So? What's everybody else think about Lilburne philosophically attacking what I value in life, meaning, life, liberty, and private property? Anybody else have some thoughts on Lilburne philosophically attacking what I praxeologically value calling natural law and natural rights which are life, liberty, and private property? I value my life, liberty, and private property and Lilburne keeps on philosophically attacking these very values I hold.
So, anybody have any thoughts on him doing this to what I value?
You're quite mad, sir.
Denying, as Mises does, the validity of natural law doctrine (which concerns life, liberty, and property) is not the same thing as attacking your life, liberty, and property, or your valuation of those things.
I will disagree, respectfully of course, and will agree with Grayson on the matter.
I read a bit of the thread where you two go at it and while I agree with you on the concept of natural rights and natural law, I have to say that "debating about a topic" does not equate attacking it. He may not agree with something you cherish a great deal in life and he may try to discredit it, but that's part of life. It's just something you have to get used to.
For example, I'm a Christian, but I've long since stopped getting angry when someone attacks my religion. It's just their belief and I happen to disagree with them.
Then read more than a bit of it. Obviously he is making a point that you feel to see. It isn't to be taken at face value.
Care to elaborate, Marko?
Edit: This is aimed at Marko, not Lilburne who posted while I was typing up my post.
Perhaps you're right. I apologize if what I said was based off of faulty information considering I haven't read all of it yet.
I just wanted to say: wilderness, we love you man, it'll be okay. We all value freedom here, Lilburne just has different beliefs about the ontology of rights. Calm yourself.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
If thinking of ethics in terms of natural law is indeed a mere personal preference then what is the point of arguing against it?
His preference is to see ethics one way, yours is to see them another way. So why have a battle of tastes?
Or are you saying that your view is actually more than a taste? More of an objective fact than a preference?
wilderness, as well as most natural rights theorists, do not merely express personal preferences. They also make what I consider invalid/incoherent propositions. Moreover, I don't think accepting a "noble lie" will ultimately help liberalism at all. It will only discredit us in the eyes of discerning scholars and distract us from mastering and disseminating the valid sciences of human action, upon which the future of freedom and prosperity truly relies.
Moreover, I don't think accepting a "noble lie" will ultimately help liberalism at all.
What if we call this lie a religion? Lies and unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) propositions are all the rage if you call 'em faith.
wilderness, as well as most natural rights theorists, do not merely express personal preferences.
No, but according to you and other subjectivists that is exactly what the natural rights adherents do, right? And since you reject the view that objectivity can be applied to ethics then how exactly can you prove any theory concerning it superior over any other?
No. A natural rights proponent may very well simply be using his philosophical doctrine as a vehicle for the promotion of his personal preferences. But the doctrine itself is not a mere expression of those preferences. A proposition merely expressing personal preference would be something like, "Taxation disgusts me." The propositions of natural rights theorists are obviously more ambitious than that. As such they shouldn't just get a free pass, even among libertarians, regarding their validity.
No. A natural rights proponent may very well simply be using his philosophical doctrine as a vehicle for the promotion of his personal preferences. But the doctrine itself is not a mere expression of those preferences.
I am glad that you realise this. I often get subjectivists accussing me that in being a natural rights proponent I am merely attempting to lend special validity to my value judgements. But that it is not true. It is not a case of 'preferences imperialism'. In reality natural law is more than a well to find reinforcement in a source of frustration. For example when it says it is wrong to punch people in the nose for saying something (evil or annoying or whatever). So the deal isn't that I pretend it is there because I like what it says. The deal is that it is there wether I like it or not. And pretty often I don't like it that it is there, but I can't be lying to myself.
Marko:If thinking of ethics in terms of natural law is indeed a mere personal preference then what is the point of arguing against it?
It is a personal preference. As I said it is a value judgement of mine. I have said this for over a year now. So yes, what is the point of arguing against my natural law doctrine that is my personal preference?
[Naevius, didn't like the word "attacking". In a philosophical debate between two sides one side is formally called 'attack' and the other side is called 'maintain' or 'defend'. I am saying this in reference to Aristotle's rendition in his book "APrior" translated by Robin Smith. Attack is the Greek word Aristotle used during argumentation called epicheirein. Maintain or defend is the Greek word hupechein. I'm simply using this formal debate language, nothing more, nothing less. AH. I have the book but found the section on line here.]
[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqfVzJhBRU4]
Great lines from the movie:
"Don't change the subject just answer the fuckin' question."
"Yeah, It's Mine."
Person A: "You're a madmen." Person B: "lol....(nodding head yes). I come to the right place then."
Really? I didn't know that. My bad, I suppose. (I'm assuming that you're referring to me when you mention a poster who didn't like the word attack--if I'm wrong, let me know.)
wilderness: It is a personal preference. As I said it is a value judgement of mine. I have said this for over a year now. So yes, what is the point of arguing against my natural law doctrine that is my personal preference?
Wait, really?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Yes really. I have said this countless times for over a year now. Some people simply do not desire to understand praxeologic and know that it is of all human beings. Every single person makes value judgments. That's simply the way it is. And I have been saying this is my preference, what I value, what I think, believe, and my theory, etc.... for over a year now. And anybody that knows praxeology would have realized that each single individual only voices and acts their judgements of value in the first place. It is an axiom. It would be a given to acknowledge this fact if some people knew what praxeologic even meant, stopped being armchair philosophers, and actually applied what they know. How else did Mises know what he knew? He actually applied his knowledge instead of remaining detached from reality. I have been doing the same in this forum for over a year now. I have linked numerous papers that talk about methodological individualism, and human action based on the individual's own choices and actions thereof, etc.... For this to be anything new to some people it's only because they fail to know praxeologic and to know me and what I've been saying here for a very long time. So I thought I would take these last few days and actually address this because some people in this forum have been philosophically attacking me and not applying praxeologic in their own posts at all.
wilderness:And I have been saying this is my preference, what I value, what I think, believe, and my theory, etc...
Just in case you're attempting to yoke all those different terms into one, let me be clear. The content of your theory and your preference for/valuation of your theory are two different things. I am disputing the validity of the content of your theory, not challenging your preference for/valuation of it.
The content of my theory is life, liberty, and private property, so, just to be clear on this, this IS what you dispute the validity of. You dispute the validity of my life, my liberty, and my private property because those ARE the content of MY theory. As I've repeated to you for over a year now. Learn praxeologic.
[I suggest you watch the youtube again if you have already.]
wilderness:The content of my theory is life, liberty, and private property
I am valuing my life, liberty, and private property. That is MY theory. There. I put a verb in it. Stop attacking my life, liberty, and private property. Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don't like MY theory. I don't know if this post was intended for me or not. I know it has my name in it. I don't know though. I mean as long as Liberte can say it, I wonder if it applies elsewhere, what do you think?
Distinctions between the general and particular, the ontological and the normative, seem to be hard to get across around here.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Grayson Lilburne: wilderness:The content of my theory is life, liberty, and private property A theory cannot consist of nothing but nouns. I do not challenge your nouns. I dispute the invalid propositions into which you've inserted those nouns.
Do you have an argument or do you just blow hot air, If you have an argument state it, otherwise stop wasting time and space.
My theory is my norm. I live my theory. I don't armchair philosophy. I act.
Liberté: Denying, as Mises does, the validity of natural law doctrine (which concerns life, liberty, and property) is not the same thing as attacking your life, liberty, and property, or your valuation of those things. Distinctions between the general and particular, the ontological and the normative, seem to be hard to get across around here.
Prove it or stfu.
twistedbydsign99:Prove it
Excellent. Yes. I want to see proofs around here. I need to see some praxeologic actually applied in this forum.
wilderness:"Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don't like MY theory."
Am I not to dispute any theory whatsover, or is only your natural law theory sacrosanct?
Disprove MY theory. Disprove MY life, liberty, and private property. Demonstrate praxeologic.
wilderness: Disprove MY theory. Disprove MY life, liberty, and private property. Demonstrate praxeologic.
You know what really helped me clarify some things, having a blog, do you have one wilderness? Even if you don't let anyone else read it its good for exploring what you believe and its consequences.
I do. It's not anything special though. PM me and I could talk more about it.
I am valuing my life, liberty, and private property. That is MY theory. There. I put a verb in it. Stop attacking my life, liberty, and private property. Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don't like MY theory.
So, your claim that your valuation of your life, liberty, and private property are your natural law theory implies that there can be an opposing natural law theory. Can you not "attack" that theory based on its subjective nature? Even if it opposes your natural law theory?
Lilburne has sufficiently 'proven' it, as did Mises, as did Max Stirner. It's not our fault if you can't/won't comprehend value subjectivism and ontological individualism.
In fact, I am done even talking to your kind. You don't even say anything interesting.
In my belief, there are as many natural law theories as there ever have been, are, and will be people on this earth. It is only natural that people freely think. It's praxeologic. Some natural law theories oppose each other. As Mises said theory is thought. Some theories are more complicated than others, some don't ignore common sense. Mine can get complicated but I definitely don't ignore common sense. I don't know if this directly answered all of your questions. Let me know if there is something I didn't communicate effectively.
Liberte,
You have yet to show that you know and comprehend value judgements. Because you keep arguing with them.
edit: Yes, "your kind". The kind that hold value judgments of life, liberty, and private property. You've said it before that you will stop talking to 'our kind' before. Practice what you preach sist'er
Josh : I am valuing my life, liberty, and private property. That is MY theory. There. I put a verb in it. Stop attacking my life, liberty, and private property. Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don't like MY theory. So, your claim that your valuation of your life, liberty, and private property are your natural law theory implies that there can be an opposing natural law theory. Can you not "attack" that theory based on its subjective nature? Even if it opposes your natural law theory?
So Josh, If i were to give you an argument face to face about why I feel your life is basically worth nothing, how would that make you feel. Since you are alive and breathing we know you put life above death on your value scale, so clearly I'm saying you are either wrong or stupid. Its similar to the anger you might feel if someone denounces that truth can be known. Thats my take on it, but I think what wilderness is saying is that you can't argue against an opinion.
Maybe it would be healthier for discussion if we placed natural rights on pause and explored some other substitute theories (at least this would switch the offensive)
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
exactly, twisted.
The so-called preachers of praxeology around here need a fire lit under their metaphorical arse because they preach praxeologic but don't practice praxeologic. It is an opinion. And they are arguing against it. It MY scientific opinion that I possess a life, liberty, and private property.
Jeremiah Dyke: Maybe it would be healthier for discussion if we placed natural rights on pause and explored some other substitute theories (at least this would switch the offensive)
It would probably help, It feels like people are arguing about epistomology, but in really complicated terms.