Well, another week has passed and another set of wonderful posts have been voted upon by the Watcher’s Council. Here are this week’s results. Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 2/3 points! – The Colossus of Rhodey – Why……

This week’s Watcher’s offerings: * Soccer Dad – Now he tells us * The Colossus of Rhodey – Why we should care about North Korea’s missile * The Razor – The Imaginary Leader * The Glittering Eye – What’s the……

>> All you need to understand is that for any one person, there will always be someone stronger and someone weaker. This sets up an ethical hierarchy of duty and moral luck/responsibility/hazard.

Well, I’m still seeing: Pure freedom, unrestrained by any laws except those pertaining solely to where one person clearly intends harm to another.

That’s the most admirable of political philosophies if it can be applied to human nature. I’ve found myself doubting that it can be applied to human nature.

It could be that I have misled myself into abandoning it, because it hasn’t really been tried, but only flirted with; much as capitalism hasn’t really been tried.

Besides action and reaction, an existence and its anti-thesis, a representative analogy would be life and death. If death is inevitably for all living constructs, then why not end it now instead of resisting death, or delaying death, or living a life worth dying for? If death is inevitable, why resist it? For the same reason that we humans resist the encroachment of entropy, for the same reason that we get out of the way of hurricanes and tornados, and for the same reasons why we rebuild what is destroyed even when we know it will be destroyed once again sometime in the future.

I think it’s an entirely valid position that prostitution is degrading on the personal level – entropic, if you will

I think you are stretching the analogy here. Metaphysics (entropy or no entropy) leads to ethics and ethics leads to “prostitution being degrading”. A direct comparison of entropy to prostitution is not, however, useful or true. Human beings suffer from entropy every moment of our lives. The very fundamentals of thermodynamics are based upon it. Every time you start up your engine you are speeding up entropy just a little bit more until the energy in our closed system is diffused throughout all space and time.

It is not that entropy=bad and lack of entropy=good. An ethical system utilizes more than simply a metaphysical principle or axiom; epistemology is also required.

Where we appear to differ – in the nature of our conservatism – is the implications of innate flaws of human nature. I find it totally acceptable that a society/culture/civilization’s peoples may correctly enact laws that regulate human behavior due to those flaws. I *think* – but I could be wrong – that your philosophy would make it correct to enact only those laws to prevent us from harming each other, which is a core principle of “pure libertarianism” that I’ve abandoned as I’ve moved deeper into social conservatism.

Well, here is the thing. I have related some of my views on metaphysics and ethics, but I have not covered the politics that arises from such ethics. What this means is that I have not made my position apparent on such enacting of laws. I am not a politician and thus it has not yet been necessary to interpolate what I have said concerning evil to policy formulations about civlization.

For policies in civilization, I use the Meta-Golden Rule, which is a modified and derived product of the Golden Rule, modified by my own particular brand of philosophy.

The Meta-Golden Rule is essentially “libertarian” as you call it, but it is also religious, in the sense that the ultimate indicator of why you should do X is because of punishment from on high. Except I posit that you don’t need an omnipotent being to cast shadows of doubt on humanity. All you need to understand is that for any one person, there will always be someone stronger and someone weaker. This sets up an ethical hierarchy of duty and moral luck/responsibility/hazard.

I found the first half of your post completely consistent and unassailable, based on your axioms, Ymar. It’s well thought out and, as these things go, quite correctly deep. I do have some thoughts on the second half…

First this exchange:

Mike: A reliance on individual freedom (as is evidenced in much of libertarian thought) that does not place at LEAST equal importance on individual responsibility inevitably leads to the collapse of civilization.

Ymar: Again, what does this have to do with my positions.

To answer this – what it has to do with your positions – I have to back up a bit, in your comment, and note this from your position:

Ymar: There is no such thing as a metaphysical reality or system in which there is not a “resistance to entropy”. Entropy is, entropy is resisted, and entropy is inevitable. [...] The validation and acceptance of the inevitable decay of the universe and of the innate flaws of human nature, does lead to a conservative philosophy.

It’s rarely useful to proceed from the abstract to the concrete in arguments, which, unfortunately, is what I did. (Concrete to abstract is by far the better approach…)

If entropy is, and is inevitable, I’m not sure it’s axiomatic that it is resisted. There are plenty of people trapped in ennui and despair because, at some level, they see the resistance to entropy as useless. I suspect many people are religious, and believe in a God who is a conscious entity rather than some formless natural creative force, precisely because they reject a meaningless, purposeless Universe whose end result is that pure entropic low-grade soup of heat death.

I think I agree with your statement that A. the acceptance of entropy coupled with B. the acceptance of the innate flaws of human nature does lead to a conservative philosophy. If one accepts BOTH parts of the premise, I think the conclusion does follow; I can’t see how one arrives at Statism either.

I think you proceeded in your arguments to several specific concrete conclusions, and so did I. Where we appear to differ – in the nature of our conservatism – is the implications of innate flaws of human nature. I find it totally acceptable that a society/culture/civilization’s peoples may correctly enact laws that regulate human behavior due to those flaws. I *think* – but I could be wrong – that your philosophy would make it correct to enact only those laws to prevent us from harming each other, which is a core principle of “pure libertarianism” that I’ve abandoned as I’ve moved deeper into social conservatism.

Hence my move to the concrete discussed “bad human behaviors” and “individual responsibility” as concepts that allow laws/regulations even where one human is not directly harming another. That is likely the crux of our difference.

My key example was prostitution. I think it’s an entirely valid position that prostitution is degrading on the personal level – entropic, if you will – and degrading to the community as well – entropic, again. That makes it *reasonable* to posit that we can ban it. I completely accept that a community may choose to ban it or allow it; I would vote against allowing it.

I think we would agree that without individual responsibility, civilization cannot flourish. Our differences would probably be based on our answer to the question: Can a civilization *encourage* individual responsibility without laws/regulations that in some manner enforce it?

I do recognize that my positions open the door (at least by a crack) to Statism, and that is all they need to exploit the opening and drive towards the things we see around us today. Much as the idea of a safety net in capitalism, to catch the people on their way down and support them at least temporarily, cracks open the door to allow total state control of the results of human work. That doesn’t stop me from supporting the safety net as a protection against the wilder fluctuations of the capitalist system’s creative destruction – so long as the safety net can be fiscally paid for.

Wow. Here I’ve gone from abstract to concrete again. I guess I enjoy repeating the same mistakes!

That concepts of God-based “right and wrong, good and evil” are replaced with axioms based on “resistance to entropy”.

There is no concept of good or evil, and there is no concept of God, without metaphysics. And entropy is as metaphysical as you can get. All standards of right and wrong are based upon concrete metaphysical constructs, whether one may call it perception or reality or fantasy or idealism or the spiritual realms of Heaven and Hell.

Similarly, a Christian does not turn to his companion and say, “My God! Look at that rebellion against God’s will! It must not stand. We must do something!”

The reward and punishment control mechanism behind Christianity is Hell and Heaven. It has always been so, beginning with Adam and Eve, though while they did not go to Hell, they got pretty close due to disobeying God. There would be no Hell and no fear of being punished for one’s actions by being sent to Hell, if the basic concern was not a rebellion and a resistance to God, in one fashion or another. Heaven is for those who live by God’s laws or rules and Hell is for all the others that disobey. Whether you call this rebellion or not, matters little.

A metaphysics based on “resistance to entropy” can result in a conservative philosophy such as yours

It is not metaphysics, but ethics, for ethics is composed of equal parts of epistemology and metaphysics. Knowledge and reality, interpretation and facts.

There is no such thing as a metaphysical reality or system in which there is not a “resistance to entropy”. Entropy is, entropy is resisted, and entropy is inevitable. Those things are epistemological truths, not arguments of concern or contention. They are axiomatic. It is from that foundation which the conclusions are formed. The validation and acceptance of the inevitable decay of the universe and of the innate flaws of human nature, does lead to a conservative philosophy.

Thermodynamics was not very clear when Christianity was formed, thus their doctrine evolved differently and using different sources to teach others. I see no need to burden myself with ancient limitations on this score.

I would say that you have very much in common with a conservative whose framework is based on “resistance to rebellion against God’s will.”

The theological differences are not based upon a difference of opinion concerning the state of the universe and whether entropy is or is not an existing factor. The theological differences concern other matters.

A reliance on individual freedom (as is evidenced in much of libertarian thought) that does not place at LEAST equal importance on individual responsibility inevitably leads to the collapse of civilization.

I don’t see why this is relevant vis a vis the subject you raised.

Therefore we expect to have laws that promote civilization via the regulation of bad human behaviors.

Again, what does this have to do with my positions.

There is no need for division when we’re actually on the same team.

There is always need for division. The balance of powers created by the Founding Fathers weren’t because they liked chaos, disunity, and civil wars. Such was created because division is the natural state of human nature and one might as well make the best use of it in furthering certain goals. I mention the balance of powers, but that is only one example and it is not even a major one. The truth at this point concerns the fact that human beings do not function as One. There will always be differences and those that say they will create equality, with no differences existing, are lying and conning people.

Those differences are good and should not be confused with the Left’s consequences, which led to ultimate entropy, destruction, and chaos, to name but a few of the consequences of Leftism.

Divisions exist because they serve a purpose.

(though Book might not, as this is against the current state of law, I believe)

Book is more familiar with laws than I am. I will leave this arena in her capable hands. I prefer to focus on civic duty and responsibility, and that is an entire other ballpark than criminal law and prosecution.

Ymar:
>> It is only a ulitarian perspective that says evil can only be seen from the perspective of ex-post facto consequences. What kind of standard is that, when it is only useful when you count up the body bags After everything has been settled? What use is a philosophy that says the greatest good for the greatest number can only come after the body bags have been tallied? It is of no use at all, and incredibly flawed given human perspectives and weaknesses.

USMaleSF:
>> To pick up on a theme in Ymarsakar’s remarks: one of the most debilitating attitudes our liberal masters try to inculcate in us is a self-regarding fear that we will become like our enemies. [...] Some people just need to be put down. Period.

It seems to me that we show wisdom and intelligence when we catch them in the planning stages, and punish them as if they’d already succeeded in doing their worst. Heading them off at the pass, so to speak.

What good is it to detect them while they are planning; to listen in on their plans to murder a hundred thousand people? To monitor their purchases. To surreptitiously observe them assembling their bombs or their poisons. To detect them in setting the date and time they will enact their scheme. To watch them carry out their scheme. To witness the slaughter. And only then to swoop in and capture them, and punish them? That would be monstrous.

Once we know their intent, and once we see them begin their actions in support of their monstrous scheme, we are justified in taking them into custody, and I would claim (though Book might not, as this is against the current state of law, I believe) that they should be punished as if they had succeeded in carrying out the entirety of their scheme. For they have moved from discussion to action. That alone should suffice. We should not have to wait; they should not be relied upon to deviate from their course of action, nor to fail from incompetence.

Ymar, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you have a metaphysics here that replaces God with “resistance to entropy”.

That concepts of God-based “right and wrong, good and evil” are replaced with axioms based on “resistance to entropy”.

I’ll be a little snide here: You and a friend are walking down a darkened street, and you see a woman under assault by three men who have every intent of harm, injury and rape.

Do you turn to your friend and say, “My good man! Look at that increase in entropy! It must not stand. We must do something!”

Similarly, a Christian does not turn to his companion and say, “My God! Look at that rebellion against God’s will! It must not stand. We must do something!”

In both cases, there seems to me to be a recognition that what you are seeing is a grotesque wrong that cannot be allowed to continue. It may be that the act constitutes an act of entropy or a rebellion against God’s will… but I would say it’s not the fundamental nature of what’s going on. What’s going on is an act of wrongness itself. I would say that those are explanations, not prime motivations.

Consider the minister who sexually abuses his child. He clearly does not see himself in rebellion to God’s will, though he may come to that realization once put upon the psychanalyst/metaphysicist’s couch.

A metaphysics based on “resistance to entropy” can result in a conservative philosophy such as yours, or a highly Statist philosophy such as Obama’s. Similarly, there are many Christians who believe that all wrongness in the world is attributable to “resistance to God”… but many of them are highly Statist as well.

When you walk down a street, what leads you to say “I am moving through a diseased community, a city in the throes of collapse”?

I would argue: open prostitution on street corners, drug users slumped in despair against many brick walls of buildings that are in various stages of decay. Broken windows, weeds, and graffiti. Gangs of young men on street corners, obviously up to no good. People shuffling all about, without hope or purpose. People moving in fear, obviously because crime is more and more uncontrolled, and law enforcement is not in control. At night, people passed out on the sidewalks, vomiting into gutters; most people NOT on the streets, afraid, locked away inside their houses. The absence of children in the yards, on the streets, having fun: fear and danger rampant.

This was essentially the situation on Times Square and everywhere else in New York City when Giuliani took over. The Statists had said, “We are not interested in any of those problems! What is important is that we reverse discrimination! What is important is equal pay in which everyone is unionized! What is important is busing to alleviate school discrimination! All those problems that evidence the complete collapse of civilization are unimportant. To which Giuliani called BS, and rightly so. And cleaned it up. And everyone agrees that the lasting legacy of this is that New York City is again a FAR, FAR more civilized place. Civilization rose again from its near collapse.

The pure libertarian would say: “Open prostitution is totally fine, as no one is being hurt. It is simply a contractual agreement. Drug users should have freedom of choice in what they do AND WHERE THEY DO IT, and if their choice is to ruin their lives, then that is their choice. If broken windows and weeds and graffiti are problems, then a market force in the community will arise to pay to fix it, else it is not a problem at all. Etc.”

Your constructed conservative framework of ethics is based on “resistance to entropy”. I would say that you have very much in common with a conservative whose framework is based on “resistance to rebellion against God’s will.” There’s so much room for compromise and agreement. But not so long as you resist each other’s commitment in the struggle against the decay.

A reliance on individual freedom (as is evidenced in much of libertarian thought) that does not place at LEAST equal importance on individual responsibility inevitably leads to the collapse of civilization. Can you expect humans – via human nature itself – to always engage in acts of civil responsibility? Of course not! Therefore we expect to have laws that promote civilization via the regulation of bad human behaviors. Where we run into division, on the conservative side, is how far to go, in the regulating of negative human behaviors.

In those behaviors that constitute increase in entropy, to place within your framework. I hope there can be compromise; I believe there must be compromise, between those whose ethical framework is Godless, and those whose ethical framework is Godly – but in each case actually share a framework grounded in conservative values. There is no need for division when we’re actually on the same team. Can we find the necessary compromises, the right place of balance between individual freedom and individual responsibility?