The pursuit of .. Values?

This topic could be the subject of a doctoral dissertation. But let me attempt to give my initial impression.

Personally, I find that sometimes my values are too high. I fail to live up to them. Perhaps the reason that you see inconsistency is people simply failing to live up to their values, not the values themselves being inconsistent.

Also, your health example is great. Many liberals are more health conscious. But they still support universal health insurance for those who aren't. I don't claim to be able to delve into the liberal mind, but perhaps the reason value systems seem inconsistent is that people think they value one thing, while their actions actually lead to another... as you suggested in your post "why some, good religious people are liberal." Perhaps those of us with limited vision (read: human beings) are prone to choose inconsistent value systems because we simply don't understand how they conflict. Your question on abortion restriction vs. free society surely got me thinking on that one... and I don't think I'll get consistency anytime soon.

Life is too complex for that...

I seek to retain the inherent right of every one to pursue happiness.
The only exceptions to this are when someone's pursuit of happiness
would take away someone else's inherent rights to such things as
life, health (freedom from physical harm not the right to free health
care), liberty, or property (an alienable right - other than your birthday
suit;).

The exceptions don't include lifestyle.
Especially economic lifestyle.
Which is something individuals might Value - according to your
definition - something to obtain or retain.
So if someone's pursuit of happiness takes away from your
salary or increases competition for your job, too bad.

This belief is why am more or less for open borders.
Not completely - see exceptions above.

So the right to pursue happiness should include but not be limited to:
the freedom of movement (voting with one's feet), the freedom to
work where one is (cap)able, the freedom to acquire and dispense
with property, etc.

These abilities are what make the pursuit of happiness if not a right
universally valued a universal right, nonetheless.

VOR check out Heartland Patriot's blog at heartlandpatriot.townhall.com titled intellectual odd and ends. There's a pretty good discussion of your questions there.

I think you have something with the identification of values. There's a few issues here to address.

One is that not everyone's value system is axiomatized, or objective (little o not Randian objectivism). Its actually very hard to come up with one.

I personally value things in this order(vaguely):
1. My life, my health, and my loved ones
2. My Liberty.
3. My property.
4. Peaceful coexistance with my neighbors.

Two even though I have listed my values I haven't provided a method for obtaining them. Perhaps the best way to get allong with my neighbors is to kill the noisy one? I'd have few people to deal with, the other neighbor would thanks me as they can sleep easier. Hence the need for a morality system as well. While Rand claims this is empirically easy to discover I disagree. I also would have to place value on that system to follow it.

Three even if everyone's morality system was axiomatized there would still be situations were grey areas would occur. This is actually the Theorem of Incompleteness in a course in mathematical logic, but applies to philosophical logic as well.

Case in point: Abortion, Capital Punishment, Drugs, Euthanasia

.. perhaps you can consider individual Values to be the markings on a 'barometer' by which you measure your own success in life, with Joy as the reward.

Individual values may be inconsistent, but those who have such value systems pay a heavy price. In my example, the suicide bomber pays for his inconsistent Value system with his life.

Values may also be un-attainable, in which case one is deprived of the Joy that comes from attaining that particular Value. For example, I may Value the winning of a Nobel Prize in Particle Physics, but the Joy of attaining that particular value is unlikely to come my way due to my shortcomings in that area.

I agree with you that there are likely to be areas of greyness. However, even without 100% coverage, it is possible to have Objective law that covers a fairly large cross section.

My quest has always been for that sort of maximal coverage - the grey areas belong in our Legislature.

Just by extrapolating the 4 priorities in YOUR value system, we could probably come up with laws that objectively cover about 75% of our activities.

So, why is it that we don't? The inconsistencies in our value system come from extraneous values such as self-sacrifice, which are actually inconsistent with human nature. When we place them on a pedestal, usually ABOVE achievement, we set the stage for contradictions.

Why is Bill Gates lauded for his philanthropy but criticized for his achievements?

In your fictitious example, you Value peace-and-quiet in your neighborhood. So, you decide to 'eliminate' a noisy neighbor to achieve that Value. Clearly, you deprived the neighbor of his life, and will likely lose your own, giving up everything that you Value! No joy ..

I would be in favor of open borders - but not while we have a welfare state in place! And not in a world in which we could be attacked by 'visitors'.

If taxpayers are freed from the enslavement of the welfare systems, immigrants would be able to come and work freely, but not be able to demand tax-coerced services. Of course, there is the 'ick factor' of how we would deal with unskilled immigrants begging for charity on our streets since they lack the ability to compete in our markets.

Unfortunately, the open borders thing only works when all countries embrace Capitalism.

That is something very profound. Too often, we tend to discuss issues singly, when applying conservative solutions across the board is needed. I too, would have no problem with open borders, free trade, etc if all countries played by the same rules as us. But why let people in with our welfare state? Why trade with China when they don't allow property rights, and have a de-facto slave state?

The best example I have found: libertarian desire to make all drugs legal. It is a great principle in that it isn't the purview of the government to dictate behavior, even if it is self destructive... but in order to do it first we would have to get rid of the nanny state that is around our necks.

But keeping the entire picture is apt to make change. But sometimes I wonder: Its been almost a century since FDR and the beginning of modern liberalism... Why do we think it wouldn't take that long to turn things around again?

V:Just by extrapolating the 4 priorities in YOUR value system, we could probably come up with laws that objectively cover about 75% of our activities.
end V

What your discribing I sympothese with but think is incomplete. The reason is essentially because MY values tell be what I think is important, they don't tell me how to achieve them. This is known as David Hume's is/ought problem. My fictious example was ment to illistrate that point, but it was brief...the big version includes no possible punishment for me, etc.

So how to go from values to ethics. One way is to axiomize a system of ethics, then show my values could be obtained that way then place value on my system of ethics(Kant roughly translated, slightly abused). Note there may be more than one system to achieve my values. I will give you kudos though for noting that a system that is inconsistant with human nature, would fail. This is a variable often ignored in these experiments.

The other way is to take my values and try to derive a ethical system from them, but with my four values that would be next to impossible without adding additional values(in my example placing value on my neighbor's life would be one). I believe this is what most people try to do and why they end up with so many inconsistancies. They keep having adding to add values ...

As an experiment we could take everyonesfacts definition of "pursuit of happiness" which is a loose axiom of ethics and try to see if it would accomplish my goals. And that might be worth deriving laws from. We can call it Axiomatized Constitutional Systems and write a PolySci dissertation. I'm pretty sure someone's already written it though.

PS: Thanks for chatting about this, I'm a mathematician by trade and only dabble in philosophy so this has actually cleared up a few things for me.

In a previous post, AC said:

AC: even though I have listed my values I haven't provided a method for obtaining them.

VoR: It is in the realm of 'methods' that your virtues come in! A 'Virtue' is defined as the action(s) that you take to attain your values.

In a free society, you may choose any course of action except those that are proscribed.

BTW, many people forget the important corollary to the above statement, that in a free society the Govt does ONLY what it is permitted. In other words, individuals are free but Govts are bound!

Regarding Values themselves: if we try to come up with a list of UNAMBIGUOUS values, it isn't so difficult. I will be posting on this subject in a few days.

Actually your simple list of four would also be a good start.

Note: just because something is a Value, that doesn't make it a right. For example, Education is a Value - but not a right. I certainly value education for my kids, but I don't expect it to be free - nor do I expect my neighbors to pay for MY kids' education.

VOR wrote:
"I would be in favor of open borders - but not while we have a welfare state in place! And not in a world in which we could be attacked by 'visitors'."

Second point first: I repeat to the extent that
is possible I would not allow people to move
who have taken away rights from other people from
wherever they are coming from and two who intend
to take away individual's or people's rights here.

First point: Let us not use positive rights /
entitlements for the reason we take away
negative rights. The right to pursue happiness
should trump any welfare program.

VOR wrote:
"If taxpayers are freed from the enslavement of the welfare systems, immigrants would be able to come and work freely, but not be able to demand tax-coerced services. Of course, there is the 'ick factor' of how we would deal with unskilled immigrants begging for charity on our streets since they lack the ability to compete in our markets.

Unfortunately, the open borders thing only works when all countries embrace Capitalism."

To equate taxes and slavery is disingenuous
at best and shameful at worst. Unless you
are being taxed so much you cannot move freely.
The 'ick factor' has not been proven ever to
be real, although I'll give you that people
think it is real, but unskilled workers are
finding jobs just fine. Since a majority of
countries do embrace capitalism I see no
reason to restrict movement. Indeed, the true
law of supply and demand cannot work unless
there is freedom of movement.

So I will repeat: "the right to pursue happiness
should include but not be limited to:
the freedom of movement (voting with one's feet), the freedom to work where one is (cap)able,
the freedom to acquire and dispense with property, etc.

These abilities are what make the pursuit of happiness if not a right universally valued a universal right, nonetheless."

As you can see, your reply proved my last point.

EF: To equate taxes and slavery is disingenuous
at best and shameful at worst. Unless you
are being taxed so much you cannot move freely.

VoR: I do not equate taxes with Slavery (in the historical sense).

However, I do define Enslavement as the act of forcing an individual (or group) to work for the benefit of other individuals (or groups).

Most tax-coerced public welfare systems fall under this classification. Pvt charity however, does not.

Public Education is a classic example: a childless couple is forced to subsidize the education costs of their neighbor's kids. Despite the fact that they can move freely, their money (read: the fruits of their productive labor) are being coerced away.

There is a 'consent of the governed' argument that applies to all this - if a majority of taxpayers agree to fund public education (or welfare or Universal Health Care) through taxes, then such enslavement becomes the law of the land. That translates to legal (but immoral) enslavement of productive people.

In the debate on entitlements such as UHC, Conservatives should vehemently argue that such enslavement is wrong. However, conservatives are weakened by their own value system that places selflessness on a higher pedestal than fairness.

EF: Since a majority of countries do embrace capitalism I see no reason to restrict movement.

VoR: I wish that were true - but very few countries embrace Capitalism. Even our own country (the last bastion and all that) is lurching dangerously to the Left.
You may find the following link to be instructive:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_execsum.cfm

LB: Its been almost a century since FDR and the beginning of modern liberalism... Why do we think it wouldn't take that long to turn things around again?

VoR: Unfortunately, liberalism is a slippery slope - and it is very difficult to climb back up after we have slipped so far down.

Consider that it took from 1914-1989 for Communism to fail in Soviet Russia. And that was full-blown Communism! Which means that there was almost no productivity.

With the kind of mixed economy that we have, the Leftists try to 'permit' just enough freedom to ensure that there are some productive people (read: victims) remaining - most of whom succeed DESPITE the socialist millstone that is around their necks.

Of course, the Leftists aren't really that smart; they tend to accelerate their 'reforms' and add to the problems! Once they really get going, our descent down that slippery slope gets faster and faster.

Public Education in the 1950s really started our descent, but it took a decade or two before the quality of education dropped. From the Leftist point-of-view, this was an unqualfied success. Not only did they usurp a piece of the economy, they also found a way to indoctrinate future generations to their way of thinking! What a prize we gave them ..

Circa 2007: the question of whether or not we should hand over another huge part of our economy to the Govt has been answered. Yes, Comrade Commissar, thank you for your generosity!

All that is left is to debate WHAT FORM OF Universal Health Care to adopt. No matter which way we go, we will pay dearly for the privilege of free medical insurance.

When we are at the bottom of the slippery slope, who among us will build the ropes that will pull us out? Will our State-educated numb-brains have the collective IQ to do so?

VoR, about the Healthcare thing: I am as scared as you. I look at how hard it is to grab the reins back on those rights we have already given to the government (public education, soc sec, taxation, etc...) and I tremble to think that America is about to give them another.

By the way, did you see my blog post on the healthcare "crisis?" I think that is how conservatives need to counter the socialist health care surge.

The link from the Heritage Fund has
the US 4th on the Economic Freedom
scale. It shows all areas of the
world, with the exception of the Middle
East, from 1995 to now improving.

Your point?

On this post I defend my belief that
immigrants (with caveats I mentioned
above) have the right to pursue happiness:

http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=on_fighting_the_problem&ns=PaulGreenberg&dt=02/27/2007&page=full&comments=true#170509d2-8af2-4559-9fc2-aba1200fb5f1

Enjoy!

If Capitalism is in ascendancy around the world, I would consider that a reason to celebrate!

Unfortunately, neighboring countries like Mexico (#49) and other countries in Central America are socialist swamps. If the low scores in the Index of Economic Freedom are not convincing, look at the state of their economy. It may not be the fault of individual citizens of Mexico - the dice is loaded against them with their Socialist Govt.

If I understand your viewpoint, America should have open borders. This would encourage the ablest and most productive folks in Mexico to leave their home country to work as productive members of OUR society. But that is not the full story - while I'm sure that many illegal immigrants from Mexico are hardworking and honest, we will also get a large share of their welfare seekers.

BTW, the above applies to countries other than Mexico. Anyone who could beg, borrow or steal an airline ticket (or stowaway on a ship, or the trunk of a car) would enter the US if our borders were open. Hey, that is exactly what DOES happen despite our poorly enforced 'closed' borders! And illegal immigrants are costing us billions in the form of tax-supported welfare.

So, my point is proved based on the existing drain on our economy caused by illegal immigration. Do you think the drain would be higher or lower if the borders were open?

If we had open borders AND a welfare state, US taxpayers would find themselves looking after our indigents as well as tens of millions from other countries who found a way to get to the US.

So, while I applaud the 'open borders' concept as a laissez faire capitalist, I cannot support it UNLESS we were successful in dismantling the welfare state.

What are your thoughts about our welfare state?

I read your the post on your blog, and I recommend it to others:

http://libertylamp.townhall.com/g/30a532cf-4a00-4080-b591-76ffeb8a1112

Including the points that you mention, I think that it is important to add that the introduction of a well-intentioned Medicare program contributed significantly to the increase in healthcare costs. For more on this, click on:

http://voice.townhall.com/g/c2d3bd2d-d898-496f-8300-7587a7210bb4

As you have pointed out, once we disconnect the consumer from the costs of a service or product, the demand for that service or product increases.

Health Savings Accounts and other market oriented methods make sense. As an employer, I offer my employees a choice between a traditional PPO and HSA (with an employer provided monthly contribution). Interestingly, we have an even split between PPO/HSA users at our company.

Compared to the existing situation, the idea of a SoSec reform plan that puts $2000 x 18 into an individual's acct makes sense. But, you have to wonder what would happen if we didn't have SoSec in the first place. Considering the lousy returns that we currently get on our 'contributions', I'm sure that the insurance cos and/or the investment community would come up with better ways to help us pay for our retirement.

As in most socialized programs, we create nightmarish solutions that penalize the responsible members of our society. We now have plans that are ostensibly designed to protect those who are stupid enough NOT to save/insure for their retirement. But what does it do to those from whom the funds are coerced?

The loss of capital, that is locked away - or plundered by feckless politicians to buy OUR votes - is staggering.

In our effort to re-distribute wealth, we are actually re-distributing poverty!

Yes, the $2000/18 year solution is better than what we have now, but it is still fundamentally a socialist scheme. If the wonderful age we live in with more investment avenues available than ever before, there is no reason why anyone in America can't be a millionaire. I'd rather just not have the Government take care of me, thank you very much. But, since we haven't repealed soc sec yet, I still get pretty angered to see that FICA tax every two weeks on my checkstub...

Too bad we can't sue the government for theft.