Some time ago I decided to actually read Molyneux' UPB, and now I'm wondering whether anyone familiar with it has any criticisms of it (as in, actual arguments). I have a few and will post but am interested to see if anyone came up with something.
NOTICE, THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT A MORAL THEORY, NOT ANARCHY AS A PRODUCT
Please do not into why anarchy can't roads (at least as a response to me) because I don't care about ancapistan.
It's the categorical imperative given an acronym. Exactly as useless, as it doesn't account for the fact that decisions are not made morally but pragmatically.
bump?
Understood, but any given society has a set of morals and/or laws. What you are proposing applies to literally everything.
Laws are not universally applicable, they have finite jurisdiction.
You can use your own criticism on laws within jurisdiction.
I'm giving this a chance just to see if this is a slide thread, low-effort ancap threads usually are
Within a white society it would function fine as a basic moral system even with religions to hold the morons in line, especially with a society that is still a gun friendly one where violations can be enforced instantaneously. I don't recall all the details but for the most part it's just simple logic. Simple is very good for spreading the ideas to average people.
The problem is that we can't get from here to there without breaking some heads and moly knows that now. Though the NAP actually allows for some quite drastic actions, don't get fooled by the left-libertarians who think self-defense just means protecting yourself in the moment.
UPB doesn't address things like race, but luckily it doesn't need to since people can simply have voluntary communities and organisations that handle that. Hoppe would have better examples, but it's a slog for people who would find UPB easy to understand.
One cannot be 100% lawful as the own system of laws cannot keep up with society at large. Judges apply their own interpreration for this sole reason. Hence, pragmatism is a requirement for ones moral to live in a society.
Practical example: 17 year old girl does an ONS with user. Later parents of said hirl prosecute user for pedophilia, even though said user is 18 and has proof girl lied. user according to code of law is wrong. Pragmatically, he isnt.
I agree with this, it is a useful basic system of ethics without the need for a deity.
And the point is if someone agresses against you the ethical contract is broken.
For example, the kikes try to genocide you, you can genocide them.
Agreed, considering even that being truthful to each other we are engaging in UPB by very definition of those three words. I think whites are generally capable of understanding that.
I think the same, albeit he tries with peaceful parenting as a parallel with that. I'd like to call Moly in once and ask him something similar to your "drastic actions" considering that the state we are in currently is by definition in the breach of NAP. In something similar to this lies my criticism of UPB, which I may elaborate on later.
I understand your point but your theoretical error in justice system has a definitive answer within UPB.
Also excuse me for it might seem too unrelated. To elaborate:
We will have laws, morals or at least mutual understandings either way. What I'm asking is I suppose "what is right in the first place" to build even your theoretical law, and your answer of pragmatism still needs basis for the mutually understood ground rules upon which the judge will do his ruling. Having rules built on pragmatism will invariably lead to free interpretation of those rules, their modification and finally their own destruction. UPB seems more resistant to that because it does not change. **I guess*
Moly takes the naive attempt to bend everyone to one same pattern and behaviour presuming everyone needs to have one single mindset. Though one can praise the preferrable one, you cannot enforce it without looking like a socialist communist utopia.
People are different. Laws theorically apply to everyone as a strict middle ground which lets judge agree on individual interpretation without distorting it. UPB presumes the rich and poor need one single mindset for instance while it is proven that resource availability shapes one's mindset.
take your jew lawyering elsewhere
I think peaceful parenting is a good thing for practical and logical reasons, but his background is simply not the violent type. He said long ago that actions against the state were fine by upb or nap, don't recall, just that he thought it was counterproductive. But even back then I don't think kvetched on the issue.
To change ethics built on logic you have to either find flaws or basically cede the field.
This has literally nothing to do with UPB, at least read the definition of the term before you strawman. Ethics don't change whether you grew up poor or rich, that's the fucking point.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES UPB STAND FOR?
STOP TALKING IN RIDDLES CUNT.
Deus ain't Vulting, so UPB lets fedoras and autists transition to RWDS, aka what is necessary, Heil Hoppe
C..c.checked
If deus isn't vulting, how come you got dubs?
Checkmate atheists.
Obligatory checking for Kek.
a philosophy grad student ripped it apart and sparked the ire of Molyneux in the process.
fdrliberated.com
Praise Kek.
isn't fdrliberated made up of the same people who went around trying to harass all the rightwing libertarians 5 or so years ago?
I'm not seeing an argument in that statement. However the review has some, as does his second, mises.org
Most of the things Gordon likes about it are the things that I see as not actually well argued by molyneux, perhaps gordon is damning with faint praise. 2 of the criticisms (I'm skimming) arise from gordon being obtuse about language usage when moly clearly meant to be simplifying things. If he wanted it unsimplified, he should have gone to argumentation ethics, which is quite similar to the first point he disagreed with anyway. Another is 'the thief doesn't want to 'own' what he steals, when clearly if the thief steals something he wants to take control of it, it may not be legitimate but it is ownership.
I think UPB needs rewritten, but the good thing about it is that it's mostly short and simple. Most people don't want to read a book at all or there's people like, I assume, most of us who can't read all the books we want to. If you have time, I would recommend Hoppe instead.
On a more important note, one of the early forms of Kek had the head of a snake.
fug, I made some confusing typos, time to stop drinking
OP here, I just read the whole article. Can you link me "ripped apart" part because this whole thing is documenting Molyneux' lack of patience with guy that couldn't read a book for months. The whole thing is a big non-argument tbh.
These are actual arguments, unlike the link above. At first I started to write a rebuttal but when I figured out that it's too easy I concluded that you just googled it or heard about it (and therefore wouldn't care about what I wrote in the first place, making it a waste of time). If I'm wrong do tell, I'll post a wall of text point by point.
It's funny to me that not a single argument in there addresses what I came up with, since I think it could be UPB's breaking point. well, it doesn't negate it, but it makes you see it in completely different non-freetard light
I don't want to slide other stuff so this will be my final bump, but I would like to know what you came up with.