[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 360x240, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5957897 No.5957897 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any substance to libertarian arguments against determinism?

Is there any other way to attempt a justification of free will out with compatibilism?

>> No.5957926

The assertion of determinism from cause and effect is unfalsifiable, memes aside.

Suppose one knows information of a situation; let's say you give a stranger a shove. The determinist would say that the cause of his reaction would be total to his life, what he has experienced and how he perceives the world and reacts to stimuli. Given this, one could (assuming total information) accurately predict the stranger's reaction to the push. But, if one knew this information than one could act on it and alter the man's reaction by producing different stimuli: a handshake instead of a shove. If this knowing all cause maintains, then one could accurately predict effect and move to augment it. If you can change a determined course, than how can you maintain a determined universe? Is this not self defeating?

>> No.5957930

I'm a voluntarist and I don't think there's any argument against determinsim other than "muh quantum mechanics". The only thing I'd say is, whther the world is deterministic or not is irrelevant. If you rape someone, you still did and you still need to be punished.

>> No.5957936

>>5957930
>I'm a voluntarist
>you still need to be punished.
wow

>> No.5957942

>>5957936

If you violate the NAP, you need to be punished, either through ostrasism or if you opted into a community, through financial penalties.

>> No.5957944

>>5957942
I voluntarily oppose any such restrictions

>> No.5957994

>>5957944

Well then good luck finding a job or buying property in my community, because I've just rang every business that follows my rules and told them not to do business with you. Sling your hook.

>> No.5958008

If the NAP is the best libertarians can come up with, they deserve what will inevitably happen when the revolution comes and the masses start violating both it and them.

>> No.5958011

>>5957994
How is this not statism?

>> No.5958012

>>5958011
If capitalists do it, it isn't statism :^]

>> No.5958015

Collectivism, not even once.

>> No.5958016

>>5958011

No violence. But even if it is "statism", I'm not really bothered. As long its non-violent and volentary, its irrelevant.

>> No.5958023

>>5957926
does this logically follow or did my heroin addict of a mother fuck my head

>> No.5958033

>>5958016
Do you really think this is maintainable? Just because some people agreed to some conditions doesn't mean they will keep their word. If I am rich and productive, and I rape you and you are not rich or productive, what incentive would the fellow voluntarianists have to uphold the NAP?

Why not just violate others if their is a profit to be had?

>> No.5958050

Do any libertarians specifically bother with opposing determinism on a philosophical level? Most determinists understand that we experience life as if we have free will, and ergo for instance still do things: freedom from perceptible influence is still arguable as a psychological and socioeconomic benefit, even if not freedom as an ontological fact. Your stance on determinism doesn't change the fact that you'd probably rather live in a country with civil liberties than under Stalin... right?

>> No.5958052

>>5958033

Of course its maintainable. Unlike a state where they have something to gain by you committing crime (prison-industrial complex), private companies that would mediate interactions between humans in a company would lose money from people committing violent acts or breaking their rules because they would have to investigate and bring the issue to a conclusion. The incentive not to rape people would first come from the fact that people would be allowed to carry weapons and defend themselves from rapists, and the incentive for people, especially DRO's, to investigate the issue would be that people would lose faith in them and they don't want a society that is violent because it costs them money. Also, the individual who did it would likely strike again.

>Why not just violate others if their is a profit to be had?

Because a) it would likely get you shot, and b) if you're caught you will be financially punished. The only time violence punishments are neccessary are if an individual is consistantly aggressive or murders a person, in which case they should be executed, except in the case of crimes of passion in which case repeat offenders only should be executed.

>> No.5958067

>>5958052
Nice dogma.

>> No.5958072

>>5958052
Also, there is plenty of profit to be had at the expense of other individuals.

>> No.5958082

>>5958067

Its not a dogma. All we need to do is take a piece of land off the government, start the DRO and people will come. Then all we have to do is wait for the government to inevitably get jelly and declare war on us saying that the land is theirs by default and we're golden to destroy them. Its a lot more acheivable and open to people than something like Communism where overthrowing the government first and killing and enslaving everyone is the generally accepted method.

>>5958072

That's true in any system. Its just that in this one their's no profit to be had by the law-enforcers.

>> No.5958088

>>5957926
Your knowledge of the other guy's circumstances and subsequent decision to shake his hand rather than shove him are also predetermined based on YOUR whole life experience, though. You can change the determined courses of others, but at the same time your changing of that course is part of your own course.

>> No.5958101

>>5958088
If you can changed a determined course, it ceases to be determined.

>> No.5958153
File: 255 KB, 352x473, dIbSz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5958153

>>5957944
holy shit, underrated post

>> No.5958168

>>5958101
not him but the any 'change' you would implement is in itself a determinable effect of all previous states, given enough information and time to interpret it someone in the past (an outside observer) would have been able to determine that you would have access to this information, which would cause you to stop wanting to shove the man and instead give him a handshake (or whatever the case may be) and that would have been the only possible outcome of events.

>> No.5958180

>>5957897
>libertarian arguments against determinism
Such as?

>> No.5958724

>>5957897
We know that the world is both deterministic and indeterministic (this applies to subatomic particles and their positions, which are only calculable by probabilities and the better you learn it's position, the less you know about the particle's speed).

From this it follows that we are governed by causality (cause-effect, a "law of nature" of sorts) and randomness. In either case, we are merely acting as puppets. Whether or not the choices we make are arbitrarily decided by chance or by stimuli to the subconscious does not matter; there is no free will in either case.

Thus, we can conclude that only a "Prime Mover" (God, if you will) could have the power to "will what one wills" (i.e. free will). Are you a prime mover? If not, then you do not have free will.

That's really all you need to know, the rest is sophistry.

>> No.5958726

>>5957936
Einstein has been quoted saying that he does not blame a murderer for his actions, seeing as his will was not free; he would still not prefer to have tea with the man but instead to see him incarcerated.

One does not have to believe in free will in order to believe that punishment is required for certain acts of aggression.