Axiom Olympics
Axioms are a brief statement or proposition which is regarded as being self-evidently true. The axiom olympics is a competition to identify the "best" libertarian propositions or axioms of political philosophy,
The contestants are the various propositions.
The events are a series of scenarios designed to test the integrity, comprehensiveness, real-world application, and usability of the propositions. Readers may suggest new events.
The judges are you, the readers and responders on this googlegroup. Like a gymnastics competition, the judges rank the contestants in each event from 1 (awful) to 10 (Brilliant).
Contestants
NAP - Non Aggression Principle. Murray Rothbard
No violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.
IP - Individualist Proposition. Trevor Watkins
No one should act against an innocent person or their property without their consent.
ML- Mychland. Jimgee1000
Infringement of individual property rights constitutes a punishable crime.
WR - Weiman's rule. Gavin Weiman
All human action that impacts on others must either be either a) blameless or b) justified.
GR - Golden rule. Traditional
Do as you would be done by.
UT - Utilitarian. Hobbes
The greatest good for the greatest number
EX - Existing Legal System
Events
Which axiom gives the best (most in line with your expectations for a fair system) result? Mark your score from 1(awful) to 10(brilliant), and justify your score if necessary.
A boxer is punched in a contest he has agreed to.
A government official demands you pay tax.
Your neighbour sues you for looking into her property.
After the seller told you it was working, the car you purchased will not start
After signing a contract to work for R20/hour, your employee demands R30/hour.
You grossly insult someone in public.
You shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LmvUezWhmpyVyqn390BEi6oZ87w0R%2Br9iGygd1DTpno6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/01a87718-026e-4f2b-a32c-99a26a267118o%40googlegroups.com.
A government official demands you pay tax.
Your neighbour sues you for looking into her property.
After the seller told you it was working, the car you purchased will not start
After signing a contract to work for R20/hour, your employee demands R30/hour.
You grossly insult someone in public.
You shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/572e37fd-7980-48ef-9b16-1a8e8c3fb63do%40googlegroups.com.
I'm busy compiling my evaluation of what you have there, Trevor, so I'll come back when I have something.
Also, about what Gavin said about the word axiom.... it may be worth defining what *you* mean by it, before we go any further. Even if it's nothing more than a google search result. Just so those with a different definition can factor it in to their answers.
Otherwise, I can see most people being reticent to even try to make sense of it. An axiom is a statement that is self-evidently true and therefore does not require further justification. A classic example is Ayn Rand's statement "A is A", which is an axiom which required a further huge corpus of work to justify. The word "axiom" has generated resistance in the past (mainly from Gavin :)), and I now prefer the word proposition - not quite so arrogant, and permits further justification. For a while I will use them interchangeably.To me, there must be a glossary of terms. Even if - and more likely because of the fact that - other people's definitions differ. I agree that a glossary is necessary, I just didn't want to put it in this post because it will be a huge thing, filled with counter-arguments. I also didn't want to summarise other people's positions on their behalf. Hence I recommended that the points made in the previous post (The Individualist Proposition) could be used to explain your and Gavin's propositions, and a little online research could explain the others (NAP, Golden rule, etc). By the underwhelming response I can see that approach was overly optimistic. I will start a new thread entitled "Axiom/proposition glossaries" in which I will do my best to provide the answers you seek. Of course, I will use your and Gavin's own definitions. Nevertheless I expect some robust disagreements.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/9697b1ce-e04f-45f2-8c7d-d57befba6ff4o%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/2a7872c4-2b42-4d81-be77-74ff422cac6en%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/1C6E6D73-ABB7-4829-89B2-6C6D06B27972%40icloud.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAOxAaouUH8R0fSe4NhcyZeQWggT-bo6TCmgqQzqaRc4sr5k1QQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAOxAaouUH8R0fSe4NhcyZeQWggT-bo6TCmgqQzqaRc4sr5k1QQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/910EF787-6F5F-4E08-980E-30217FC33040%40icloud.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/910EF787-6F5F-4E08-980E-30217FC33040%40icloud.com.
At least for the moment, I'm going with a (more or less) binary categorization system, based on the action under question. The 1-10 scoring system is perhaps a little arbitrary, but I may come back and complete that aspect at some point if need be/desired. (Hopefully that isn't too difficult to parse. I wasn't sure how to use the tables formatting so I just copy 'n pasted and typed it out).
1. A boxer is punched in a contest he has agreed to.
Action under question: punch
NAP: Legality of action: legal. The other boxer is a non-aggressor by virtue of contract. This is my problem with the NAP. Nowhere in its formulation does it mention contract, consent or property. It is simply assumed because we're talking to libertarians. Non-libertarians would assume a boxing match is illegal in terms of the words used in the NAP.
IP: Legality of action: legal. You may act since you have consent, and be acted aginst since you have consented..
ML: Legality of action: legal. Since each boxer owns his body, he can do with it as he pleases, including potentially subjecting it to a series of brutal punches, which may result in his physical demise. Illegal. Can you as the the boxer respond? No mention of contract or consent making it legal.
WR: Legality of action: legal (other boxer is blameworthy, but justified (1a, 4a)). ‘Harm’ is assumed to be forceful blows applied to opponent’s body. Legal, as consent removes blame and provides justification.
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective)
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity}) Legal, if a majority of those present benefit from the boxing match.
2. A government official demands you pay tax.Action under question: demand ‘X’
NAP: Legality of action: legal unless specified otherwise, contractually. Illegal. Due to the threat of force, ultimately.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. (‘Against’ would require definition) Illegal, in the absence of consent.
ML: Legality of action: legal (Demands, per se, are not illegal. Government officials are merely market participants. Market participants acting extra-contractually can be legally prosecuted or ignored.) Illegal. Government officials are not merely market participants, they have a monopoly on force, and will use it. According to ML, Infringement of property rights is a punishable crime.WR: Legality of action: Illegal (1a, none of 4a,4b,4c apply). ‘Harm’ is imagined to be forceful seizure of property, where ‘property’ is not defined. Possibly legal: Depending on the jurisdiction, demanding tax could be blameless and justified.
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective) Your desire to pay tax has no bearing on me.
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity}) Legal: If more people benefit from my tax, than are threatened by it.
3. Your neighbour sues you for looking into her property.
Actions under question: sue(assume up to delivery of summons), peep.
NAP: Legality of actions: sue: legal(subject to voluntary contract which is not specified), peep: legal unless specified otherwise, contractually.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. (‘Against’ would require definition) Legal: No real act involved. Maybe subject to review by peers
ML: Legality of action: base contract: legal, extended contract: depends on terms(Did you agree not to look into her property?).
WR: Legality of action: sue: legal(1a,4a); peep: depends on contract(1a, 4x). Is peeping blameless or justified? Who decides?
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective)
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity}) If the peepers outnumber the neighbours, then peeping is legal. What truy awful concept UT is.
4. After the seller told you it was working, the car you purchased will not start
Action under question: mislead
NAP: Legality of action: illegal. Theft by deception. Legal, no force involved. NAP does not mention fraud or property.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. (If not ‘against’, might make the action legal) Illegal Definition of consent does not permit fraud.
ML: Legality of action: illegal.
WR: Legality of action: illegal (1a, none of 4a,4b,4c apply). ‘Harm/infringement’ is imagined to be deprivation of ownership(see ML glossary).
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective)
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity})
5. After signing a contract to work for R20/hour, your employee demands R30/hour.
Action under question: demand ‘X’
NAP: Legality of action: legal unless specified otherwise, contractually. legal: a demand is not an act.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. legal: a demand is not an act.
ML: Legality of action: base contract: legal, extended contract: depends on terms. legal: a demand is not an act.
WR: Legality of action: legal(none of 1a,1b apply). No imagined harm/infringement(unless contractual). legal: a demand is not an act.
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective)
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity}) Legal, if a majority of fellow workers will benefit.
6. You grossly insult someone in public.Action under question: insult
NAP: Legality of action: legal unless specified otherwise, contractually.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. Legal: insult is not a real act.
ML: Legality of action: legal. Insults do not constitute a crime. The recipient would have to assign some legitimacy to the insult for it to have any effect on him. If you chose to be bound by a contract stipulating you were forbidden from insulting someone, and managed to find a contract enforcement service/s, you would be free to so engage. As long as the contract was voluntarily entered into.
WR: Legality of action: Indeterminate. Depends on definition of ‘harm’/’infringement’. One person may insist that name-calling causes tremendous harm. Another may treat vile insults as water off a duck’s back.
GR: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective)
UT: Legality of action: legal or illegal (Chaos could erupt, since rules are entirely subjective, and decided by {unspecified person/entity})
7. You shout "Fire" in a crowded theatreAction under question: shout
NAP: Legality of action: legal unless specified otherwise, contractually.
IP: Legality of action: depends on contractual terms. Illegal: No action affecting property without consent. Theatre owner must specifically permit shouting of "Fire."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/ec93645f-86c7-4da8-8002-d58229dd2ffbn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lksu76AK_7uVaYK0uhP_dRrRxw1GVjfQtXrcEFP%3DPexVg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lksu76AK_7uVaYK0uhP_dRrRxw1GVjfQtXrcEFP%3DPexVg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAOxAaoufbRAzM5U8DJrJw%2BTg%3DQ6s5koGgAURGTryi4dAeHpWiw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LkD7c%3D5aDRXPJWKS2q-CqBvsk7X%3D7VUwThAThE6kRdt_A%40mail.gmail.com.