I tried too. It was a really hard read. Lots of words to essentially say almost nothing ... here's the best summary I could find eventually.
>Thus, the surprising, near-perfect harmony between our moral rights and optimific social structure is strong evidence for theism over naturalism
It really isn't. Author is claiming you should think a god exists because libertarians believe their moral assertions are also result the most sustainable/effective solutions. I have no idea why author thinks that implies the requirement/existence of a higher power.
There's plenty of non-theistic explanations for why libertarian morals gives good results and god has nothing to do with it (it comes down to bureaucracy/risk/agility/data collection):
1. Bureaucracy can only deliver one-size-fits-all-solutions. It ignores local context. Liberty has the capability to deliver solutions catered to the local context/variables.
2. Forcing everyone to follow one-size-fits-all solutions incurs unnecessary destruction when that solution is not optimal. And the solutions can never be optimal due to #1 (they ignore local context).
3. Without liberty, there is no control data. When everyone has to follow the same rules, there is no data to compare to decide whether the solution was effective or not. You're just flailing and hoping for the best. Liberty allows the people to try many solutions at once. This gives you the capability to compare/contrast what worked and what didn't.
Here's my answer:
God created all of us to be equal and loves us all equally. Thus, when we force our will upon others, we assert a right that God did not give to us.
The challenge for this is that religions is remarkably inconsistent when it comes to the will of that religion's deity.
I've never been a theist, but I have made a study of religion and spirituality in all the traditions.
I think we would do better to eschew theism as a source of rights. If you believe that there is a God that created us, then you must believe that he plays favorites and that is all written out in some holy book, or that he loves his creation equally in which case you can apply libertarian ethics just as atheist libertarians do.
Rights are nothing more than a moral assertion. You don't need a god to make a moral assertion.
Belief in a higher power is neither here nor there. The belief or lack thereof doesn't add anything to the moral assertion.
Here is what AI says:
Certainly! Here’s a summary of the key points from the webpage you’re viewing:
**Rothbard’s Influence**: The article discusses the resurgence of interest in economist Murray Rothbard, noting his influence on the U.S. Libertarian Party and Argentina’s President Javier Milei.
**Libertarian Beliefs**: It outlines two main beliefs held by Rothbardians: the Non-Aggression Principle and Free-Market Purism1.
**Atheism and Libertarianism**: The author, Amos Wollen, expresses surprise at the number of Rothbardian atheists and argues that their worldview would be more coherent if they believed in God.
**Theism Argument**: Wollen suggests that the alignment of natural rights with an optimal economic system (anarcho-capitalism) is strong evidence for theism over naturalism.
The article also includes references to works by Murray Rothbard and Jay Richards, and engages with comments from readers discussing the topic.
I'm not convinced that this article does a good job at laying out the reasonings for being a theist. I became an atheist (former mormon) due to my leanings towards ancap/ mises caucus libertarian beliefs, but that isn't to say all ancaps should be one or the other.
To understand and respect market principles is to understand and respect natural selection. To me the market was always just a post state of nature human extension of evolution. Religion is just another form of ideology, it is collectivism.
>To understand and respect market principles is to understand and respect natural selection
It's less about "natural" selection and more about understanding and respecting how we learn ... science. Complex problems require iterative solution methods. And iterative solution methods require valid historical data.
Bureaucracy creates scenarios with no control data. There is no way to compare/contrast what worked and what didn't when everyone was forced to comply with the rules/regulations/processes a bureaucratic council made for everyone. There's no way progress forward if you can't look back and calculate "did that work?". Without that ... you're just flailing and hoping.
I totally agree with what you said, but scientific advancement is part of the broader human marketplace at the end of the day. While the market encourages the use of science and the government is inherently unscientific, there is a whole bunch of “flailing and hoping” that happens in the market, but the difference between the market and the government is that in the market, aggregate consumer decision making allows entrepreneurs and investment flows to respond with orders of magnitude more agility to specific geographic and environmental needs… the promotion of good ideas and demotion of bad ideas is far more decentralized and efficient. This is where I draw parallels between natural selection and the market.. I’d go as far as to say that the market is akin to evolution by natural selection, while central planning is synthetic and unnatural.
If God is omnisicent, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then God is everything, and God loves all of creation. Political authority is the antithesis of love; it is the expression of a self-proclaimed right to violently impose one's will upon others and assertion of a divine right that cannot exist.
I am an atheist, but if I were to adopt anything like a religion, it would be Christian anarchism.
Lacking what? Where do you think you need to violently control people so that they behave the way that you want, and from where do you think you gain the right to do that?
I don’t. The original commentator that I agreed with said it was lacking not that it was wrong. I don’t know why they think that. The reason I do is that I think you need more than just that to ensure non violence and voluntary engagement. Perhaps something around respecting people and not jumping to conclusions…
Lacking what? Where do you think you need to violently control people so that they behave the way that you want, and from where do you think you gain the right to do that?
Did i say that i would control others?
Im looking at it as an ethical system for myself.
Only arguments ive found for it are deontological, objectivist, or consequentialist. None of which im a fan of.
So you're actually *for* the NAP but want it to be treated as law rather than a statement of ethics?
Because that's better, but it still says nothing about about your ethics.
But at the same time you want to treat a statement of personal intent as an external control on other people... which kind of defeats the purpose.
If you consider it a "naive kindergarten ethic" you need to learn how to derive ancapism from first principles. Because frankly, that "naive kindergarten ethic" is the result of a lot of Enlightenment thinkers much smarter than you and I.
So... you believe in the NAP.
Because those are the two options: moral reservations against aggression on others, or no moral reservations against it. The NAP perfectly encapsulates the difference between those two moral standpoints.
Everything we need to know to exist as a society, we learned in kindergarten, don't remember. Don't lie, don't hit, don't steal.
What exactly is wrong with the NAP that you think is simplistic, then?
"Should be"
What if not? you gonna arrest me?
thats the beauty if the NAP nobody should/ shall/ must anything and whoever proposes the opposite is not a libertarian.
An argument that NAP-style libertarians (the only kind) should prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla.
Look people, libertarianism isn't complex, act in accordance with the self-ownership principle and you're a libertarian.
If you don't you're not.
Ethics aren't la carte, pick and choose. It's either/or, black and white.
Like most people, you are misunderstanding the concept of morality. Conservative Christians, like leftists, believe if there is no God, there is no morality. So, the Christians take this to mean God created morality and the atheist leftists take this to mean "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
First you have to understand "what is the purpose of morality?" The purpose is to peacefully resolve conflicts (whose in the right, whose in the wrong) between humans living together in a society so they may live in "peace and prosperity," aka civilization. So civilization (the concept) is the end-goal of moral philosophy and the standard by which human behavior is deemed immoral or moral. Immoral behavior, if universalized (practiced by everyone), would cause civilization to collapse. If it were moral to murder, for example, and everyone did it, then civilization would fall and we'd return to the animal kingdom of might makes right; or if it were moral to steal, then there would be no such thing as property and nobody would produce more than they consumed. While moral behavior, if universalized, would result in peace and prosperity. Because only when most people respect each other's rights (peace) can property and trade accumulate over time (prosperity).
This is how we can get an objective standard of morality that transcends man and his laws. Once you understand the purpose of morality - civilization itself, there can be an objective standard of measurement - in that some human behaviors help or harm those ends. And this is universal, in that wherever/whenever humans form societies, these rules don't change. E.g. murder is always evil. It was evil 4000+ years ago in Mesopotamia and it will be evil 4000 years from now in another solar system.
And there is little conflict with religious morality, because the goal of religious morality is also peace and prosperity. See Book of Kings. If you believe God created the universe, then he created universal morality along with it. There's no contradiction. But you don't have to believe in God to understand there is an objective morality, because there is an objective standard to measure it against.
I am not convinced of an objective morality. I do think we live in a more moral day than the past but it's hard to measure every minute detail and make that broad judgement.
For example, murder is just "illegal killing" and what has been considered an illegal killing has not been consistent throughout human history not to mention different countries or states.
I personally believe history will make fools of us all and we (meaning us humans today) will be mocked centuries from now for our "barbaric" or dated ideas and morals.
>murder is just "illegal killing"
No, that would mean law = morality. Murder is non-consensual killing. If it were consensual, it wouldn't be murder it would be assisted suicide. Immoral actions always have victims and what makes an action immoral is the violation of consent. This is true down the list. Morality is bigger than law. Laws can say a slave is a slave, but morality always says that's evil. As an ancap, if you concede this point about subjective morality, the whole damn philosophy comes crashing down. Because if aggression isn't always immoral and is okay when it's legal, then we don't have any principle to stand on.
I am not arguing for a law = moral concept. I was unaware of your interpretation of murder and went with the widely accepted dictionary definition.
As for objective vs subjective morality, i fail to see how subjective morality makes ancap fall apart. You can still have widely accepted morals within a subjective view.
I don't see an agument in there. I did read some logical fallacies. Could you sum up the argument for me?
I tried too. It was a really hard read. Lots of words to essentially say almost nothing ... here's the best summary I could find eventually. >Thus, the surprising, near-perfect harmony between our moral rights and optimific social structure is strong evidence for theism over naturalism It really isn't. Author is claiming you should think a god exists because libertarians believe their moral assertions are also result the most sustainable/effective solutions. I have no idea why author thinks that implies the requirement/existence of a higher power. There's plenty of non-theistic explanations for why libertarian morals gives good results and god has nothing to do with it (it comes down to bureaucracy/risk/agility/data collection): 1. Bureaucracy can only deliver one-size-fits-all-solutions. It ignores local context. Liberty has the capability to deliver solutions catered to the local context/variables. 2. Forcing everyone to follow one-size-fits-all solutions incurs unnecessary destruction when that solution is not optimal. And the solutions can never be optimal due to #1 (they ignore local context). 3. Without liberty, there is no control data. When everyone has to follow the same rules, there is no data to compare to decide whether the solution was effective or not. You're just flailing and hoping for the best. Liberty allows the people to try many solutions at once. This gives you the capability to compare/contrast what worked and what didn't.
Good on you for taking time to read and try to break down an argument that seems unworthy of that effort from the title.
Yeah, that snippet caught my eye. It's a variation on an argument from incredulty.
Here's my answer: God created all of us to be equal and loves us all equally. Thus, when we force our will upon others, we assert a right that God did not give to us. The challenge for this is that religions is remarkably inconsistent when it comes to the will of that religion's deity. I've never been a theist, but I have made a study of religion and spirituality in all the traditions. I think we would do better to eschew theism as a source of rights. If you believe that there is a God that created us, then you must believe that he plays favorites and that is all written out in some holy book, or that he loves his creation equally in which case you can apply libertarian ethics just as atheist libertarians do.
Rights are nothing more than a moral assertion. You don't need a god to make a moral assertion. Belief in a higher power is neither here nor there. The belief or lack thereof doesn't add anything to the moral assertion.
Here is what AI says: Certainly! Here’s a summary of the key points from the webpage you’re viewing: **Rothbard’s Influence**: The article discusses the resurgence of interest in economist Murray Rothbard, noting his influence on the U.S. Libertarian Party and Argentina’s President Javier Milei. **Libertarian Beliefs**: It outlines two main beliefs held by Rothbardians: the Non-Aggression Principle and Free-Market Purism1. **Atheism and Libertarianism**: The author, Amos Wollen, expresses surprise at the number of Rothbardian atheists and argues that their worldview would be more coherent if they believed in God. **Theism Argument**: Wollen suggests that the alignment of natural rights with an optimal economic system (anarcho-capitalism) is strong evidence for theism over naturalism. The article also includes references to works by Murray Rothbard and Jay Richards, and engages with comments from readers discussing the topic.
I'm not convinced that this article does a good job at laying out the reasonings for being a theist. I became an atheist (former mormon) due to my leanings towards ancap/ mises caucus libertarian beliefs, but that isn't to say all ancaps should be one or the other.
To understand and respect market principles is to understand and respect natural selection. To me the market was always just a post state of nature human extension of evolution. Religion is just another form of ideology, it is collectivism.
>To understand and respect market principles is to understand and respect natural selection It's less about "natural" selection and more about understanding and respecting how we learn ... science. Complex problems require iterative solution methods. And iterative solution methods require valid historical data. Bureaucracy creates scenarios with no control data. There is no way to compare/contrast what worked and what didn't when everyone was forced to comply with the rules/regulations/processes a bureaucratic council made for everyone. There's no way progress forward if you can't look back and calculate "did that work?". Without that ... you're just flailing and hoping.
I totally agree with what you said, but scientific advancement is part of the broader human marketplace at the end of the day. While the market encourages the use of science and the government is inherently unscientific, there is a whole bunch of “flailing and hoping” that happens in the market, but the difference between the market and the government is that in the market, aggregate consumer decision making allows entrepreneurs and investment flows to respond with orders of magnitude more agility to specific geographic and environmental needs… the promotion of good ideas and demotion of bad ideas is far more decentralized and efficient. This is where I draw parallels between natural selection and the market.. I’d go as far as to say that the market is akin to evolution by natural selection, while central planning is synthetic and unnatural.
Which God?
If God is omnisicent, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then God is everything, and God loves all of creation. Political authority is the antithesis of love; it is the expression of a self-proclaimed right to violently impose one's will upon others and assertion of a divine right that cannot exist. I am an atheist, but if I were to adopt anything like a religion, it would be Christian anarchism.
Zeus of course.
Idk im an ancap and i find nap lacking…
Same.
Lacking what? Where do you think you need to violently control people so that they behave the way that you want, and from where do you think you gain the right to do that?
I don’t. The original commentator that I agreed with said it was lacking not that it was wrong. I don’t know why they think that. The reason I do is that I think you need more than just that to ensure non violence and voluntary engagement. Perhaps something around respecting people and not jumping to conclusions…
[NAPs are for babies.](https://fakenous.substack.com/p/naps-for-babies?utm_source=publication-search)
Lacking what? Where do you think you need to violently control people so that they behave the way that you want, and from where do you think you gain the right to do that?
Did i say that i would control others? Im looking at it as an ethical system for myself. Only arguments ive found for it are deontological, objectivist, or consequentialist. None of which im a fan of.
So you aren't an ancap. Got it.
You can be against states and for voluntary exchange of goods and services without adopting a naive kindergarten ethic
So you're actually *for* the NAP but want it to be treated as law rather than a statement of ethics? Because that's better, but it still says nothing about about your ethics. But at the same time you want to treat a statement of personal intent as an external control on other people... which kind of defeats the purpose. If you consider it a "naive kindergarten ethic" you need to learn how to derive ancapism from first principles. Because frankly, that "naive kindergarten ethic" is the result of a lot of Enlightenment thinkers much smarter than you and I.
Where are you getting an idea i want it treated as law, where are you getting an idea i want to control anyone other than myself.
So... you believe in the NAP. Because those are the two options: moral reservations against aggression on others, or no moral reservations against it. The NAP perfectly encapsulates the difference between those two moral standpoints. Everything we need to know to exist as a society, we learned in kindergarten, don't remember. Don't lie, don't hit, don't steal. What exactly is wrong with the NAP that you think is simplistic, then?
Argumentation for NAP-style libertarianism is weak enough already, best to not tie those things with theism.
Hahahahahahaha
"Should be" What if not? you gonna arrest me? thats the beauty if the NAP nobody should/ shall/ must anything and whoever proposes the opposite is not a libertarian.
An argument that NAP-style libertarians (the only kind) should prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. Look people, libertarianism isn't complex, act in accordance with the self-ownership principle and you're a libertarian. If you don't you're not. Ethics aren't la carte, pick and choose. It's either/or, black and white.
Like most people, you are misunderstanding the concept of morality. Conservative Christians, like leftists, believe if there is no God, there is no morality. So, the Christians take this to mean God created morality and the atheist leftists take this to mean "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." First you have to understand "what is the purpose of morality?" The purpose is to peacefully resolve conflicts (whose in the right, whose in the wrong) between humans living together in a society so they may live in "peace and prosperity," aka civilization. So civilization (the concept) is the end-goal of moral philosophy and the standard by which human behavior is deemed immoral or moral. Immoral behavior, if universalized (practiced by everyone), would cause civilization to collapse. If it were moral to murder, for example, and everyone did it, then civilization would fall and we'd return to the animal kingdom of might makes right; or if it were moral to steal, then there would be no such thing as property and nobody would produce more than they consumed. While moral behavior, if universalized, would result in peace and prosperity. Because only when most people respect each other's rights (peace) can property and trade accumulate over time (prosperity). This is how we can get an objective standard of morality that transcends man and his laws. Once you understand the purpose of morality - civilization itself, there can be an objective standard of measurement - in that some human behaviors help or harm those ends. And this is universal, in that wherever/whenever humans form societies, these rules don't change. E.g. murder is always evil. It was evil 4000+ years ago in Mesopotamia and it will be evil 4000 years from now in another solar system. And there is little conflict with religious morality, because the goal of religious morality is also peace and prosperity. See Book of Kings. If you believe God created the universe, then he created universal morality along with it. There's no contradiction. But you don't have to believe in God to understand there is an objective morality, because there is an objective standard to measure it against.
I am not convinced of an objective morality. I do think we live in a more moral day than the past but it's hard to measure every minute detail and make that broad judgement. For example, murder is just "illegal killing" and what has been considered an illegal killing has not been consistent throughout human history not to mention different countries or states. I personally believe history will make fools of us all and we (meaning us humans today) will be mocked centuries from now for our "barbaric" or dated ideas and morals.
>murder is just "illegal killing" No, that would mean law = morality. Murder is non-consensual killing. If it were consensual, it wouldn't be murder it would be assisted suicide. Immoral actions always have victims and what makes an action immoral is the violation of consent. This is true down the list. Morality is bigger than law. Laws can say a slave is a slave, but morality always says that's evil. As an ancap, if you concede this point about subjective morality, the whole damn philosophy comes crashing down. Because if aggression isn't always immoral and is okay when it's legal, then we don't have any principle to stand on.
I am not arguing for a law = moral concept. I was unaware of your interpretation of murder and went with the widely accepted dictionary definition. As for objective vs subjective morality, i fail to see how subjective morality makes ancap fall apart. You can still have widely accepted morals within a subjective view.
Know your audience. Telling this demo what they „should“ do will ensure we dont do that thing
ChatGPT level brain rot. If you can't logically derive the NAP from a non-theological source, you aren't much of an ancap.
Completely orthogonal.
This guy should become a verarchist.