for people, if they believe them to be good for themselves?

(2) It's impossible for me to tell what makes other people, or people generally, happy? (I'll have to tell that to my wife the next time I forget our anniversary.)

(3) What does justice have to do with happiness, i.e., why is justice worth ensuring?

"Of course, if the conservatives were correct, and their wants and needs were universal wants and needs, they would not need to appeal to forcible coercion in the first place."
(4) Really? People never choose something contrary to their needs? People never want something that will make them unhappy? Do you have children?

"[Ralph] suggests the state has the right to coerce, through force, people into being happy."
(5) What do you suppose the purpose of law is?

At root, your objections are simply a crude sort of relativism: People disagree, therefore, there is no truth. I foolishly believe that, if two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong. And objective rights and wrongs aren't the kinds of things that are in principle unknowable.

"Side 1 of BenT's mouth: The good is "subjective," so we cannot base political ideas on it." -Ralph

Actually I said that what makes people happy is subjective. What you mean by "The Good" is what you think would create the most happiness, or at least what would make you the most happy.

"It's impossible for me to tell what makes other people, or people generally, happy? (I'll have to tell that to my wife the next time I forget our anniversary.)" -Ralph

Changed the context. You are referring here to your personal relations with others (a liberty view of happiness). Before you referred to government legislation (a coercive view of happiness).

"What does justice have to do with happiness, i.e., why is justice worth ensuring?" -Ralph

What is justice? Did you come up with a way to measure it? If so, can you send me a link to the studies you did, with the methodology? I'd be very interested.

Until then, justice is each individual pursuing his or her own happiness within his or her rights, so long as she does not infringe on the rights of any others. This is the optimal view of justice, becauser no forced coercion needs to take place, and as such it is the one that is most respective of individuals as ends unto themselves. It is the only view of justice that ensures that all are treated with equal concern and respect.

"Really? People never choose something contrary to their needs? People never want something that will make them unhappy? Do you have children?" -Ralph

I'm not sure where your going with this. In my system, people are free to do however they wish, whether it will make them happy or not, because everybody is treated with equal concern and respect.

In a conservatism that advocates coercion, people are unfree to do as they wish, so if they are not the best judge of what is best for them, there has to be some better judge, to justify the forced coercion.

But as you point out, human beings often want things that don't result in their happiness. So surely, if none of us is competent enough to well manage our own lives, none among us is competent enough to well manage ALL our lives.

"What do you suppose the purpose of law is?" -Ralph

The only valid purpose of law is to protect people's immediate rights from being infringed upon. Any more extensive law is inherently unjust, because it assumes that some people are worthy of a greater amount of concern and respect than others.

"At root, your objections are simply a crude sort of relativism: People disagree, therefore, there is no truth. I foolishly believe that, if two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong. And objective rights and wrongs aren't the kinds of things that are in principle unknowable." -Ralph

Whether or not one of them is wrong is irrelevant. Your claim isn't that one of them is wrong and one is right, I would fully agree with that. Your claim is that one of them, assuming he is right, should be able to forcibly coerce the other into doing as he wishes. There isn't any reason to believe that the one who is right and the one who holds coercive power are the same, so this line of thinking only leads down the road to serdom, as Hayek woudl say.

BenT-- Actually you DID say that the concept of the good was subjective and that therefore it can't be the basis of a justification for a political order. And then you went off presuming a view of the good that most people don't hold (it sems to be maximization of something like desire-satisfaction) and further presuming a vision of justice (equal respect and freedom for all persons).

Now, your views are no more empirically measurable and verifiable than Ralph's are, but his are at least consistent, because he has not claimed that we need to have empirically verifiable and measurable claims about the good and about justice in order to ground our political order. Unfortunately for the consistency of your view, you have suggested this.

The first quote you attributed to me is actually Skeptic's, so I'll leave off responding to it.

(1) You didn't answer my first questin.

(2) You make two logically independent points. The first is that "there is no way to calculate what makes other human beings happy." This is simply false. I can, for example, calculate what makes my wife happy because I know her. In a similar way, someone who knows people generally (i.e., knows human nature) can calculate what makes men happy. You responded to my (mostly rhetorical) questions about your first point by discussing your second point, viz., that a person should not be coerced into being happy. In other words, you didn't respond.

(3) "Justice is each individual pursuing his or her own happiness within his or her rights, so long as she does not infringe on the rights of others. This is the optimal view of justice, because no coercion needs to take place, and as such it is the one that is most respective of individuals as ends unto themselves."

Here is an odd (and perhaps unwitting) combination of Kantian and Millian fragments (though even Mill thought the means to happiness are objective). In summary, justice is the pursuit (however misguided or futile) of personal, subjective happiness without violating another's rights, while treating others as ends and not as means.

There is a good deal to wonder about in this definition, but I'll focus on a simple observation. By your account, a crack addict living in his own refuse and begging for the means to feed his habit is leading a life of justice. What's more, if your other point about knowing the good is correct, who other than the addict can judge that such a life is not worth living.

(4) You claimed that if there were an objective good, then people would not have to be forced to follow it, i.e., that either ignorance or incontinence or both are impossible. This is obviously contrary to the facts. To which you responded by discussing coercion. Again, there you're making two logically independent points. Talk of the second when the first is being considered amounts to changing the subject.

"In my system, people are free to do however they wish, whether it will make them happy or not, because everybody is treated with equal concern and respect." Is it characteristic of concern and respect to allow someone to be unhappy?

But as you point out, human beings often want things that don't result in their happiness. So surely, if none of us is competent enough to well manage our own lives, none among us is competent enough to well manage all our lives."

From the fact that some people are wrong, it does not follow that all people are wrong. And I would argue that there have been many men throughout history who were (are) competent to correctly order the lives of others. In our regime, we replace the wise few with the collective wisdom of the many together with the wisdom of tradition. In either arrangement is it possible to err? Of course. Does that mean that the good should not be sought? Not in the least.

(5) "The only valid purpose of law is to protect people's immediate rights from being infringed upon."

Is the law voluntary or coercive? If you're in doubt, try breaking the law in front of the authorities. Does the exercise of one's rights lead to happiness? That's another rhetorical question. Are these rights you speak of subjective or objective? More rhetoric. Add it all up and you've got coercive laws enforcing objective norms to attain happiness.

"The first quote you attributed to me is actually Skeptic's, so I'll leave off responding to it." -Ralph

My mistake, sorry

"BenT-- Actually you DID say that the concept of the good was subjective and that therefore it can't be the basis of a justification for a political order. And then you went off presuming a view of the good that most people don't hold (it sems to be maximization of something like desire-satisfaction) and further presuming a vision of justice (equal respect and freedom for all persons)." -Skeptic

All people hold a view of the good that is either what they believe would make them most happy or what they believe would maximize happiness.

Anyone suggesting that "the good" should maximize unhappiness is self-evidently wrong. Thats called "bad". Anyone suggesting that the good should only maximize the happiness of certain people, at the expense of the happiness of others, has to defend the view that certain people deserve more concern and respect than others, all other things being equal.

"Now, your views are no more empirically measurable and verifiable than Ralph's are, but his are at least consistent, because he has not claimed that we need to have empirically verifiable and measurable claims about the good and about justice in order to ground our political order. Unfortunately for the consistency of your view, you have suggested this." -Skeptic

I suggested that anyone who sought to employ forcible coercion on others had to be able to justify his view with an empirically verifiable methodology on what maximizes happiness, and that even if he could do this, it would be questionable at best.

A non-interventionist view doesn't have to know anything about happiness, because, being non-inteventionist, it doesn't assume to have absolute knowledge of happiness. For this reason, it recognizes that it cannot create happiness through coercion, but can simply leave people to pursue their own happiness in peace.

"(1) You didn't answer my first questin." -Ralph

Yes I did. I told you that if none among us can properly manage their own lives, none among us can properly manage ALL our lives.

"You make two logically independent points. The first is that "there is no way to calculate what makes other human beings happy." This is simply false. I can, for example, calculate what makes my wife happy because I know her." -Ralph

Firstly, your assertion is false. To be able to absolutely calculate your wife's happiness, you would need to have perfect knowledge of your wife, which you lack. You can calculate what you think would make her happy based on a limited knowledge of her. You have a good, but still limited, chance of making her happy in this scenario.

Secondly, for your argument to hold you (assuming you are the legislator here) must know everybody in society as well as you know your wife. You clearly don't.

"There is a good deal to wonder about in this definition, but I'll focus on a simple observation. By your account, a crack addict living in his own refuse and begging for the means to feed his habit is leading a life of justice. What's more, if your other point about knowing the good is correct, who other than the addict can judge that such a life is not worth living." -Ralph

I don't think its a good life. Clearly you don't either.

The beauty of liberty is that neither of us have to be crack addicts. Coercion by the state from doing this is violent assault. I don't have to justify this man doing that. You have to justify violently assaulting him because you (and I) disagree with it.

"You claimed that if there were an objective good, then people would not have to be forced to follow it, i.e., that either ignorance or incontinence or both are impossible. This is obviously contrary to the facts. To which you responded by discussing coercion. Again, there you're making two logically independent points. Talk of the second when the first is being considered amounts to changing the subject." -Ralph

One expression of the argument you are is that you are suggesting that people could achieve greater happiness in the long run, if they would give up some happiness in the short run. But in choosing short-run happiness, they are being ignorant of their own happiness.

Then you have to justify that would be able to give them that long run happiness by forcibly coercing them into giving up the short run happiness.

Since you can't tabulate happiness, you can't possibly know whether or not you can. So you are morally obliged not to coerce them. Even if you could give them that long-run happiness by coercing them, how can you know that, through coercing them, you have not removed the happiness they would have felt otherwise, and replaced it only with a resentment at being coerced?

An example is this. Many conservatives would choose to save their money for retirement, given a free choice. But at the same time, many conservatives are against social security. Why? If they are in favor of saving, how can they be against being coerced into saving? Because they are against being coerced.

And since only each individual can fully know what makes him or her happy, you have to have perfect knowledge of them, in order to know that, just because this long run thing seems like it would make them more happy, or would make you more happy, it would make them more happy than this short run possibility. You can't possibly know this, since you are not God, and as such don't have perfect knowledge of anyone other than yourself.

Even in the case of your wife you don't know perfectly what will make her happy or not. Could you fairly say that never in history have you inadvertandly done something that caused your wife anger?

And how can you even know? You might have done something inadvertantly that caused her anger, but she chose not to express this because she knew it was an honest mistake.

If you don't have perfect knowledge of your wife, than legislator's certainly don't have perfect knowledge of everyone in society.

"From the fact that some people are wrong, it does not follow that all people are wrong." -Ralph

The fact that we are assuming that some people are wrong shows that there is no possible scenario where "all people" agree, but must coerce somebody else.

And of course, since the majority lacks perfect knowledge of the minority, the majority cannot know for sure what will make the minority happy.

All that really happens is that the majority is coercing the minority because the minority is doing something that makes the MAJORITY unhappy. Not because the minority is really doing something that makes themselves unhappy, and the majority are rushing in to save them.

But since everybody deserves equal concern and respect, it is inherently immoral for the majority to demand that the minority give up their own happiness for the happiness of the majority, and then enforce it through coercion.

If there are three men in a room, and two men want to murder the third man, are they morally justified in doing so because they are the majority?

No. Because the third man deserves equal concern and respect.

"And I would argue that there have been many men throughout history who were (are) competent to correctly order the lives of others." -Ralph

Who? Pick who you think is the greatest man in history, and then demonstrate.

I think the greatest man in history was Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, I think he had perfect knowledge of all other men, and thus knew exactly what would make them happy and unhappy.

But Jesus of Nazareth ordered his followers not to engage in forcible coercion. If the man I believe had perfect knowledge of all other men was opposed to coercion, than I cannot imagine I can believe that any man who has imperfect knowledge of all other men is entitled to coerce.

"Does the exercise of one's rights lead to happiness? That's another rhetorical question. Are these rights you speak of subjective or objective? More rhetoric. Add it all up and you've got coercive laws enforcing objective norms to attain happiness." -Ralph

Happiness for who? Certainly not for the people being coerced. They either where forced to do what made them unhappy, are in jail, or are dead.

P.S.: Another thing I should have mentioned. If its okay for the state to coerce according to what the power-holders believe is right, what if some wise conservatives were in power, coercing everybody into being perfectly happy, and creating a perfectly happy society.

But then, for some reason, the wise conservatives all started smoking crack, and came to believe that smoking crack was the best way to live. They could then coerce us all into smoking crack against our will.

Only a system of non-intervention can protect us from being forced to smoke crack at gunpoint, in this scenario.

From Mises' Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow:

"But the notion that a capitalist form of government can prevent people from hurting themselves by controlling their consumption is false. The idea of government as a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody, is the idea of those who favor socialism. In the United States some years ago, the government tried what was called "a noble experiment." This noble experiment was a law making it illegal to buy or sell intoxicating beverages. It is certainly true that many people drink too much brandy and whiskey, and that they may hurt themselves by doing so. Some authorities in the United States are even opposed to smoking. Certainly there are many people who smoke too much and who smoke in spite of the fact that it would be better for them not to smoke. This raises a question which goes far beyond economic discussion: it shows what freedom really means.

Granted, that it is good to keep people from hurting themselves by drinking or smoking too much. But once you have admitted this, other people will say: Is the body everything? Is not the mind of man much more important? Is not the mind of man the real human endowment, the real human quality? If you give the government the right to determine the consumption of the human body, to determine whether one should smoke or not smoke, drink or not drink, there is no good reply you can give to people who say: "More important than the body is the mind and the soul, and man hurts himself much more by reading bad books, by listening to bad music and looking at bad movies. Therefore it is the duty of the government to prevent people from committing these faults."

And, as you know, for many hundreds of years governments and authorities believed that this really was their duty. Nor did this happen in far distant ages only; not long ago, there was a government in Germany that considered it a governmental duty to distinguish between good and bad paintings-which of course meant good and bad from the point of view of a man who, in his youth, had failed the entrance examination at the Academy of Art in Vienna; good and bad from the point of view of a picture-postcard painter, Adolf Hitler. And it became illegal for people to utter other views about art and paintings than his, the Supreme Führer's.

Once you begin to admit that it is the duty of the government to control your consumption of alcohol, what can you reply to those who say the control of books and ideas is much more important?

Freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes. This we have to realize. We may be highly critical with regard to the way in which our fellow citizens are spending their money and living their lives. We may believe that what they are doing is absolutely foolish and bad, but in a free society, there are many ways for people to air their opinions on how their fellow citizens should change their ways of life. They can write books; they can write articles; they can make speeches; they can even preach at street corners if they want-and they do this in many countries. But they must not try to police other people in order to prevent them from doing certain things simply because they themselves do not want these other people to have the freedom to do it.

This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen-and this is what freedom means-is in a position to choose his own way of life. Certainly this capitalistic system can be abused, and is abused, by some people. It is certainly possible to do things which ought not to be done. But if these things are approved by a majority of the people, a disapproving person always has a way to attempt to change the minds of his fellow citizens. He can try to persuade them, to convince them, but he may not try to force them by the use of power, of governmental police power."

In the interest of brevity, let's distill this to the following:

(1) You write, "For your argument to hold you (assuming you are the legislator here) must know everybody in society as well as you know your wife. You clearly don't."

Were the knowledge in question of particular men, you'd be right. But it's not, and therefore, you aren't. The knowledge required concerns something universal, viz., human nature. All men have the same nature (otherwise, they wouldn't all be men). Thus, if I understand human nature (or if I learn from someone else who understands that nature), I understand what's proper to every man as man, i.e., what human happiness consists in.

This argument is made at length in the first two books of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Give it a look. It's much more worth the read than Meyer's book.

(2) Law is coercive. If you don't believe it is, I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps to visit a courthouse or prison. What's more, the purpose of law is the happiness of the citizens ("promote the general welfare," etc.).

"Were the knowledge in question of particular men, you'd be right. But it's not, and therefore, you aren't. The knowledge required concerns something universal, viz., human nature. All men have the same nature (otherwise, they wouldn't all be men). Thus, if I understand human nature (or if I learn from someone else who understands that nature), I understand what's proper to every man as man, i.e., what human happiness consists in." -Ralph

Argument disproves itself. If there was one thing that made all men happy, all men would pursue one thing.

And if there is one thing that made all men happy, but some men choose not to pursue it, they are certainly more entitled to pursue their own unhappiness than you are to force them to do otherwise.

"Law is coercive. If you don't believe it is, I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps to visit a courthouse or prison. What's more, the purpose of law is the happiness of the citizens ("promote the general welfare," etc." -Ralph

I don't recall arguing otherwise. My argument is when coercion is permissible. Any view that it is permissible beyond protecting the basic rights of each citizen forces you to defend the claim that people are not deserving of equal concern and respect.

So, if you are going to defend that view, could you please do so?

If there was one thing that made all men happy by nature*.

This is because if what made us happy was intrinsic to our nature, our nature would instrinsically compel us to pursue it.

BenT:

You haven't advocated a noninterventionist (i.e., an anarchist) view. You believe that coersion should be used to stop individuals from doing things that would satisfy their desires and thus, according to your lights, make them "happy." So presumably your view of coersion in the name of individualistic desire-satisfaction also needs empirical verification.

"All people hold a view of the good that is either what they believe would make them most happy or what they believe would maximize happiness." -BenT

Uh, needless to say that this isn't empirically verifiable. Anyhow, It's also not true if by "happiness" you mean something like satisfaction of desires, and you have indicated that that is how you understand it.

*Rational activity, man's proper function, is the "one thing" that makes all men happy. What rational activity amounts to wants a long explanation. Rather than have me explain virtue ethics on Flynn Files, I'll again recommend you to the Nicomachean Ethics.

*"If there was one thing that made all men happy, all men would pursue [that] one thing."

My interest in this discussion has waned. Perhaps Skeptic is willing to explain the effects of ignorance and incontinence to you.

*"And if there is one thing that made all men happy, but some men choose not to pursue it, they are certainly more entitled to pursue their own unhappiness than you are to force them to do otherwise."

Why are they? Because choice itself is the greatest good? Also, recognize that an individual's vice has consequences for the community.

*So you agree that law is coercive. Do you also agree that the purpose of law is the happiness of the citizens? If so, doesn't the law coerce happiness?

*"Any view that it is permissible beyond protecting the basic rights of each citizen forces you to defend the claim that people are not deserving of equal concern and respect."

Just out of curiosity, what are basic rights (examples and general definition) and what entitles a person to such rights?

"You haven't advocated a noninterventionist (i.e., an anarchist) view. You believe that coersion should be used to stop individuals from doing things that would satisfy their desires and thus, according to your lights, make them "happy." So presumably your view of coersion in the name of individualistic desire-satisfaction also needs empirical verification." -Skeptic

Coercion used only to stop they, themselves, from coercing others.

The only valid role of government is to protect the citizenry from forcible coercion, not to engage in coercion itself.

This is like arguing that the firemen should set fire to the buildings they save.

"Uh, needless to say that this isn't empirically verifiable. Anyhow, It's also not true if by "happiness" you mean something like satisfaction of desires, and you have indicated that that is how you understand it." -Skeptic

I indicated I don't understand what makes other people happy at all, which is why they should be left alone to pursue their happiness as they see fit, so long as they don't forcibly coerce anybody in so doing.

Only your view of happiness necessitates coercing anybody into doing anything, because it assumes that your view of happiness, or the views of happiness that you hold, deserve greater concern and respect than the happiness of others.

And of course none of this coercion-cheerleading assumes that the coercers will agree with you 100% of the time about what is good or what will make people happy. This is clearly not the case.

"*Rational activity, man's proper function, is the "one thing" that makes all men happy. What rational activity amounts to wants a long explanation. Rather than have me explain virtue ethics on Flynn Files, I'll again recommend you to the Nicomachean Ethics." -Ralph

What constitutes rational activity is activity towards greatest possible happiness. Which you can't calculate in others.

Your argument is that others should be forcibly coerced into doing what makes *you* happy. Not what makes them happy.

A thought experiment;

If government found a way to essentially innoculate against unhappiness, and turn the entire population into constantly-happy automatons, would you support the government forcibly administering this injection to everybody in society, whether or not they wanted to?

According to your logic, you would have to. Since "the good" is more desirable than liberty, it is best that everybody be a constantly happy automaton with no capacity for evil.

"Why are they? Because choice itself is the greatest good? Also, recognize that an individual's vice has consequences for the community." -Ralph

Good is not involved. I can't calculate what is perfectly good, or how to achieve what is perfectly good through forced coercion. Neither can you, unless you are God.

For someone so concerned with maintaining the morals of a Christian society, one would think you would pay at least some deferance to the founder of Christianity. Forced coercion gets you nowhere.

Tyranny has ill effects for the community far more than somebody making pornography. Government is neither perfectly wise nor perfectly good.

"Just out of curiosity, what are basic rights (examples and general definition) and what entitles a person to such rights?" -Ralph

The right to property. All rights that human beings have are property rights. There is no right beyond the right to personal, property, from the starting point of self-ownership.

Ben T -- This is very simple: You do believe coersion is valid sometimes. You believe that the use of coersion needs to be justified by empirically measurable and verifiable claims. Your view of justice and the political good, by which you justify the use of coersion, is not empirically empirically measurable and verifiable. Thus, you fail the test of self-referentiality.

Your response has been: well the coersion I believe in doesn't need to pass the test that the coersion other people believe in needs to pass. This is very ad hoc, completely unprincipled, and amaounts to the sin you accused Ralph of: other people don't get to do what they want just because you don't like it.

I suggest you rethink your premise about the empirical verifiablility. (And BTW, I haven't said anything about firemen setting fires. I don't what the heck that is supposed to mean.)

"What constitutes rational activity is activity towards greatest possible happiness. Which you can't calculate in others."

Both of these senteces are false. Happiness consists of rational activity. And what rational activity amounts to is generally the same for all men, and therefore, can be calculated.

Your error concerning happiness is evident in your thought-experiment about drug-enduced happiness. Happiness is not a pleasurable feeling. It is a cognitive state.

empirically measurable and verifiable claims. Your view of justice and the political good, by which you justify the use of coersion, is not empirically empirically measurable and verifiable. Thus, you fail the test of self-referentiality." -Skeptic

No Skeptic, my view is very simple. Coercion is not justified. Anyone arguing that it woud have to meet the impossible qualifier of empirically vericfying happiness. Doing so is literally impossible, so its literally impossible to justify coercion.

"Your response has been: well the coersion I believe in doesn't need to pass the test that the coersion other people believe in needs to pass. This is very ad hoc, completely unprincipled, and amaounts to the sin you accused Ralph of: other people don't get to do what they want just because you don't like it." -Skeptic

I don't believe in ANY coercion, Skeptic. The only morally acceptible duty of government is to protect citizens from forcible coercion. Any role beyond that is unjustified. If government cannot limit itself to that duty, than government is a morally unjustifiable institution.

You would, essentially, like firemen to burn the buildings you save. You would like the police to commmit crimes so that they have somebody to arrest.

"I suggest you rethink your premise about the empirical verifiablility. (And BTW, I haven't said anything about firemen setting fires. I don't what the heck that is supposed to mean.)" -skeptic

The only morally valid role of government is to prevent citizens from being coerced by other citizens. By arguing that government should engage in coercion itself, you are arguing that government should do what it is instituted to prevent from happening. This is identical to arguing that firemen must light fires.

"Both of these senteces are false. Happiness consists of rational activity. And what rational activity amounts to is generally the same for all men, and therefore, can be calculated." -Ralph

Sorry Ralph, I wasn't aware you were omnipotent.

"Your error concerning happiness is evident in your thought-experiment about drug-enduced happiness. Happiness is not a pleasurable feeling. It is a cognitive state." -Ralph

Sorry Ralph, I wasn't aware you were omnipotent.

Of course, your argument is laughably easy to destroy. What if government decides happiness IS a drug induced feeling of joy? Since government obviously has the right to forcibly coerce people into being happy, government has the right to forcibly administer this drug to you.

P.S:

Thought I would throw this out there.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assert that happiness is a drug induced feeling of joy. Please disprove that assertion, and then demonstrate why I must be forced not to use this drug at gunpoint.

"I don't believe in ANY coercion, Skeptic." -BenT

Uh, so the Iraq war doesn't count?

The Iraq War was coercion used by the U.S. government against the government of another nation to protect the international interests of the United States citizenry.

As I said before, providing for the common security-domestic and international-is the sole valid role of government.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Inigo, of course, was speaking of Vizzini's use of "inconceivable," but the same might be said of your use of "coercion."

It is an undeniable fact that all government necessarily uses force (physical, financial, etc.), a/k/a "coercion," to compel its citizens to abide by the law. Just ask the people in jail.

Ben T: No offense -- but have you heard of the principle of noncontradiction?

Let me ask once more: Do you believe that coersion needs to be justified by empirically measurable and verifiable claims?

"Inigo, of course, was speaking of Vizzini's use of "inconceivable," but the same might be said of your use of "coercion."

It is an undeniable fact that all government necessarily uses force (physical, financial, etc.), a/k/a "coercion," to compel its citizens to abide by the law. Just ask the people in jail." -Ralph

Poor attempt at dodging the issue. That a rule of law should exist is not in question. What philosophy is should be based on is.

"Ben T: No offense -- but have you heard of the principle of noncontradiction?

Let me ask once more: Do you believe that coersion needs to be justified by empirically measurable and verifiable claims? " -Skeptic

The one and only time that coercion can be justified is if the coercion is, itself, being used to prevent coercion.

In essence, the only time you are permitted to strike a man is to prevent him from striking yourself-or another. The same applies to the rule of law.

P.S: To elaborate, because it is impossible to verify what makes other people happy, it is impossible to ever justify initiating violent coercion. Therefore, the only time it is morally justified to use force, is if you were not the initiator of force.

So the state may imprison a man for rape, because the state did not initiate force. The man initiated forced by violently coercing another into having sex with him. The state is then performing its just duty, in protecting its citizens from having force used against them. This was the original basis for all human government. Humans would band together not to protect common social moors, but to protect themselves from being violently coerced by others.

Once the state is acting in a way that initiates force-for example, by violently taking money from the citizenry for social security, it has crossed into morally unjustifiable territory, because it is initiating force against the citizen, instead of protecting the citizen from having force initiated against him.

This is the difference between liberty and despotism. Ralph advocates the latter.

BenT-- ok, now you are making progress. You do believe in coercion. You believe that coercion can be used to prevent or stop other coercion. But why? This is still the problem: can you, by using ONLY empirically measurable and verifiable claims, prove that coercion increases the happiness of the population (which you seem to have identified as the political good) if and only if that coercion is to stop other coercion?

If not, then you are not passing your own test for the just use of coercion. If so, then your statement that the good/happiness is a "subjective" and "incalcuable" concept is false. Either way, you must make a change in one of your earlier claims.

Bet-T,

You claim that "it is impossible to verify what makes other people happy." Is it also impossible to determine what makes other people unhappy? Can we say with confidence that the serial killer or the crystal meth addict are unahppy? And if we can, what criteria are we using?

BTW, I wonder if you would at least agree with Mill that some pleasures are objectively preferable to others, and that we know that they are because every person that has experienced them both, ceteris paribus, chooses the one over the other

"BenT-- ok, now you are making progress. You do believe in coercion. You believe that coercion can be used to prevent or stop other coercion. But why? This is still the problem: can you, by using ONLY empirically measurable and verifiable claims, prove that coercion increases the happiness of the population (which you seem to have identified as the political good) if and only if that coercion is to stop other coercion?" -Skeptic

That bears more or less no resemblance to what I said at all.

I said that initiating force, and thus, being the coercing party, is never justified. Go back and read it again.

"You claim that "it is impossible to verify what makes other people happy." Is it also impossible to determine what makes other people unhappy? Can we say with confidence that the serial killer or the crystal meth addict are unahppy? And if we can, what criteria are we using?" -Ralph

The serial killer is initiating force against others. It doesn't matter whether hes happhy, because his happiness relies on depriving other people of their lives.

Only a system where the state is the night watchman-stopping force from being initiated, but not initiating force itself-is morally acceptable, because it is the only one that accepts that all human beings deserve equal concern and respect.

We don't know whether the meth addict is happy or not, and certainly have no right to initiate force against him. Apply your logic to any other scenario, and its assault;

If an anti-tobacco advocate attacks a man smoking a cigarette, ostensibly to make him "happier" it is assault. If a member of the KKK attacks a black man to prevent him from dating a white woman, ostensibly to protect the happiness of the white woman, it is assault.

Yet you refuse to apply consistent logic, and some reason advocate accepting in the public sector what no moral human being would ever accept in the private; physically assaulting other citizens in order to make them "Happier" (read: In order to make OURSELEVES happier, but forcing them to live according to what WE think should make them happy).

"BTW, I wonder if you would at least agree with Mill that some pleasures are objectively preferable to others, and that we know that they are because every person that has experienced them both, ceteris paribus, chooses the one over the other" -Ralph

I think there are. I am content not to go around assaulting people into forcing them to agree with me.

If we were to take that view to its logical conclusion (something you have dodged doing throughout the debate) we would both have to agree that certainly all religions other than Christianity must be outlawed. Christianity is objectively the best religion, being the only one that is true. Therefore, adherents to other religions certainly must be shown the error of their ways by being violently coerced into becoming Christians.

"The serial killer is initiating force against others. It doesn't matter whether he's happy, because his happiness relies on depriving other people of their lives."

That's not what I asked. I asked whether it was possible to determine if he was happy or not.

"We don't know whether the meth addict is happy or not...."

Does the meth addict know whether he is happy or not? What criteria does he use?

"I think there are. I am content not to go around assaulting people into forcing them to agree with me."

You're not being consistent. You have admitted that if legislators could know what activities make citizens happy (and conversely, what activities make them unahppy), then they would be justified in coercing the citizens to engage in those activities (and refrain from others).

You also just admitted that there is an objective criterion to correctly judge some pleasures better than others. Since your view of happiness seems to be nothing but pleasure, I'm wondering how you avoid the conclusion that there is an objective criterion to correctly judge some activities happier than others.

"That's not what I asked. I asked whether it was possible to determine if he was happy or not." -Ralph

No.

"Does the meth addict know whether he is happy or not? What criteria does he use?" -Ralph

Not relevant. The meth addict is only using meth himself-so his use of meth doesn't require initiating force against anyone. He can use meth and be unhappy all he likes-as long as he doesn't initiate force.

"You're not being consistent. You have admitted that if legislators could know what activities make citizens happy (and conversely, what activities make them unahppy), then they would be justified in coercing the citizens to engage in those activities (and refrain from others)."-Ralph

Really? Where did I say that without the qualifier that EVEN THEN it would be a pretty shakey argument?

But its certainly the first of many qualifiers you would have to meet.

"You also just admitted that there is an objective criterion to correctly judge some pleasures better than others. Since your view of happiness seems to be nothing but pleasure, I'm wondering how you avoid the conclusion that there is an objective criterion to correctly judge some activities happier than others." -Ralph

My view of happiness has very little to do with physical pleasure. Where I derive my happiness from isn't relevant, but its mostly from religion, books, and friendship.

Unfortunately for you, I am not going to let you change the focus of the debate unduly. We are not arguing about what makes human beings happy. We are arguing about whether intiating force against other human beings is justified.

Ben-T,

You're having difficulty distinguishing separate questions. Question 1: Is it possible to objectively determine what makes others happy? Question 2: If it is possible, is government justified in coercing happiness? An answer to 1 in not an answer to 2 and vice versa.

Now, concerning the first question you maintain that it is impossible to determine what makes another person happy or unhappy. So according to your position, it is impossible for a third person to determine that the Pope, for example, is happier than a meth addict, a serial killer, or a pedophile. Indeed, it is impossible to determine whether the Pope is happier than a person being subjected to the most brutal torture. Perhaps the person being tortured enjoys pain. And even if he screams in agony that he doesn't enjoy pain, we cannot infer that he is unhappy. After all, he could be lying. For all we know he asked to be tortured because it makes him happy, and his happiness is increased by lying.

"Not relevant. The meth addict is only using meth himself -- so his use of meth doesn't require initiating force against anyone. He can use meth and be unhappy all he likes -- as long as he doesn't initiate force."

Again, you are attempting to avoid the first question by answering the second. Let me be more direct: Do you know if you're happy? If so, how? What standard are you using?

Concerning the second question, do you believe that, if a person could objectively determine what makes another happy, government is justified in coercing happiness? If you say "yes," then our whole discussion reduces to the first question. If you say "no," I'd like to hear why.

I suppose you might argue that a person has the "right" to act in any way whatever so long as it does not violate another person's "rights." I would want to know where such a right comes from. I remember your claim, a la Locke, that all rights are based on the right to property. Why do you have a "right" to property? Whence the "right"? And don't reply "self-ownership." That would be begging the question I am asking.

Another question I'd like to ask is this: if the exercise of the right to liberty does not necessarily lead to happiness, what good is it? Happiness is the goal of every action. It is, as Aristotle tells us, the highest end.

"Question 1: Is it possible to objectively determine what makes others happy?" -Ralph

Again, No. Unsure how many times I am going to have to answer this question before you accept that I have answered it.

"Question 2: If it is possible, is government justified in coercing happiness?" -Ralph

I think no.

I wasn't answering them singuarly, sorry if I gave that impression. I was answering them both as no.

"Now, concerning the first question you maintain that it is impossible to determine what makes another person happy or unhappy. So according to your position, it is impossible for a third person to determine that the Pope, for example, is happier than a meth addict, a serial killer, or a pedophile." -Ralph

No, I don't think that it is. I think it is possible to determine that the Pope is more virtuous, but this is not happiness. Who knows, maybe the Pope is tremendously weighed down and depressed by the magnitude of his duty? Equally, the serial killer might have no greater joy than the rush of a murder.

But its not possible to know who is more happy, no.

"Indeed, it is impossible to determine whether the Pope is happier than a person being subjected to the most brutal torture. Perhaps the person being tortured enjoys pain. And even if he screams in agony that he doesn't enjoy pain, we cannot infer that he is unhappy. After all, he could be lying. For all we know he asked to be tortured because it makes him happy, and his happiness is increased by lying." -Ralph

Since you don't know, the only safe assumption is that if he wants to be tortured, he will hire someone to torture him. Certainly the free market allows for this.

The only logical conclusion of the admission that we cannot know perfectly other people's happiness is that they must be left to pursue it on their own. We can't know what makes them happy, so we can't deliver happiness to them. We must leave them to pursue it on their own.

By assuming that he wants to be tortured and that he is lying, you are breaking from this assumption, and concluding that since we cannot know what makes others happy, we must make assumptions at random about what makes them happy. This actually bears a striking resemblance to the coercive position.

"Again, you are attempting to avoid the first question by answering the second. Let me be more direct: Do you know if you're happy? If so, how? What standard are you using?" -Ralph

"Happy" is an indefinable term. It is always possible to be more or less happy than you currently are. If I see actions that will increase my happiness, I will take them. Certainly I don't need others to make those decisions for me, and they cannot make those decisions, having an even less perfect understanding of me than I do. That is the position of the aforementioned torturer, assuming that what increases his own happiness increases everybody's happiness. This is also the coercive position, in a nutshell.

"Concerning the second question, do you believe that, if a person could objectively determine what makes another happy, government is justified in coercing happiness? If you say "yes," then our whole discussion reduces to the first question. If you say "no," I'd like to hear why." -Ralph

No. I addressed this earlier with a thought experiment. If government discovered a vaccine that eliminated unhappiness, would it be justified in forcing everybody to take it?

I argued that, no, it would not be justified in forcing everybody to take the vaccine. Because by forcing everybody to be happy, they are violating other people's personal sovereignty.

"I suppose you might argue that a person has the "right" to act in any way whatever so long as it does not violate another person's "rights." I would want to know where such a right comes from. I remember your claim, a la Locke, that all rights are based on the right to property. Why do you have a "right" to property? Whence the "right"? And don't reply "self-ownership." That would be begging the question I am asking." -Ralph

It is impossible to own any property if you do not own yourself, yes? Or to have any authority. If you do not have rights over yourself, you can't have rights over anything, since personal sovereignty is the most basic and simple sovereignty.

As such, self-ownership is self-evidently true. Any system that ascribes sovereignty to anyone has to acknowledge that at least somebody has sovereignty over himself. And if only one men, or some group of men, have personal sovereignty, something must be shown to be different about them from other men, from which they derive personal sovereignty, and others do not.

You must have some version of Plato's myth of the metals, so to speak.

So I'll wait to see what you're suggestion is on that, as to why some men, or at least one man, has personal sovereignty, while others do not. But any system must argue that at least one man has personal sovereignty, else he wouldn't be able to claim sovereignty over anything else.

"Another question I'd like to ask is this: if the exercise of the right to liberty does not necessarily lead to happiness, what good is it? Happiness is the goal of every action. It is, as Aristotle tells us, the highest end." -Ralph

For two reasons.

The first is that since no man knows what makes other men happy, no man is more fit to decide for them than those men themselves.

The second is that if you force other men to be happy, you will violate their self-evident personal sovereignty (unless, again, you have evidence that one man or some group of men have personal sovereignty while others do not).

In Plato's allegory of the cave, the philosopher can tell the rest of the men in the cave that there is a whole world outside for them to explore. But he cannot break their chains against their will. If he does that, he will be murdered.

What does this tell us? That human beings have an inherent desire to not be coerced, regardless of the results of the coercion.

Indeed if human beings wanted to be coerced, the human psyche would lack even any concept of coercion.

Questions 1 & 2 were not there for you to answer. I knew your answer to 1 and was pretty sure of your answer to 2. I listed them to help you make distinctions.

Your claim that it is impossible to tell whether one person is happier than the other, even in the most extreme cases, is sophistry. The notion that you have no knowledge of the causes of happiness and unhappiness in others is disproved by your actions. Do you attempt to make your friends and family happy, do you avoid offending others, do you pander to your superiors? Of course. And you are able to do so because you are able to determine the causes of their happiness and unhappiness. If you were completely ignorant of such causes, as you claim, you would be unable to do so except by accident. And as a result, you would be alone and unemployed.

Thus, you are like the skeptic who denies reality, but continues to buy groceries and pay taxes. His "skepticism" is a farce.

Perhaps you may be inclined to respond that, while you are able to determine what makes others happy to some degree, you can nonetheless be wrong. This, however, would concede the point: the causes of others' happiness can be known. That there are degrees to knowledge says nothing about the possibility of knowledge.

Now suppose, as I do, that all humans are the same in some fundamental sense. And further, that the sense in which they are the same is relevant to what makes people happy. Finally, suppose that that sense of sameness could be known. It would be a general kind of knowledge, but if the universal is known, so is every particular insofar as it exemplifies the universal. That universal can be known and it can be known completely.

Concerning coercion, let me ask you this: is the parent justified in coercing the child to perform certain actions, if the parent determines that it will cause them happiness? Or is the parent violating the child's right to liberty?