Categorical Moral Imperatives

[Vichy]

No voting is a system (outside the control of voters) whereby through a tallying of individual choices some or other decision is decided upon and then unilaterally enforced upon the populace, regardless of who dissents.
Only individuals can act, because only individuals exist.

[Will]

No voting is a system (outside the control of voters) whereby through a tallying of individual choices some or other decision is decided upon and then unilaterally enforced upon the populace, regardless of who dissents.
Only individuals can act, because only individuals exist.

You're splitting hairs, but it's not important. It seems to me as if you don't think there's a situation where there can exist collective property or a collective decision. You do this by extending individualism beyond it's breaking point.

I don't normally link wiki, but this is a decent introductory read to collectivism.

[Vichy]

Methodological individualism is an irrefuteable fact, it applies universally to ALL human action.
I recommend reading some of the stuff on about methodological individualism like http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp
I am not having to stretch anything, once you understand the principle I think it is impossible to argue with it without contradicting oneself and it consequentially applies to all human action that ever has and will occur.  It's part of the nature of consciousness.

[Will]

The fact that you believe methodological individualism is factual is symptomatic of the problem. It's not. It's one way of explaining societal development out of many. I've read Mises and I know Mises, and I happen to think that he's wrong on many things including this. You seem to be simply repeating his arguments, but you don't seem to understand the underlying mechanics of the arguments (otherwise you could have answered any one of my questions).

Why can only an individual determine the use of something? What evidence is there of this?
Do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?

[Vichy]

I disagree because I am pretty well certain that it makes no more sense to argue against axiomatic arguments, such as methodological individualism, than it does to argue for the existence of married bachelors.  Once someone grasps the meaning of the words and arguments, it is utterly nonsensical and impossible to imagine any other state of affairs.  I've read a lot of alternative theories of epistemology and metaphysics, and I must land squarely in George H. Smith's camp.  Neo-Aristotilean logic is the only way you can explain anything, once you step outside of conceptual deduction as an absolute capacity you lose the capacity to justify any belief or argument, empirical or otherwise.

[Will]

Third time:
Why can only an individual determine the use of something? What evidence is there of this?
Do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?

All you've posted is conclusions. Can you deconstruct them, and show us why you've come to those conclusions? Or are you just parroting libertarian dogma?

[Vichy]

I kind of missed that, though not intentionally.  I did not mean that only a single individual can be active in influencing how some property or other is disposed of, obviously a joint-stock company can contradict that if nothing else.  What I meant was that only one particular use can be chosen, and that in the abscence of property rights and the voluntary agreement of the just owners, that that one type of action is imposed upon the other owners.  In addition I would say that property can only rationally be owned by one person initially (first-use) since all other forumalations of ownership make it impossible to act without violating someone else's property rights.  Beyond that, of course, any number of people can agree to procedures and methods of the employment of that property.

[Will]

What I meant was that only one particular use can be chosen, and that in the abscence of property rights and the voluntary agreement of the just owners, that that one type of action is imposed upon the other owners.

This assumes hierarchy, or uneven distribution of ownership. If it were democratic, the only imposition (if you can even call it that) is imposed on the minority, and they agree before buying in to abide by democratic rule. So, using stock ownership to illustrate my point, if the holders controlling more than 50% of the stock decide on one course of action, the minority, in buying the stock, agreed to abide by the ruling. If they feel strongly enough, they can even sell their interest. So, in this illustration, there are no impositions.

In addition I would say that property can only rationally be owned by one person initially (first-use) since all other forumalations of ownership make it impossible to act without violating someone else's property rights.

Wait, you suggest that property can only be owned by one person, and this person (the first user) is automatically in charge? Do you have any models to illustrate this kind of an arrangement?

Beyond that, of course, any number of people can agree to procedures and methods of the employment of that property.

I'd call this the basis of government. As members of a society, there will inevitably be things we have to share. In sharing these things rules were developed in order to maintain equality and fairness (which is ethical, to bring this back to what I believe was your original point). The ability to recognize unavoidable commonality in economics and government separates moderate libertarians from fundamentalist libertarians.

[Vichy]

I despise democracy, I hold equality as nonsensical, impossible and completely anti-liberal and 'fairness' is a word used with so many contradictory and arbitrary meaning as to have no meaning whatsoever.  I find egalitarianism ridiculous.
The point of only first-use property rights being rational is covered in argumentation ethics (since if a later user had rights then the user after him would have rights and thus no one would have any rights).  Also, government is non-consensual and thus cannot be considered in any way a voluntary agreement on the use of property.  Of course one could agree to democratic rule voluntarily, but in practice almost no one - if anyone - has actually agreed to the unlitateral enforcement rights of state agencies, democratic or otherwise.

[Will]

You may despise democracy, but it certainly still exists and more often than not it is voluntary. No one forces you to vote in governmental elections.

Clearly you're well read on the conclusions of other people, but you don't seem to understand the mechanics of their ideas. Have you noticed you only seem to present conclusions but you can't address how you got to them? Either you state an extreme opinion about something ("I hate democracy", "argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property") or you state a conclusion that's usually from either libertarian philosophy or what I can only describe as libertarian argumentation theory 101. The problem is that, even though you throw the word "argumentation" around, you aren't actually discussing or arguing. Being well versed in argumentation theory and more widely in game theory, I find this a bit frustrating.

I suspect people listen to you because you state very intelligent conclusions. I'm much more interested in rationale than simply reading you quoting Mises.

[Vichy]

I don't vote in government elections.  Nor does voting in elections indicate agreement or acceptance.  As Lysander Spooner says in No Treason,
"The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals, or by the States, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being; not an engagement for the future. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a [*6] man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
And simply try to get out of this allegedly 'voluntary' democracy, to defy the politicians or the majority who impose their views without their consent and you shall find out how 'voluntary' it is.

I understand perfectly well why I have reached these conclusions, which is why the arguments I made initially as well as the complimentary ones were linked.  The reason, if fact, that I have such a liking for subjects such as rational-realistic philosophy (IE, Neo-Aristotileanism) and economics is because they make perfect logical sense.  To a lesser extent this is also true of science, which probably qualifies as one of my minor hobbies despite my mathematical incompetence.

[jcm]

And simply try to get out of this allegedly 'voluntary' democracy, to defy the politicians or the majority who impose their views without their consent and you shall find out how 'voluntary' it is.

What are you prevented and/or forced to do? Pay taxes, big deal. We have freedom under this government. You have the right to do what ever the hell you want to do as long as you don't violate the laws written to help protect people's life, liberty and property. I don't care what you do, just don't tread on me or on others. I will pay my fair share to insure the safety of the country and the protection of my rights.

[Vichy]

I'm extorted, regulated and you say I have freedom.
Also, your consequentialist arguments are, as I have been saying, totally and utterly irrelevant to me.  If you don't mind being robbed and forced into unchosen obligations, that's your deal and I don't care.  But I don't, and I refuse to support any organization or individual which does so because I believe it is unequivically evil.

[jcm]

I'm extorted, regulated and you say I have freedom.
Also, your consequentialist arguments are, as I have been saying, totally and utterly irrelevant to me.  If you don't mind being robbed and forced into unchosen obligations, that's your deal and I don't care.  But I don't, and I refuse to support any organization or individual which does so because I believe it is unequivically evil.

In what way are you extorted and regulated?

Wow freedom of speech to say you don't have any freedoms. I am NOT robbed when my tax dollars go to improve the nation in a number of ways. You sound like an upset teenager that was told you should to get a job and help pay for  your new car. Nothing is free.  

consequentialist argument? Yes there are consequences in life, grow up.

[Will]

Your unfounded anger and entitlement is leading to unreasonable and unsupportable conclusions. This is demonstrated by shifting the conversation every time I ask a question, and trying to cover your tracks with decent grammar and syntax and occasionally throwing in a quote. The only reason you give for anything in this entire thread is "it makes logical sense". Does it? Why? Why does any of this make "logical sense"? Can you actually break down your reasoning? Or do you not understand what you're repeating?

The taxes you paid for the computer on which you bash the government went to the same government.