Flutterby™! : A-Team

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics


2006-07-19 19:33:33.115679+00 by Dan Lyke 7 comments

I love it when a plan comes together: A-Team Stands for Anarcho-Capitalism:

"The A-team" supports the idea of natural law, rejects the nominalist tradition, rejects relativism both on ethical and epistemological grounds, supports entrepreneurship and free market, praises division of labor and monetary economy, builds its morality on the nonaggression axiom, rejects the necessity for economic regulation, undermines the government itself by demonstration of its failures, and shows how society is shaped by human action.

Worth reading the whole thing (via Elf).

[ related topics: Ethics Television Philosophy ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-19 22:24:59.276453+00 by: ziffle

except that there is no such thing as a 'nonagression axiom' - this is taken from the libertarian non-aggression principle which fails because it has no philosophical basis - that is, you can't begin with that as a begining because you have to ask 'why' and they have no answer. This is also the reason they use the term 'anarcho' around it - there is nothing to stop it from being called 'anarchism' which is what it leads to. For example,. Somalia... or even the US since 1934.


#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-19 23:12:04.925427+00 by: Dan Lyke

Yeah, well, at some point if you allow real estate property rights you end up with monarchies. Political systems and philosophiles are human abstractions and as such doomed to some sort of pragmatism in the implementation.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-20 00:33:56.425761+00 by: markd

And all this time I thought it was just a televised comic book. /me returns to pitying the foo.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-20 03:31:34.429074+00 by: TheSHAD0W

What do you mean, no philosophical basis? You've never heard of the prisoner's dilemma?

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-20 13:54:59.952672+00 by: ziffle

Dan- only when guns are used. Not all philosophies are human abstractions - Objectivism is a reflection of Mans (Man qua Man) Nature and the reality he lives in.

Shadow- we do not live in lifeboats nor do we live in a prisoners dilemma - morality can only exist when there is freedom of choice.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-20 14:30:32.26467+00 by: Dan Lyke

Well, yeah, but while I love the utopian ideal of removing force from human interactions, I'm of the opinion that the reality of human nature is such that we're no more likely to do that than we are to remove violence from leopard or lion (or even mountain goat) interactions. Animals dominate through physical violence, and for all of our abilities to use logic and reason, even if we remove the violence from our interactions between each other we still live in an evolutionary environment where violence and force are a part of the system.

And humans, at least ones that are successful evolutionarily, will always choose violence over extinction. Violence is simply an action with an economic cost and benefit, and structuring the culture so that the costs are high and the benefit is low is a good thing, but at some point the hungry will take up clubs.

Ghandi pointed out that non-violence only works with civilized adversaries. While humans can be taught civilization, the physics of the universe cares only for pragmatism.

As for lifeboats... well....

#Comment Re: made: 2006-07-20 14:41:31.807823+00 by: ziffle

Dan- well there have been moments of sanity - like the creation of the United States Of America - up until 1934 - which recognized individual rights as supreme - and which you beautifully display on flutterby for us on July 4, The declaration of Independence.