Month: December 2020

No comments

The Spectrum of Ethics

  By
Back in my review of Chapter 8 of The Ethics Of Liberty, I brought up the point that individualism and socialism are two absolutes, and there exists a spectrum between them that examples of social organization might occupy. Any given social organization might be one absolute or the other, or it might occupy a point between the two. Can this be justified from an ethical perspective? Yes, taking either absolute as a starting point. Can starting somewhere other than an absolute be justified? No, it cannot. 自由の倫理の第八章の復習で、拙者が個人主義と社会主義の極点の間に社会制度の例があちこちあると書いた。そのあらゆる制度が一方の極点か、他方の極点か、その中のどこかの位置をにある。倫理的に正当化できるか？どちらの極点を原点にしてから、そうできる。極点でない原点を正当化できるか？いな、それはできない。
Starting from individualism, if every individual agrees to abide by a pure socialism, then that socialism is just, because every individual consents to it. Starting from socialism, if Society decides to enact a pure individualism, then that individualism is just, because it is Society’s will that it be enacted. The likelihood of these outcomes may be small, but they are possible, so deserving of mention in an ethical theory. 個人主義の原点から、個人全人が社会制度に承知すれば、個人全人が賛成したからその社会制度が正当でござる。社会主義の原点から、「社会」が純粋な個人制度を建つと決めたら、社会の意思であることでその個人制度が正当でござる。その結果の確立が低くても、可能だから倫理の論では認めざるを得ない。
However, the ethical theory cannot start from any other position coherently. It would be an oversimplification to say, “The ethic should start at the midpoint, a 50-50 split,” even leaving aside the point that you need to first justify that proportion, as contrasted with any other proportion. That could mean any number of things: one gender is individualist, where the other is socialist; one hemisphere is individualist, where the other is socialist; 50% of all resources produced are individually owned, the remainder are socially owned; and so on. If everything once allocated to individual or social control remained so allocated forever, what happens if, over time, one side maintains and increases its resources, while the other squanders and depletes its resources? だが、理路整然と別の極点に倫理の論が基づけない。「中央の点、どちら五分五分から倫理が始まるべきだ」と言うのはその割合の正当化の必要を置いても過度に単純化でござる。いくつかの意味になる：「一方の性が個人主義化、他方の性が社会主義化」、「一方の半球が個人主義化、他方の半球が社会主義化」、「生産されたものの全ての半分が個人主義的に制した、その残りが社会主義的に制した」、とか。あるものが個人主義化にされたか、社会主義化にされたか、永久にそう続けたら、時間がたつと一方が資源を維持して増加するの他方に資源を浪費して枯渇すれば、どうなる？
Finding a starting point, by itself, would be an incredibly complex endeavor. The starting point, itself, would be an incredibly complex point. And any number of ethicists who independently attempted to choose a starting point could hardly expect to land upon the same one. Indeed, even if a great number so attempted it, mostly likely none of the starting points would comport with any other. Even if they could be coherently analyzed (which may not be possible) and a number of factors found to be common (which may not hold true), taking those together as a starting point is no basis for any philosophy, because philosophies are disciplines that seeks truth through reasoning, not through empirical survey, not even a survey of philosophers’ ideas. 原点を見つけること自体がすごく複雑なことになる。原点自体もすごく複雑な点になる。幾人ものの倫理者が独立的に原点を選ぼうとすれば同じ点に着くなんて期待できない。いかにも、大数の選びになっても同じ点の二例が現れないのを予期できる。分析できても（不可能かも知らない）、いくつかの共通点があっても（ないかも知らない）、合体して原点を決めるのは哲学の矛盾になる。哲学は理性で真実を求める学問でござる。哲学者の意見でも実証的のものは哲学に関係しない。
For this reason, attempting to start at any point but pure individualism or pure socialism is an invalid philosophical choice. この理由で、純粋な個人主義または純粋な社会主義から始まらない倫理は哲学的に根拠のない倫理でござる。
No comments

Individualist Ethics versus Socialist Ethics

  By
Having described both individualist ethics and socialist ethics, with the men involved being considered equals in each case, let’s consider how to choose between them. The decision will necessarily come down to the virtues of the two ethics, and the consequences of the two ethics. So let’s examine those. 個人主義と社会主義の両方、匹敵する人の倫理を書き表したことからどう選ぶかを考えよう。結局、その選択が倫理の徳と結果のことになる。
The defining trait that separates these ethics is the locus of autonomy. One can choose to implement a centralized or a decentralized authority structure. この倫理の区別する特徴が自主権の位置でござる。一方は中央集権で、他方は地方分権でござる。
Under individualism, every individual possesses autonomy. So, under individualism, the core virtue is respect for the intrinsic value of every man’s autonomy. Important religious traditions, especially those of Western Civilization, go so far as to say that every man’s worth is sacred. 個人主義で各人が個人的に自主権を持つ。だから個人主義の心の徳が「各人の自主権への尊敬」でござる。大事な信教の、特に西教の伝統が各人の価値に神聖視する。
Under socialism, only the social group itself possesses autonomy. So, the core virtue is respect for the interests of society-at-large. No individual gets to selfishly hold everybody else back, as it were, so society can progress optimally, without hindrance. 社会主義で社会の集団だけが自主権を持つ。だから社会主義の心の徳が「社会全会の権益への尊敬」でござる。一人でも私欲の個人が全会を妨げず、社会が支障なく至適的に信仰できる。
The socialist might assert that the individualist ethic allows for wealthy and powerful men to subvert social goals for their own interests. If you ask him what these “social goals” are, however, all he can do is offer is his opinion. It might be his opinion of what they would be, or perhaps his opinion of how society might form those goals, or, if he is particularly honest, his opinion that, whatever the goals would turn out to be, they would be good. 個人主義の倫理では富強な人が自分の権益の為に社会目的を覆せる、と社会主義者が主張するかも。その「社会目的」は何なのかと聞くと、自分の意見しか出せない。何になるはずの意見か、社会が目的を体系着ける方法の意見か、それとも（正直な人ならば）どんな目的になるとしても善良なことになる意見か。
The individualist counter-asserts that the socialist ethic allows for the “society” to trample upon the people that comprise it. This accusation is entirely accurate. Society has all authority, and the people therein have none. If Society even decides to purge a subset of its population, it need not consider their interests any more than a man needs to consult with his appendix when he is considering an appendectomy. Society makes the decisions for its own purposes, not to make its people happy. 個人主義者も、社会主義の倫理では「社会」が自身を構成する人たちを蹂躙されると主張する。その非難が完全に正確でござる。社会が全ての権力を持って、社会の民には何の権力も持たない。社会が一部の民を粛清すると決めても、盲腸炎手術を考える人が盲腸と相談する必要がないように、その一部の民に心配する必要がない。社会が民の喜びの為じゃなく、社会自身の為に選択する。
That’s a discussion of the relative virtues of individualism and socialism. Now to consider their consequences. Individualism can point to its results; the historical record is clear that it produces enormous wealth and prosperity- a seemingly endless improvement in quality of life for those who organize themselves by its precepts. Socialism, however, has to posit theoretical benefits, and furthermore, theoretical benefits that are better than individualism’s manifest accomplishments. 個人主義と社会主義の徳はそうと、両方の結果を考えよう。個人主義の結果は良いでござる。歴史の証が明らかにすごい富と繁栄をもたらす証拠になる。個人主義の教訓を従う人たちが見える限り底知れない生活進化を起きる。対して、社会主義には理論的な利益、しかも個人主義の結果を超越する理論的な利益、を立つ必要がある。
Perhaps they could say that Society, in pursuit of its own health, will keep its constituent people healthy. Perhaps they could say that Society, having a perspective entirely different from the individuals’, would see threats to itself (and, by extension, to its people) that they would not, and could take appropriate action to preserve them. 社会が自分の健康の為に民の健康を見守るとか、個人の視点と違う社会の視点から自分と民への危険が見えて効率な行動が取れるとか。
This relies on a naive faith in Society, however. That describes a healthy Society. But, if a healthy and conscientious Society is possible, an unhealthy and dysfunctional Society is possible as well. Erect a global Socialism blindly, and which will you get? だが、それが世間知れずな社会への信仰に頼る。その社会が健康的でござるが、健康良く良心的な社会が可能ならば、健康悪く機能不全な社会も可能でござる。闇雲に「社会」を建てば、どっちになる？
Prudence might suggest that loading the world’s population into an experimental vehicle, with all their lives and belongings at risk, would be a very bad idea until such a vehicle had proven reliably safe and effective at smaller scales. Yet, as far as potential consequences go, this is analogous to any demand for the socialist ethic at this time. A healthy Socialism that doesn’t break down in under a century, doesn’t have genocidal oppression as a prominent feature, and makes its people happy would be a good proof of concept. 世界の人たち全員の命と所有物を賭けて実験的な乗り物に乗せる前に、小規模でそのような乗り物の安全を証拠するべき。これが思慮でござる。だが、結果について今社会主義を求めるのは類推的でござる。百年以内に崩壊しない、大虐殺な迫害に頼らない、自分の民を喜ばす健康的な社会が出来れば実証実験になる。
Economic theory and economic history are clear in their conclusion regarding the consequences of individualism and economic socialism (that is, government control of all capital goods). Individualism can produce wealth for its people. Socialism, by contrast, can only consume wealth. The socialist theory that society-wide coordination of the economy can eliminate redundant or conflicting economic activities and thereby increase production is profoundly wrong. Ludwig von Mises in particular proved that a socialist economic system cannot make rational decisions. What the socialist sees as redundancy and conflict are vitally important for generating economic signals, which the people of the society need in order to know what they should do. Without them, the individuals are lost, and consequently society as a whole is lost as well. 経済学の理論と経済歴史が個人主義と社会主義の経済的な結果に同意する。個人主義が人に富をもたらせる。違って、社会主義が富を費やせるしか出来ない。社会主義の全社会で経済を強調すると冗長と衝突を除去するとの理論が重要に間違っている。前世紀の経済学者、特にルートヴィヒ・フォン・ミーゼス、は社会主義が合理的な決断に至れないことを証明した。社会主義者がと冗長と衝突と見えるものが経済的な兆候を作成するために必須なものでござる。その兆候こそが社会の人々には絶対必要でござる。その兆候がないと、各々の個人が道に迷って、社会全体も道に迷う。
No comments

Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics

  By
Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes from time to time on the time on his basis of the libertarian ethic, which he calls argumentation ethics. As he describes it, in order to justify something, you must justify it in argument. Therefore, certain presuppositions necessary to argumentation must hold, lest the whole theory collapse from a defective foundation. Here I will quote from The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, pp. 341-342: ハンスヘルマンホッペ（Ｈａｎｓ－Ｈｅｒｍａｎ　Ｈｏｐｐｅ）が時々自分の議論倫理と言う自由の倫理について書く。正当化することなら議論で正当化することだと記述する。だから議論の予断が持たないと、論理が根拠の残欠で崩壊する。「私有財産の経済学と倫理学」のｐ．３４１－３４２に書く：
The question of what is just or unjust … only arises insofar as I am, and others are, capable of propositional exchanges. … [I]f this is so, … then any ethical proposal … must be assumed to claim that it is capable of being validated by propositional or argumentative means. … [I]t must be considered the ultimate defeat for an ethical proposal if one can demonstrate that its content is logically incompatible with the proponent’s claim that its validity be ascertainable by argumentative means. …
何が正義か不正義かの質問が…私たち人間は提案的な交換することが出来るほどだけ現れる。…なら、あらゆる論理の提案が提案的な、議論的な方法で正当性を証明できると主張することになる。…倫理の提案の究極の敗北がその内容が議論的な方法で正当化する主張と矛盾すること、と考えるべきです。…
[T]he means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. … [A]nyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” …
提案的な交換をする人の示した手段が私有財産の手段です。…どんな典型を提案する人が「これを提案する」と言うために自分の身体を排他的に制御することを予断する。
Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to sustain argumentation … if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to one’s body other scarce means through homesteading action.
もう一つ、人が身体と加わって別の不足な手段をホームステッドで充当することが許されないなら…議論を維持も不可能になる。
Let’s grant that arguments that contradict the tenets of argumentation are invalid. Hoppe, however, begs the question when asserting that that means an absolute system of private property. A couple of men could have a full-fledged argument under complete socialism. The society sets aside time and space for the debate, and grants to the two the privilege of free expression for it. Since, under socialism, society has absolute authority, it certainly has the authority to arrange this. 議論の原理と矛盾する議論が根拠なしと認めよう。だが、それから絶対的な私有財産の制度になる主張で、ホッペが循環論法する。完全な社会主義の下でも人が本格的な議論ができる。社会が議論の為に時間と空間を配置し、数人に表現の特権を許す。社会主義では社会には絶対な権力を持つんだから、そうする権力を必ず持つ。
Can you object that what occurs is not an argument? Then that objection must carry, to some extent, to all arguments that occur outside of a pure private property society. Yet, it is still possible that the socialist debate may strike on something that is justified. Is the conclusion invalidated by the circumstances under which the debate occurred? その出来事が議論じゃないと講義できる？ならば、その講義が大なり小なり純潔な私有財産の社会の外に起こる議論にも繰り上げるはずでござる。でも、社会主義の議論でも正当なことに当たるかも知らない。起こる環境で議論の結論が無効になるか？
It is not; a true proposition is true (or just, in the context of ethics) without any respect to the circumstances surrounding its discovery. 否。正しい提案（倫理学では正当な提案）が発見の環境には関係なく正しいでござる。
One can just as easily claim that all debates presuppose socialism as individualism. Simply: Society, the locus of all authority under socialism, always exists where two or more people interact. Even two seemingly atomistic “individualists” who engage in a debate are actually forming a society by their own actions, and therefore the debate occurs with Society’s blessing. A larger society, with more socialized members, could do much better, of course; just ask any socialist. 議論の予断が「個人主義」みたいに「社会主義」に簡単に基づくと主張できる。ほれ、社会主義で全権力を持つ社会が人の相互作用で常に存在する。「個人主義者」と名乗る二人でも、議論を始めることで自分の行動で社会に体系付けることで、社会の権力の下で議論する。当然、もっと大きい、もっと社会化した人を持った社会ならもっとよくできる、社会主義者の意見では。
What I really find outright silly about Hoppe’s theory is that, if I’m right, it presupposes things that are perfectly sufficient to prove private property, without all that circumlocution, but fails to recognize it. Right from the start, it is never questioned that, in one of these debates, both participants possess equal rights. Historically, it’s a common argument: “I don’t need to listen to your objections, you are by nature subordinate to me.” Give both sides equal rights, and acknowledge the individual’s intrinsic worth, and the social order of private property is the conclusion. 拙者が可笑しいに思うホッペの理論の点が、拙者が正しければ、私有財産を婉曲法なし正当化する予断もあるが、ホッペ自身が気付かない。最初から、議論では「両社が匹敵な権利を持つ」ことを疑わない。歴史上、「私がおまえの異論に聞く必要はない。貴賎の性質で、おまえが微賎だ。」と言うのががありふれた議論でござる。両方に匹敵な権利を上げ、個人の内在的な価値を認めることだけで、私有財産の社会制度が結論になる。