This debate is primarily between @Potemkin and myself.
I challenged him here:
when I said:
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well then, that being the case, would you be willing to debate this in future?
I can hardly think of a person I would rather debate on the "other side" of the ideological spectrum.
A gentleman's duel done at a leisurely scotch-sipping pace.
I will argue that my moral-political system of theonomic anarcho-capitalism can be demonstrated as logical and rational from certain axioms and a few simple syllogisms [and therefore that it ought to be believed as universal and objective]
We can discuss terms and definitions at a later date (I think a similar format to the one I am doing with Saeko will suffice).
What says you old chap?
Do you accept the challenge?
and he accepted the challenge to debate when he said this;
Potemkin wrote:I accept your kind invitation.
I shall now give my proposed terms and definitions:
I would ask that other posters refrain from interrupting the debate with their own comment until Potemkin and I have finished our posts.
This debate has as its main focus, the demonstration of an objective morality from plain reason.
The particular form of objective morality herein debated will likewise be the one that I shall defend, which is that of a theonomic anarcho-capitalism.
I. The Terms of The Debate.
Given the nature of disputation in determining an aforementioned criteria for victory, I as the challenger have made the claim that I can establish my particular position from plain reason as both logical and rational. My opponent has accepted that if my moral imperatives (obligation) were to be demonstrated as logical and rational that he would be compelled to accept those conclusions as objective and universal in their scope of application (moral authority).
Thus, I (the challenger) will attempt to demonstrate that theonomic anarcho-capitalism can be proven from plain reasoning given certain qualifications below, ultimately though, I am attempting to demonstrate the actual goal of debate (proof of an objective morality) which is broad, by demonstrating that my specific moral position (theonomic anarcho-capitalism) meets the same criteria (demonstrable from plain reason).
Here then are the terms:
1. I shall demonstrate that the cardinal tenants of anarcho-capitalism; namely, original appropriation, private property, and the non-aggression principle can all be established from plain reason.
2. I shall demonstrate that these principles as established, via a compounding case, preclude, as irrational, the existence of any state as a third-party monopolist of coercion and especially any government that would presume the public ownership of any land in a nation (including all social-contracts and/or socialist states).
3. I shall demonstrate that all intentionally non-procreative sexuality is not only the logical equivalent of actual person destroying, but that such actions, via a compounding case, are murder via a violation of the non-aggression principle.
4. I shall in turn demonstrate that such a morality, because of certain specifics, most closely approximates the theonomic position of classical Christianity over-and-against the alternative divine-command schools of either Judaism or Islam.
5. The laws of reason and discourse will be the governing principles of the debate. If we notice fallacies in the others reasoning they must be identified by name and why the fallacy obtains must be briefly explained. These can be rebutted, of course (but we shouldn't let this sort of thing bog us down).
6. Questions asked by each side shall be answered as succinctly as possible in the responding post. Every question asked should not warrant 18 paragraph answers, likewise we should ask questions with the intention of getting simple responses unless we specifically ask the other debater to explain themselves or to expand on their point.
7. Questions that we intend to have answered by the other poster (that are not intended as rhetorical) shall be numbered, even if they are the only questions asked in the post. This will prevent confusion and the ever-annoying forum demand "answer my question please."
If the questions we want answered are always numbered, with the response identified numerically as well, we shall keep that portion organized.
8. We will allow a couple of posts for general housekeeping and definitions before we start "counting our posts." NOTE: I reserve the right as the one presenting my position to give my own definitions (a common rule in disputation); however, I will modify these definitions if they radically depart from common understanding as they are definitions that both sides will need to use in the course of the debate.
9. I suggest 8 full posts each to be the limit for the debate. We will first do some unofficial posting to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions and when you are comfortable I will make my first main post of eight and then we will go-back-and-forth until the debate has concluded.
10. we should try to "get to" each other’s post within a week of it being made. Worst case this means the debate could go 16 plus weeks. Hopefully we can keep that from happening, but whatever. If we can't post for an extended period for any reason, we should declare it in the thread (vacations, etc.).
Objective Morality- A system of obligation which is universal in applicable scope regarding human society and is rationally justified on likewise universally-applicable grounds.
Subjective Morality- a moral belief that is not regarded as having any force of obligation beyond oneself and is likewise not regarded as rationally justified beyond one’s own personal conviction and preference.
Inter-Subjective Morality- A system of obligation based upon community consensus, the power to compel originating solely in this community consent, and not being justified rationally beyond the individual convictions or preferences of the actors that make up the whole.
The Social Contract- the theoretical ownership of government by the consent of the governed, regardless of the form in which that government may take (e.g. republics, dictatorships, etc).
Capitalism- the private ownership of the means of production, the private control of the market, and the private retaining of property in general.
Government/State: A third-party monopolist of compulsion or coercion mainly through the means of the enforcement of law by violent-force and of defense by means of violent force, the funding of which is done by the compelled collection of funds by primary parties, often called taxes.
Potential Persons- an entity which is not currently an actual person but which is capable of developing into an actual person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions.
Actual Persons- Those regarded as living human beings in the colloquial sense.
The Non-Aggression Principle- The affirmation that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. the non-aggression principle does not forbid forceful defense or retaliation, nor does it preclude the interpersonal enforcement of contracts within the context of covenants made under the principle of voluntarism.
Theonomy- The affirmation, application, and enforcement of moral laws according to the general pattern and form of the deutero-levitical peneology, atleast in regards to a hierarchy of severity.
Secular- denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
Original Appropriation- the process by which previously unowned natural resources, particularly land, become the property of a person or group of persons.
Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).
Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.
The Universal Sex Ratio: The phenomenon of natural human societies yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 male-to-female births.
I now await my opponent to discuss or agree to the definitions and terms given.
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
- G. K. Chesterton