There is nothing in actual human value structure that implies contractarian arguments (even if they were fully valid, which they are not) would necessarily be libertarian. In Liberty, Games and Contracts ~ Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, there is an essay (the 8th, Why Contractarians are Not Libertarians...Evolutionarily Speaking) pointing out just this problem, that Narveson's contractarianism fails even on its own terms.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Solid,
Rothbard said the free market will decide on how the law will develop. It is a common law approach. He said that in "Power and Market" I don't have the book here because I let somebody borrow it. The book though I am referring to is Hoppe's the Democracy the God That Failed in which Hoppe discusses this in a section in his book and quotes Rothbard a few times to point out that Rothbard was saying the same thing. I will disagree with whoever fails to realize my natural law. But I haven't come across it in Rothbard nor Hoppe yet.
wilderness:I will disagree with whoever fails to realize my natural law.
Even if someone were to propose an argument to you which demonstrates that you were in error?
Demonstrate to me how MY life, liberty, and private property is an error. Attacking my life, liberty, and private property. What in the world are you trying to suggest since you attack these value judgments of mine?
Demonstrate to me how MY life, liberty, and private property is an error.
Demonstrate how this is a meaningful question.
That's a good question too. And I mean it for Lilburne.
wilderness:"Demonstrate to me how MY life, liberty, and private property is an error."
I'm saying IF it were demonstrated that you were in error. I'm asking if you are open to the possibility of your being fallible on the matter.
Demonstrate to me how MY life, liberty, and private property, my valuing of them and therefore MY theory as to those values being of MY theory being actually put into practice and not just being an armchair theoretican. I know praxeologic and use it. I apply it. Demonstrate to me how MY life is an error. You try to demonstrate it. I'm waiting.
Demonstrate to me how MY life is an error. You try to demonstrate it. I'm waiting.
CRANKITY CRANKSHAFT
ya got a bubble up your butt or something? I'm waiting for you to say something meaningful in one of these posts.
I'm waiting for you to say something meaningful in one of these posts.
We will when you post something meaningful.
I know. You don't think my life is meaningful. I get it. I understand you only preach but don't practice praxeologic.
Btw, this topic was debated to death over here fyi.
Have you read Reinach's Kant's Understanding of the Humean Problem?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Since some people don't think love implies an ought, then yes of course some people will not possess the wisdom of what love implies.
So what does love imply?