Voluntaryism is the largest philosophical movement in history, do you know about it?

[HannibalBarka]

Discrete quantities exist, therefore mathematics is valid.

As a mathematitian, that statement looks "weird" to me. A math theory or concept is in no way "valid" because "it has an existence in the physical world" as I think you are trying to say. "Complex" quantities do not "physically" exist, yet the math theory around Complex numbers is definetly "valid".

Mathematical "concepts" are some time used as a way to "describe" the "physical" world, but they certainly don't need that to be "valid".

 

[Cutlass]

What does that prove, exactly?

That I'm not a conservative, or apparently, an anarchist, and so I don't believe that it is morally or ethically superior to fail spectacularly by doing things in the politically "correct" fashion instead of doing something that will actually have a chance at working.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, you believe that it is morally and ethically superior to vote for a child-murderer if there's a chance he'll introduce a tax program you like. Yer a real saint like that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Park said "Committing massive atrocities for hypothetical gains". Yet it's verifiable that the odds of someone dying of violence was never lower in human history.

Yeah, you're welcome. Fall of the Soviet Union and military dictatorships in East Asia, programs to deal with AIDS, rising life expectancy, all happened at the time I showed up, so I'm gonna claim credit for that.
It's verifiable that since I showed up, the Global Poverty rate dropped 15%.

 

[Leoreth]

As a mathematitian, that statement looks "weird" to me. A math theory or concept is in no way "valid" because "it has an existence in the physical world" as I think you are trying to say. "Complex" quantities do not "physically" exist, yet the math theory around Complex numbers is definetly "valid".

Mathematical "concepts" are some time used as a way to "describe" the "physical" world, but they certainly don't need that to be "valid".

I wouldn't bother with that too much, he just pulled a random definition out of a dictionary, interpreted it completely literally and out of context, and then drew conclusions without any understanding of the subject matter.

He doesn't seem to be all that different from the average Objectivist after all.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Core Values of Voluntarism

The idea which separates Voluntarism from political ideologies is that Voluntarism seeks to abide by objective moral principles. An objective moral principle is one that may be universally applied to everyone at all times without contradiction.

How on earth is that "useful"? "th right to kill" can be universally applied to everyone at all times without contradiction.

Essentially, if it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor, then it is wrong for all men to steal from each-other.


OK, let's consider this "generilazation" process desirable and useful. than why are you taking as "individual" rule "it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor" and not "it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor unless it's for the common good"?

This scientific process of universalizing principles is how Voluntarism sets itself apart, and which is why Voluntaryists reject the State.


I don't see what science is involved here? I suppose the author is just trying to play the science card to validate his opinion like many religious people do.

Taxation, as we all know, is a non-voluntary interaction which is backed with a threat of violence.

Using "as we all know" is usually a bad start ;-) , especially when it's wrong. First, though many people pay their taxes non-volontarily, many do happily. I have no problem and am happy paying taxes in a nation where said taxes would be used for the common good.
Second, I may say that "Not murdering your neighbour is non-voluntary interaction which is backed with a threat of violence" as many "would be murderer" would agree with it. It does not follow that normal people aren't voluntarily not murdering the guy next door.

 

[Crezth]

Yet - it is an absolute in the circumstances we know of. And that is the best proof you will ever have - be it in natural or social science. Just that social science makes it harder to test different circumstances for social systems aren't a lab experiment.
Which means: If you can point to circumstances said correlation actually wasn't true overall or of you can make a good case for how the causal relationship is circumstantial - by all means do so. Until you or someone else has - the causal relationship may just as well be treated as an absolute unless we actually do want to turn society into a lab experiment.

Nah, that's not how it works. You have to prove the correlation is causal; it's not on anyone else to prove that it isn't.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Eh - you can't prove any causal relationship to be absolute. You can only prove it to hold true under the given circumstances of any given experiment (or how on earth do you actually want so argue something different?). As the saying goes (reference to the quote a scientist-thread and not really a saying): Scientists suck at finding truth. But they excel in finding falsifications of supposed truth.
...
Meaning: What scientists have left are those propositions which have not been falsifiable - rather than those those which have been "proven" in whatever experiment. The trouble: this standard is only quit badly adaptable to social sciences.

That's hardly an exhaustive list of alternatives. You may as well say that one month, instead of punching yourself in the face, you punched your boss in the face, and didn't get any money, therefore punching yourself in the face is the absolute condition of getting paid.

So lab experiment is it then, eh?