Chances of losing (and winning!) are close to zero.

[Gumby]

I asked him to please not respond to mine.

Ain't going to happen. If you put out bad logic, I'm going to call you on it. If you don't want me to respond, the best thing you can do is not post in the first place.

[MediumTex]

Can we get back on topic, which is explaining to Marc how he is wrong. 

[Kshartle]

I asked him to please not respond to mine.

Ain't going to happen. If you put out bad logic, I'm going to call you on it. If you don't want me to respond, the best thing you can do is not post in the first place.

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

[Kshartle]

Can we get back on topic, which is explaining to Marc how he is wrong. 

Yes.

Marc, you're wrong. About everything.

[Pointedstick]

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

Don't do this, Kshartle. 100 anonymous readers just decided you're a jerk and resolved not to listen to you as much in the future.

[MediumTex]

I asked him to please not respond to mine.

Ain't going to happen. If you put out bad logic, I'm going to call you on it. If you don't want me to respond, the best thing you can do is not post in the first place.

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

Back on topic please.

Last friendly request.

[Kshartle]

I agree with MT that an examination of the HBPP is not complete unless you look back as far as you reasonably can, which is as soon as gold started it's free-float exchange from the dollar.

As to the inflation er...um....general price increases that occured over that time....I don't know where we get that. I don't think the government numbers can even be hoped to be accurate (if you disagree that's fine, please don't take it as a personal attack).

What has been the compound average growth of the M1 or M2 over the same time period?

Does anyone know where this might be obtained? Has anyone ever come across it?

[Kshartle]

Ain't going to happen. If you put out bad logic, I'm going to call you on it. If you don't want me to respond, the best thing you can do is not post in the first place.

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

Back on topic please.

Last friendly request.

Sheesh, tough crowd. 

[systemskeptic]

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, ECRI (Economic Cycle Research Institute) is widely considered to be another respected third-party source for inflation data. The bond market does pay attention to what ECRI says.

Shadowstats appears to be a scam as best as I can tell. He has been reporting very high inflation for awhile now despite the fact that his subscription rates haven't increased even a penny, over the past decade. Meanwhile, he's been predicting hyperinflation for years now and still demands payment in "worthless" dollars. It appears to just a scam to stoke the political biases of gold bugs.

You're also forgetting that "core" inflation is not intended to perfectly represent a household's expenses. Core inflation is just a snapshot of long term prices in the broader economy. The official "core" data is fairly accurate, but it's more useful for Wall Street and the bond market than it is for you and me.

ECRI is only in the business of projecting future inflation are they?  Do they model historical inflation as well? If so I couldn't find any data on their website but at any rate -- what are their methods and why are they more trustworthy?

With regards to Shadowstats, you might not agree with the charter but what evidence is there that they are incorrect in actually modelling the older BLS method?  I cannot check their methods but my guess is they are probably doing what they say they are doing because anyone can look at BLS data and compile it in the pre-1990 manner can they not?  In a way, both the BLS and Shadowstats are using the same source -- just using a different basket of goods are they?  The BLS is very transparent so by proxy...

Moreso, if you are calling Shadowstats a scam aren't you calling all the the pre-1990 BLS data a scam as well?  Meaning we have literally no idea what inflation was for most of the PP history?

[systemskeptic]

Ain't going to happen. If you put out bad logic, I'm going to call you on it. If you don't want me to respond, the best thing you can do is not post in the first place.

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

Back on topic please.

Last friendly request.

Can there just be a thread somewhere we can contain all this philosophical / logic spewing?  It is making any discussion on actual individual topics almost impossible.

[MediumTex]

If a mountain made of logic collapsed on you, you wouldn't even need to brush off the logic dust.

Back on topic please.

Last friendly request.

Can there just be a thread somewhere we can contain all this philosophical / logic spewing?  It is making any discussion on actual individual topics almost impossible.

I'm working on it.

In the meantime, let's return to the topic of whether the PP actually delivers a positive inflation adjusted rate of return.

It sounds like where we are at is that if we follow the official inflation reports, the PP DOES provide a positive inflation adjusted rate of return.  If, however, we follow alternative measures of inflation that suggest higher rates of inflation, then perhaps the PP DOESN'T provide a positive inflation adjusted rate of return.

My own view is that U.S. wage levels tell you most of what you need to know about the secular trends in price levels and inflation.  Since wage levels have been increasing at a very modest rate for many years, I am not terribly concerned about inflation in the prices of other goods and services.  That's just my own view, of course.

[moda0306]

I think there are moral truths out there, or (at best) moral "probablys" .  Even if we can figure those out, we still have to balance those against our dilemma of sharing this earth with each other.

So the will to develop a feeling for what rights we have is noble on for purposes of debate and moral philosophy, but it's useless for personal decision-making.

it seems like the two main options are, property exists and we build a society on the conclusions that follow from it (see video posted by kshartle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I ) and that force in defense of that property is ok...  or property is theft (we share this rock and your existence is taking up space, using resources i could have used) and we need to make it "fair" by giving power to "benevolent" overlords to take from some to give to others by use of force...

these two philosophies hardly seem equal to me, while the first may not have perfect results,  the second one runs into conflicts and fundamental cognitive dissonance immediately.  i would hardly say it is useless for personal decision making, i can choose to be peaceful and use force only in defense of property or i can take from others (or elect  proxies to do so for me) according to some notion of fair that by definition will never be fully agreed upon.

Simon,

I'm not saying we "need" overlords.  Just that we can't judge the entities based on the measuring-stick of "OMG you FORCED me, gubmint!"

That's all I'm trying to get to.

Because any discussion of the success/failure of a government program tends to result in "force is evil" from certain libertarians, so you're essentially arguing from the premise that 1) government is morally illegitimate (because it's forceful), and 2) property is morally valid.  I'm merely trying to state that these premises are inconsistent.  A lot of what libertarians recognize as legitimate property ownership is inherantly forceful.

I'm not entirely positive that any form of force is morally legitimate... but I do know that knocking down certain pillars of violence (the welfare state), while maintaining the ones that enrich you (private property) is a really bad place to start.  This is why I can stomach pure anarchism from a standpoint of "moral consistency."  Anything else is some balance of organization of force.  Anarcho-capitalism just maintains one pillar of force that enriches some and potentially takes from others (including future generations).

If we ARE going to have organized forms of force, considering our dilemma, I think a mix of private property allocation, recognition and defense, balanced against some regulations and a robust safety net for the poor/disabled/elderly is probably the most balanced approach.  It's not that I like force... just that I know it's going to exist, so I prefer it to be doled out in a way that maximizes liberty, productivity, fairness, human dignity, prosperity, and security.  Based on how I've seen society organize itself, government appears to be one item on that tool belt.

measuring-stick of "OMG you FORCED me, gubmint!".... isn't the measurement, it is, "was that use of force in defense of property or against it"... when you use that measurement it is easier to understand libertarians (who are not a unified group by any stretch). yes government is force and force has two sides, defense of property and theft, if you confuse the two or don't recognize the difference (libertarians make philosophical arguments that fail on this count just like pro government believers do) then you miss the nuance of the argument. Is property inherently forceful? "maybe so" "maybe not" but we have to start somewhere, and basing a society on a nebulous understanding of fair is impossible.. basing one on property has a proven track record for enriching mankind,

as for a robust safety net the problem with it (and there are more than a few) is that it is theft, and is not philosophically consistent with a liberty philosophy. Personally if i must compromise, then it should be a last resort, after family, church, community, have failed to fill the need, then towns counties and states doing so might not be unreasonable. Keeping in mind the further away that theft takes place, the more likely it is to fail from unintended consequences and become a entitlement, and if somebody is entitled to the product of my labor than i am a slave....

[Pointedstick]

Moda, I think you're starting to argue against a strawman. l82 isn't making the "all force is evil!" argument, he's actually saying that certain types of force (e.e. delineation and defense of private property) are naturally congruent with the human evolutionary and social experience and lead to dramatically good observed outcomes, while other types of force (e.g. collective property, non-self-ownership, theft, rape, murder) lead to terrible, awful, even genocidal observed outcomes.

As living beings, force is inevitable to our survival. We must destroy unwilling plant and animal life to live. That doesn't mean that the floodgates are open and all force is good, or that we must reject our natures and proclaim that all force is evil. It requires a sober mind to make the determination as to which type is good and which type is bad. This is utilitarianism to a certain extent, but it must be tinged with a subjective human morality to avoid ridiculous outcomes.

In a way, this pretty much mirrors how all human societies have always behaved: we do what works to our advantage until it offends our collective sense of morality. We are utilitarians constrained by moral boundaries.

What of those moral boundaries? They are whatever your "tribe" (family, neighborhood, city, country) says they are. And you'd better agree or else you're going to have difficult relationships with other members of the tribe and they may band together to kick you out or hurt you.

[Gumby]

ECRI is only in the business of projecting future inflation are they?

That's my understanding, yes. But, consider that billions and billions of dollars are affected by their inflation forecasting models. Wall Street wants accuracy, not BS. So, I think they probably do a decent job.

Do they model historical inflation as well? If so I couldn't find any data on their website but at any rate -- what are their methods and why are they more trustworthy?

I don't think they model historical inflation. Rather, they would publish the historical data of their future forecasts. The point is that there isn't a huge divergence between the respected third-party data and the official numbers. However, when ECRI and PriceStats model inflation for less-developed countries, they do find a divergence sometimes (like Argentina for instance). It all implies that the official US numbers are probably correct. That and the fact that Wall Street pays attention to those respected models (not the case with Shadowstats).

With regards to Shadowstats, you might not agree with the charter but what evidence is there that they are incorrect in actually modelling the older BLS method?

When you hear the official explanation as to why the BLS changed their models, it makes a lot of sense (to me at least):

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm

and

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/08/art1full.pdf

Now, if you're a "skeptic" of the system, I can totally see how you might think that the explanation is BS, but I have yet to find any respected economists who believe that the BLS is feeding us BS about those models. The evidence for such conspiracy theories just isn't there, in my opinion. My sense is that the core inflation is accurate, but isn't that representative of every day household purchases. But, it isn't intended to be. Core inflation is intended to represent the change of longer term prices in the broader economy. It's not necessarily what you and I might experience.

I cannot check their methods but my guess is they are probably doing what they say they are doing because anyone can look at BLS data and compile it in the pre-1990 manner can they not?  In a way, both the BLS and Shadowstats are using the same source -- just using a different basket of goods are they?  The BLS is very transparent so by proxy...

I dunno. I'm just not finding convincing evidence that the old models were better. Most economists seem to support the new models, and the bond market seems to respond to those newer models — and not the old models.

Moreso, if you are calling Shadowstats a scam aren't you calling all the the pre-1990 BLS data a scam as well?  Meaning we have literally no idea what inflation was for most of the PP history?

Hard to say. Read the official Q and A closely, and perhaps the longer PDF if you have time, and decide for yourself!

I know you want me to express more opinions on this matter, but I don't know what else to tell you. Wall Street seems to be pretty content with the ECRI, MIT and official numbers right now. I really don't see Wall Street leaning towards Shadowstats.

[moda0306]

PS,

Didn't mean to straw-man... it's so damn easy! 

But if some forms of force "are naturally congruent with the human social experience and lead to dramatically good observed outcomes," I could just say that government is an example of society's extension of that, as evidenced by the utter and complete nonexistence of "free society" social arrangements, and very little demand for said arrangements (I'm still waiting for a movement for the ocean-installation... not kidding.. I'd love to see one develop).

So once you say "well, some force is just natural," then we can debate as to what is "natural" force.

Bounce down that logical chain a bit, and you could claim that due to male instincts in nature, they have a natural right to force themselves on a fertile woman (really, really not trying to accuse you fellas of saying this... just challenging our logical frameworks... mine as well as yours!).

So how do we decide if force is morally/naturally (are these the same???) justifiable? 

they are not the same! forcing yourself on a women would be a violation of her property (her body) or theft, an understanding of what is "theft" and what is "defense" is fundamental to moving toward a free society or making ours more free.
as for truly free society it doesn't exist because it is a goal that we must evolve and work towards, it would be like somebody in a pre Greek empire society, arguing that the american system of government cant work, because there is no example of one in existence now and obviously that means there is no demand for one...

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Didn't mean to straw-man... it's so damn easy! 

But if some forms of force "are naturally congruent with the human social experience and lead to dramatically good observed outcomes," I could just say that government is an example of society's extension of that, as evidenced by the utter and complete nonexistence of "free society" social arrangements, and very little demand for said arrangements (I'm still waiting for a movement for the ocean-installation... not kidding.. I'd love to see one develop).

Yup. Humans want government, which embodies safety. But we also want freedom. Increasingly, we've been wanting more of both. It will be interesting to see how us silly human resolve this inherent contradiction.

So once you say "well, some force is just natural," then we can debate as to what is "natural" force.

Bounce down that logical chain a bit, and you could claim that due to male instincts in nature, they have a natural right to force themselves on a fertile woman (really, really not trying to accuse you fellas of saying this... just challenging our logical frameworks... mine as well as yours!).

So how do we decide if force is morally/naturally (are these the same???) justifiable?

You look at what your society has told you. No, really. What you or I may personally think is irrelevant; what your tribe collectively subscribes to is what matters. And in most tribes, rape of a female is one of the worst possible things a male can do and extremely harshly punished. Why? Because evolutionarily speaking, females are more valuable than males. You could have a society with a 10-to-1 female-male gender ratio than that small fraction of men could easily impregnate all the women. The reverse would be a disaster. Evolutionarily, men are just dumb muscle and sperm donors. Women create and shape the next generation. Thus, the near-universal prohibition on rape is actually a utilitarian conceit.

[moda0306]

it seems like the two main options are, property exists and we build a society on the conclusions that follow from it (see video posted by kshartle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I ) and that force in defense of that property is ok...  or property is theft (we share this rock and your existence is taking up space, using resources i could have used) and we need to make it "fair" by giving power to "benevolent" overlords to take from some to give to others by use of force...

these two philosophies hardly seem equal to me, while the first may not have perfect results,  the second one runs into conflicts and fundamental cognitive dissonance immediately.  i would hardly say it is useless for personal decision making, i can choose to be peaceful and use force only in defense of property or i can take from others (or elect  proxies to do so for me) according to some notion of fair that by definition will never be fully agreed upon.

Simon,

I'm not saying we "need" overlords.  Just that we can't judge the entities based on the measuring-stick of "OMG you FORCED me, gubmint!"

That's all I'm trying to get to.

Because any discussion of the success/failure of a government program tends to result in "force is evil" from certain libertarians, so you're essentially arguing from the premise that 1) government is morally illegitimate (because it's forceful), and 2) property is morally valid.  I'm merely trying to state that these premises are inconsistent.  A lot of what libertarians recognize as legitimate property ownership is inherantly forceful.

I'm not entirely positive that any form of force is morally legitimate... but I do know that knocking down certain pillars of violence (the welfare state), while maintaining the ones that enrich you (private property) is a really bad place to start.  This is why I can stomach pure anarchism from a standpoint of "moral consistency."  Anything else is some balance of organization of force.  Anarcho-capitalism just maintains one pillar of force that enriches some and potentially takes from others (including future generations).

If we ARE going to have organized forms of force, considering our dilemma, I think a mix of private property allocation, recognition and defense, balanced against some regulations and a robust safety net for the poor/disabled/elderly is probably the most balanced approach.  It's not that I like force... just that I know it's going to exist, so I prefer it to be doled out in a way that maximizes liberty, productivity, fairness, human dignity, prosperity, and security.  Based on how I've seen society organize itself, government appears to be one item on that tool belt.

measuring-stick of "OMG you FORCED me, gubmint!"....  isn't the measurement, it is, "was that use of force in defense of property or against it"...  when you use that measurement it is easier to understand libertarians (who are not a unified group by any stretch). yes government is force and force has two sides, defense of property and theft, if you confuse the two or don't recognize the difference (libertarians make philosophical arguments that fail on this count just like pro government believers do) then you miss the nuance of the argument.  Is property inherently forceful? "maybe so" "maybe not" but we have to start somewhere, and basing a society on a nebulous understanding of fair is impossible.. basing one on property has a proven track record for enriching mankind, 

as for a robust safety net the problem with it (and there are more than a few) is that it is theft, and is not philosophically consistent with  a liberty philosophy. Personally if i must compromise, then it should be a last resort, after family, church, community, have failed to fill the need, then towns counties and states doing so might not be unreasonable. Keeping in mind the further away that theft takes place, the more likely it is to fail from unintended consequences and  become a entitlement, and if somebody is entitled to the product of my labor than i am a slave....

"Defense of property" implies a rightful claim to that resource to begin with.  I haven't seen a valid moral positioning of that claim.  I've just seen people say "I own myself and property, and have the right to defend myself from anyone who tries to take 'my property' from me."

Safety-nets might be theft, but you have to prove rightful ownership before you prove theft.  I haven't seen anyone prove how you "own" property just by claiming it's yours, or tilling it, or fishing on it, or building a fence around it, or planting a drill on it, or pushing off some Indians that hunted on it.

So unless you establish true valid, rightful, moral ownership, you can't establish theft.  However, if I walk onto the "wrong" property and I am shot dead by the "owner," that IS force.

Property DOES have a proven track-record of improving mankind.  Militarys have a proven track-record of protecting property of their citizens.  Infrastructure has a proven track-record of facilitating wealth-creation and production. Social Security has a proven track record of keeping seniors out of abject poverty.  "Free societies" have a proven track-record of falling to militarized State-societies.  Single-payer healthcare systems have a proven track record of providing quality care at a low cost.  Well-regulated banking systems have a proven track-record of being more stable than unregulated banking systems.

We could play this all day long.  If you want to make a claim on property, and are going to SHOOT ME DEAD if I walk onto the wrong plot of land that God (or whoever), not you, created, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that this is a valid moral claim.

That, or we can agree that illegitimate force is going to have to exist on an unfortunate arrangement (forced on this rock together), and that neither of our claims may be legitimate, but we have to sort them out to maximize utility and dignity for all.

But we don't get to that last point... where we get to is one side (libertarians) claiming the others ("statists") are holding a gun to their heads, while if I walked onto the wrong wooded lot, I'd get shot by the very guy claiming I'm holding a gun to his head.

[systemskeptic]

That's my understanding, yes. But, consider that billions and billions of dollars are affected by their inflation forecasting models. Wall Street wants accuracy, not BS. So, I think they probably do a decent job.

Accuracy in the change in inflation perhaps, not the magnitude.  Anyone measuring inflation (regardless of method) will report the same swings in price, so in terms of future forecast it doesn't matter whether you use Shadowstats or BLS or ECRI because all are measuring the price of some basket.

Case in point: look at an overlay of Shadowstats, BLS, and Pricestats: all have the same trends just a different y-axis. So for Wall Street or the bond markets it doesn't matter.

For an individual investor who holds an investment for 30 years, yeah the magnitude matters... but that's not what Wall street does, that's what YOU and others on this forum do.

Personally I do not think it is even possible to accurately measure inflation, but if I had to estimate it I would use bond yields to do so because I do not think anyone holding bonds is earning a real return... maybe for a 3month period in MT's special case in 1980 if some random local bank mis-priced inflation expectations, but long term....doubtful.

If you want to hold bonds to reduce volatility, OK that is probably a good strategy.  But if you think you are earning a real return...

[Gumby]

Personally I do not think it is even possible to accurately measure inflation, but if I had to estimate it I would use bond yields to do so

But that's the point. The bond market is tightly aligned to core inflation — not headline inflation.

See: Pragcap: The Bond Market Doesn't Care about Headline Inflation

Every time the inflation report comes out you get analysts and investors complaining about how the government excludes food and energy in the core prices.  There’s a very reasonable explanation for why they do so – the volatility created by these inputs generates a skew in the data that could lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding the true state of inflation.  Of course, even policymakers make mistakes using this data (often because they are being reactive to data rather than proactive), but the thinking behind this “ex food and energy”? makes a great deal of sense.

Now, small investors are particularly irritated by this because all they see on a daily basis are food and gas prices.  We tend to be overly obsessed by that which is constantly in our face.  It’s one of the many biases that influence our daily lives and lead us to irrational conclusions.  Food and energy are just two of the hundreds of inputs in the consumer inflation data.  I constantly harp on the fact that housing gets a bum rap despite being the most important monthly consumer cost – by a wide margin.

But there’s a more important point here.  While consumers and small investors are busying complaining about headline inflation, savvy investors are busy worrying about the core.  This ties neatly into recent discussions on the bond market and why rates are so tightly correlated to Fed policy.  After all, the Fed has been abundantly clear that they are concerned with core inflation and not headline.  So it’s not surprising to see a very high correlation between bond yields and Fed policy.

But what’s even more interesting in this whole discussion is a look at the correlations between bond yields and inflation.  If you back the inflation data out over 20 years and review the correlations between headline CPI and core CPI you’ll actually find that the bond market cares very little about headline CPI.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center](10 year yields vs core CPI)[/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center](10 year yields vs headline CPI)[/align]

If you run a little data analysis on these two data sets you’ll find a 83% correlation between core CPI and 10 year yields and just a 52% correlation between headline inflation and CPI.  The bottom line: the bond market doesn’t give a damn about headline CPI.

Source: http://pragcap.com/the-market-does-not- ... -inflation

If you want to hold bonds to reduce volatility, OK that is probably a good strategy.  But if you think you are earning a real return...

We don't really care about the real return of individual assets. We just care about the performance of the portfolio as a whole. As long as the assets are volatile, the portfolio can still provide a real return even if none of the individual assets provide a real return over long periods. That's the beauty of modern portfolio theory and proper rebalancing. Past performance does not guarantee future results, but if the future is unknowable, the PP is the most agnostic approach I've seen so far.

[moda0306]

i really don't think its as confusing as all that...  if property doesn't exist and i have no right to claim anything, or anything beyond my body, then there is nothing to build a society on top of,  how does this property less society work? if i produce something then what happens? i loose it? it belongs to some guy who a bunch of people elected to take it from me, because he claimed they would get a share? i don't see any way you can build a fair society, or any society without property, regardless of the philosophical grey area of "moral ownership", that the property is theft philosophy drops you into and in spite of the difficulty a "property exists" philosophy may have arguing against it, it still is the only workable foundation we have...

the idea that some guy will shoot you for trespassing is an exceptionally weak argument, you cant just shoot somebody for crossing your property! you can ask them to leave or be neighborly and let them cross but you cant shoot somebody unless they mean you harm. again it seems to be a failure to understand the difference between theft (of your life) "killing you for being on their property" and defense of property "asking you to move along" to protect their land from damage or theft by you..

Simon,

Of course it's probably impossible to build a society without SOME forms of property.  Even nomadic tribes have had some forms of property.  This is part of the nature of the natural world surrounding us... the same one that pits us against each other to have to force our ownership of something so someone else can't have it.

But I'd argue a society without government also has a lot of evidence of being "unworkable."  However, that doesn't make it "ok" in your world.

PS,

Didn't mean to straw-man... it's so damn easy! 

But if some forms of force "are naturally congruent with the human social experience and lead to dramatically good observed outcomes," I could just say that government is an example of society's extension of that, as evidenced by the utter and complete nonexistence of "free society" social arrangements, and very little demand for said arrangements (I'm still waiting for a movement for the ocean-installation... not kidding.. I'd love to see one develop).

Yup. Humans want government, which embodies safety. But we also want freedom. Increasingly, we've been wanting more of both. It will be interesting to see how us silly human resolve this inherent contradiction.

So once you say "well, some force is just natural," then we can debate as to what is "natural" force.

Bounce down that logical chain a bit, and you could claim that due to male instincts in nature, they have a natural right to force themselves on a fertile woman (really, really not trying to accuse you fellas of saying this... just challenging our logical frameworks... mine as well as yours!).

So how do we decide if force is morally/naturally (are these the same???) justifiable?

You look at what your society has told you. No, really. What you or I may personally think is irrelevant; what your tribe collectively subscribes to is what matters. And in most tribes, rape of a female is one of the worst possible things a male can do and extremely harshly punished. Why? Because evolutionarily speaking, females are more valuable than males. You could have a society with a 10-to-1 female-male gender ratio than that small fraction of men could easily impregnate all the women. The reverse would be a disaster. Evolutionarily, men are just dumb muscle and sperm donors. Women create and shape the next generation. Thus, the near-universal prohibition on rape is actually a utilitarian conceit.

PS, I agree with the first part, and if we can ignore the subject of rape (I regret using that example... it's just a nasty area to get into), you seem to be arguing that something is morally acceptable as long as the culture says it is.  Well our culture things government is morally acceptable, and therefore that means it is?

I really don't like building my moral philosophy on what the lemmings around me think (though most people naturally believe that murder, theft, and rape or wrong, so I'd agree with them.

I think there are probably moral truths that are independent of what the masses will allow us.  Whether these are "rights" or something else is maybe up for debate, but if we're really stating that culture dictates moral righteousness, then we just have to take a poll on an issue to decide whether it's "right" or not.  That not only flies in the face of libertarian philosophy, but my gut feel on what "moraltity" is really supposed to mean in the first place.

Simon,
But I'd argue a society without government also has a lot of evidence of being "unworkable." However, that doesn't make it "ok" in your world.

i don't disagree that "without government" would be unworkable (keep in mind i am not one of the resident anarchists, an important distinction) i do believe a government that only used force to defend property as apposed to one that uses force to commit theft and restrict freedom is workable.. and if it is not entirely workable right this minute, because the population is to uniformed, unenlightened or just plane stupid to manage it, it is still the goal to work towards. any step toward using more force against property and liberty in more areas of peoples lives is a move away from the idea of having a better society.

[Pointedstick]

PS, I agree with the first part, and if we can ignore the subject of rape (I regret using that example... it's just a nasty area to get into), you seem to be arguing that something is morally acceptable as long as the culture says it is.  Well our culture things government is morally acceptable, and therefore that means it is?

I really don't like building my moral philosophy on what the lemmings around me think (though most people naturally believe that murder, theft, and rape or wrong, so I'd agree with them.

I think there are probably moral truths that are independent of what the masses will allow us.  Whether these are "rights" or something else is maybe up for debate, but if we're really stating that culture dictates moral righteousness, then we just have to take a poll on an issue to decide whether it's "right" or not.  That not only flies in the face of libertarian philosophy, but my gut feel on what "moraltity" is really supposed to mean in the first place.

The problem with morality is that if yours doesn't agree with the collective definition, it's basically irrelevant. We're a social species. The tribe determines the morality. Regardless of if there are universal moral truths handed down from God or mathematically provable or otherwise independent of what the masses believe, it simply doesn't matter from a practical, real-world perspective. Imagine if your philosophy said that you had the right to an audience with the leaders whenever you felt like it and you decided to exercise this perceived right during a closed-door meeting of the city council. Not gunna end well. You can only have your own personal moral philosophy so long as it doesn't conflict too much with what the tribe says.

The only way you'll truly have the liberty of defining and following your own personal moral code is if you either reject society and live alone, or find or create a tribe that perfectly matches your morality. Otherwise you simply have to live with the moral code of the tribe you already live in if you want to avoid unnecessary friction.

This is, coincidentally, why I'm so opposed to centralization. One world government means that one moral code rules the roost and anyone who feels otherwise is marginalized. If we want to preserve the diversity of moral outlooks, we should celebrate and encourage decentralization and smaller, more distributed societies.

[Rien]

The problem with morality is that if yours doesn't agree with the collective definition, it's basically irrelevant.

I am going to disagree with that. The only morality that really concerns me is my morality. A group morality is external to me. As such I treat a group morality as a given, like the weather. I may not like it, but I better take it into account when deciding on my course of action. However my own morality is the deciding factor for me in achieving happiness. If I disregard my own rules for moral behavior, then that will be a major source of emotional stress.

[Pointedstick]

The problem with morality is that if yours doesn't agree with the collective definition, it's basically irrelevant.

I am going to disagree with that. The only morality that really concerns me is my morality. A group morality is external to me. As such I treat a group morality as a given, like the weather. I may not like it, but I better take it into account when deciding on my course of action. However my own morality is the deciding factor for me in achieving happiness. If I disregard my own rules for moral behavior, then that will be a major source of emotional stress.

That's basically what I'm saying, but again, your personal morality can't veer too far from the group morality. If your own morality says that you can't be happy unless you eat other people (to use a ridiculous, extreme example), you will have major problems achieving happiness even if you remain true to yourself.

If, on the other hand, your personal sense of morality involves things like treating people as you'd like to be treated, helping the deserving needy, defending yourself if attacked, asking for loyalty to previously-made agreements, and earning a lot of money in generally honorable ways, then your personal morality isn't actually all that much different from the collective moral codes of most modern human societies.

[Libertarian666]

The problem with morality is that if yours doesn't agree with the collective definition, it's basically irrelevant.

I am going to disagree with that. The only morality that really concerns me is my morality. A group morality is external to me. As such I treat a group morality as a given, like the weather. I may not like it, but I better take it into account when deciding on my course of action. However my own morality is the deciding factor for me in achieving happiness. If I disregard my own rules for moral behavior, then that will be a major source of emotional stress.

That's basically what I'm saying, but again, your personal morality can't veer too far from the group morality. If your own morality says that you can't be happy unless you eat other people (to use a ridiculous, extreme example), you will have major problems achieving happiness even if you remain true to yourself.

If, on the other hand, your personal sense of morality involves things like treating people as you'd like to be treated, helping the deserving needy, defending yourself if attacked, asking for loyalty to previously-made agreements, and earning a lot of money in generally honorable ways, then your personal morality isn't actually all that much different from the collective moral codes of most modern human societies.

Yes, with the obvious exception of government agents.