If you are not (then):
z1235: Except I'm not proving anything.
Except I'm not proving anything.
then don't argue.
z1235: It is you that needs to point to my performative contradiction in order to prove AE.
It is you that needs to point to my performative contradiction in order to prove AE.
then don't argue i need to do this.
z1235: You can't point to it because it simply isn't there.
You can't point to it because it simply isn't there.
then don't argue that.
z1235: Please keep up with the discussion instead of simply parroting Hoppe's jingle,
Please keep up with the discussion instead of simply parroting Hoppe's jingle,
then don't make this argument either
z1235: as if repeating it 1000 times is going to make it any less silly.
as if repeating it 1000 times is going to make it any less silly.
then no need to make this argument either
z1235: Btw, I may have to leave soon, as my argumentation time-slot is about to expire, and my slave-mistress is getting antsy to have me all to herself.
Btw, I may have to leave soon, as my argumentation time-slot is about to expire, and my slave-mistress is getting antsy to have me all to herself.
then don't point this out as an argument either
--
thanks for proving AE again! So fun!
nirgrahamUK: z1235:For all I know, that may be EXACTLY what's going on right now and so would you be arguing with me, or not? i presume you think you would be arguing with me....
z1235:For all I know, that may be EXACTLY what's going on right now
I don't "think" I'm arguing with you. I AM. Your evil philosopher and my slave-mistress notwithstanding. What else would you think have we been doing?
nirgrahamUK:yes, the validity of something understood as being a possible logical argument, does have its validity independant of circumstance surrounding its elucidation. but logical arguments are something different from two people engaged in the activity of rational argumentation.
Nir, just concede, please. This is getting pathetic. Let me talk to your evil philosopher if you think it may help. You DID give it a fair shot (no pun intended ).
Would you say that lawyers arguing a case in front of a court are "arguing" or performing a "charade"? You're somehow not arguing because you have a gun to your head; I am somehow not arguing because I am a slave to my lovely salve-mistress (she loves it when I say this); and lawyers are somehow not arguing because they get paid to win their cases. Right? It's all one big charade, UNLESS you own yourself. Only THEN can you really say that you argue, right? Again, how convenient for Hoppe's proof, but how silly, as well.
Z.
z1235: I AM.
I AM.
that's arguable.
thanks for proving AE again.
z1235: What else would you think have we been doing?
z1235:Nir, just concede, please
z1235:This is getting pathetic. let me talk to your evil philosopher if you think it may help
z1235:Would you say that lawyers arguing a case in front of a court are "arguing" or performing a "charade"
z1235:Again, how convenient for Hoppe's proof, but how silly, as well.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
z1235: nirgrahamUK: z1235:For all I know, that may be EXACTLY what's going on right now and so would you be arguing with me, or not? i presume you think you would be arguing with me.... I don't "think" I'm arguing with you. I AM. Your evil philosopher and my slave-mistress notwithstanding. What else would you think have we been doing? nirgrahamUK:yes, the validity of something understood as being a possible logical argument, does have its validity independant of circumstance surrounding its elucidation. but logical arguments are something different from two people engaged in the activity of rational argumentation. Nir, just concede, please. This is getting pathetic. Let me talk to your evil philosopher if you think it may help. You DID give it a fair shot (no pun intended ). Would you say that lawyers arguing a case in front of a court are "arguing" or performing a "charade"? You're somehow not arguing because you have a gun to your head; I am somehow not arguing because I am a slave to my lovely salve-mistress (she loves it when I say this); and lawyers are somehow not arguing because they get paid to win their cases. Right? It's all one big charade, UNLESS you own yourself. Only THEN can you really say that you argue, right? Again, how convenient for Hoppe's proof, but how silly, as well.
Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg's, rights--or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO -- and I assume you do, if you are posting here--then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please--because this confounds me.
Stephan Kinsella nskinsella@gmail.com www.StephanKinsella.com
nirgrahamUK:I think we are arguing because i don't believe you when you say that we are engaged in a charade of argumentation
Perhaps you should only stick to believing (or not) things that I have actually said. As I said, I think we ARE indeed arguing, and it seems that you think that we're arguing, as well -- your evil philosopher and my slave-owner notwithstanding.
nirgrahamUK:no
Then let's go back to where we left off. Don't say you weren't given a chance to end this gracefully.
Interesting. Please do explain the difference between (1) "logical arguments" and (2) "rational argumentation". I smell a real philosophical breakthrough here. Perhaps even more groundbreaking than AE itself?
nirgrahamUK:They present arguments for a judge or jury to consider. if the court relied on both cases to be fully stated independently to the court, (i.e. without cross-exam and turn taking) then their role could be filled by tape recorders set to play, or by verbiage written on the wall of the court.
How about WITH cross-exam and turn taking? Argumentation or charade? One wonders why people ever pay for lawyers when they could just get themselves a tape recorder from Best Buy.
nirgrahamUK:Doing analytics and thinking about what things mean and what can be concluded from things known is *silly* now? ok.
Strawman, and a desperate mispresentation. What's silly is claiming to have proven something which has blatantly been (a priori) assumed in the proof itself. I'm sure there's a fancy latin name for such a fallacy but I can't come up with it right now, so SILLY would do.
z1235:Strawman, and a desperate mispresentation. What's silly is claiming to have proven something which has blatantly been (a priori) assumed in the proof itself. I'm sure there's a fancy latin name for such a fallacy but I can't come up with it right now, so SILLY would do.
nskinsella:So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please--because this confounds me.
pwn
z1235:your evil philosopher and my slave-owner notwithstanding.
z1235:Interesting. Please do explain the difference between (1) "logical arguments" and (2) "rational argumentation". I smell a real philosophical breakthrough here. Perhaps even more groundbreaking than AE itself?
z1235:How about WITH cross-exam and turn taking? Argumentation or charade? One wonders why people ever pay for lawyers when they could just get themselves a tape recorder from Best Buy.
p.s. You can't hurt my feelings by calling me silly. I'm used to that. I'm a libertarian.
Stephen: AJ: I agree with this. From that angle, I guess my point would be, again not be blunt, but so what? What do I lose by not being able to make an imperative statement? (Or not being able to consistently make an imperative statement.) What negative consequence do I experience? You're unable to justify yourself. Something which normal civilized people care about.
AJ: I agree with this. From that angle, I guess my point would be, again not be blunt, but so what? What do I lose by not being able to make an imperative statement? (Or not being able to consistently make an imperative statement.) What negative consequence do I experience?
I agree with this. From that angle, I guess my point would be, again not be blunt, but so what? What do I lose by not being able to make an imperative statement? (Or not being able to consistently make an imperative statement.) What negative consequence do I experience?
You're unable to justify yourself. Something which normal civilized people care about.
I am unable to justify myself in Kinsella's context. I guess that just doesn't bother me. I can't speak for others.
Stephen:Something which you care about as well, as is illistrated by your attacks on objective ethical theories.
Attacks? It seems to me that I'm generally asking for clarification. If the theories are correct, I would think such inquiries and even pointing out of possible errors would be welcome.
Why anarchy fails
Stephen:I guess because people value principles and just expediency. I suppose if I were arguing with barbarians I'd use your method. But if I were arguing with a normal person, I'd try to show them that they wouldn't feel justified in their present action if the roles were reversed. I would also point out the asocial character of their present action. Namely, if everyone where to do it, life would be far more miserable for them and the ones they love. And if they appeal to some higher principle, such as equality, I might try a discourse ethics approach.
If it helps any, based on what you wrote here I don't think we disagree.
Stephen: AJ: The one about proving my words have objective meaning? I already covered that one - if it's a different one let me know. You still haven't given me a direct answer. Now can you or can't you?
AJ: The one about proving my words have objective meaning? I already covered that one - if it's a different one let me know.
The one about proving my words have objective meaning? I already covered that one - if it's a different one let me know.
You still haven't given me a direct answer. Now can you or can't you?
I doubt anyone can do that, so no, I don't think I can prove my words have objective factual meaning.
Conza88: "Anyone who says they are not interested in politics is like a drowning man who insists he is not interested in water." So... Can you explain to me why the individual should behave ethically? Yes, or no?
"Anyone who says they are not interested in politics is like a drowning man who insists he is not interested in water." So...
Can you explain to me why the individual should behave ethically? Yes, or no?
Re: Politics, I don't think the word politics applies when there is no state - at least not by any definition I'm aware of (politics = "who gets what, when and how" implies a state).
Re: Why an individual should behave ethically, if you'd like me to use utilitarianism or consequentialism, again my answer would be an explanation of the consequences of certain actions. If you say that that doesn't imply any "should" or any "ethics," then I concur, and then strictly speaking I can't answer your question because we don't agree on the definitions.
Conza88:To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law: * is not made by human beings; * is based on the structure of reality itself; * is the same for all human beings and at all times; * is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover; * is the naturally knowable moral law; * is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good."
You may be right that I cannot prove that there exists nothing fitting all those characteristics. However, Lilburne's conception of evolution-based morality - based on empathy and inborn sense of justice - seems to fit these characteristics as well. I am generally agreeable to Lilburne's idea.
Conza88:Does man have a nature?
nature=certain characteristics common to all people: yes, probably. E.g., all humans have a brain.
nature=something else: then what?
Conza88:So... all you are trying to do is persuade? Isn't that what you deplore natural rights for?
All I think we can really do is persuade, yes. I don't deplore natural rights for that; I simply point out that they seem to be persuasive tools - good ones at that! - but that seems to be their only useful role. I can't come out and unequivocally say that persuasion is definitely their only useful role until I fully understand every theory that claims a different role for natural rights (which could go on infinitely). That is why I aim to clarify, and if necessary deconstruct (or, if they convince me, agree with), theories that claim something more than a persuasive role for natural rights.
Conza88:You have no feasible political ethical objection to robbery, rape or murder?
If "ethical" excludes consequentialism and also excludes arguing within people's own ethical frameworks, then no.
Conza88:How do you know what the advocates of the particular policy consider desirable? How do you know what their value-scales are now or what they will be when the consequences of the measure appear?
I don't. Sometimes reality is hard. I don't see how an objective ethicist would be more convincing, though, given that he doesn't know if the advocates of said policy accept objective ethics. And if I knew they accepted objective ethics, I could just as easily argue my case within that framework, using statements like, "Given that you accept natural law, here is what natural law seems to say on this matter: ......"
????: "Utilitarianism seems to rob the words good and bad of their specifically ethical character. The utilitarian cannot make a distinction between guilt and simple error. The person who robs a bank to achieve happiness has made a mistake in qualitatively the same sense as a person who overcooks a steak. (I do not believe Yeager specifically addresses this type of objection.) In fact, we can go further. Is it really true, for example, that Josef Stalin acted against his interests, even in the long run? Does the utilitarian really concede that our possible condemnation of Stalin is purely an empirical matter? (It might be true that had every other Soviet acted in his true interests, dictatorship would have been impossible. But this is dodging the issue.)"
"Utilitarianism seems to rob the words good and bad of their specifically ethical character. The utilitarian cannot make a distinction between guilt and simple error. The person who robs a bank to achieve happiness has made a mistake in qualitatively the same sense as a person who overcooks a steak. (I do not believe Yeager specifically addresses this type of objection.)
In fact, we can go further. Is it really true, for example, that Josef Stalin acted against his interests, even in the long run? Does the utilitarian really concede that our possible condemnation of Stalin is purely an empirical matter? (It might be true that had every other Soviet acted in his true interests, dictatorship would have been impossible. But this is dodging the issue.)"
I certainly agree that utilitarianism is dangerous in the statist context. I am speaking in the non-statist context. I am only utilitarian/consequentialist for and in relation to my own self, unless - again - I am the one deciding or proposing the law, like if I were head of a PDA or something. If I were a PDA entrepreneur, I might well use natural law as the guiding principle, maybe even employing in some form all of Rothbard's, Hoppe's, and Kinsella's ideas. But I would do that only if I believed that would be in my best interests, as well as in what I can only guess are the best interests of others who may be affected.
Conza88:How do you define justice?
I don't find it a useful word, except in the context of an inborn "sense of justice" that people may have. Although it may be inborn, I don't think it manifests itself in the same way for all people (e.g., even if it's inborn the same for everyone, it seems to manifest itself differently for pro-choicers vs. pro-lifers). I certainly feel a sense of justice, but I don't think it responds to situations exactly the same as anyone else's.
Conza88:Political ethical objections to stealing, murder and rape - you are equating that to ethical central planning?
Not necessarily. If it's just a personal objection then no. If it's meant to apply to everyone, then it seems not much different from central planning. Sure, one can say that the theorist isn't making the law, just "discovering" it - but kings have used the same argument, i.e., "I'm not making the law, I'm simply taking orders from the Almighty. Therefore, I'm not a central planner." Or global warming advocates can say, "We're not central planning, we're simply implementing the proven science." The ethical theorist could likewise say, "I'm not making the law, I'm simply pointing out the obvious logical natural law. If you don't see the obvious, that's just too bad." Not to equate natural law theorists with authoritarians like these, but I think it's healthy to question theories that claim there are rules everyone must follow. More than that, I don't see why - if it really is obvious to all - that anyone would need to "advocate" natural law, unless we're talking about in the statist context.
Conza88:Your personal objections are meaningless, which is why I'm asking for your political ethical objections... if you have anything.
I look at it this way: One person's view is just one person's view. If you want to persuade more people to your view, use the most effective persuasion techniques.
Conza88:What is the difference between you, and a nihilist who understands economics?
I'm not a nihilist in my personal ethics. It's just that, my personal objections matter for others only insofar as I personally get to decide the law, but if we're in anarchy I don't get to decide the law for others, so it seems irrelevant since I'm not a statist.
nskinsella:Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg's, rights--or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO -- and I assume you do, if you are posting here--then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe?
I earlier argued that these theories only apply to people who already accept objective ethics or rights. I rest my case.
But they don't. They apply to everyone, since there is some form of rights accepted, even if "might makes right, and I'm mighty so I have all the rights" is it.
nirgrahamUK:yes, but if i believed you that you were owned, like you *joked* that you were, then it would be a charade.
nirgrahamUK:the validity of something understood as being a possible logical argument, does have its validity independent of circumstance surrounding its elucidation
Please explain your contradiction or kindly concede.
What contradiction?
z1235:Interesting. Please do explain the difference between (1) "logical arguments" and (2) "rational argumentation".
nirgrahamUK:I cant argue against naked sarcasm. I guess my Hoppean arguments lose and your Sarcastarian arguments win.
Then don't use the sarcastic part as a crutch -- disregard it. Explain the difference above or kindly concede.
there is no contradiction. the fact is that you think you can have a rational argument with a tape recorder playing a voice at you where the narrator is stating a series of propositions.
nirgrahamUK: there is no contradiction. the fact is that you think you can have a rational argument with a tape recorder playing a voice at you where the narrator is stating a series of propositions.
Strawman. I never said such a thing. Closing your eyes to your contradiction is not going to make it go away. That strategy stops working past the age of three.
Now please explain the contradiction between these two statements or kindly concede:
nirgrahamUK:something understood as being a possible logical argument, does have its validity independent of circumstance surrounding its elucidation
nirgrahamUK:if i believed you that you were owned, like you *joked* that you were, then it would be a charade.
How can you reconcile your statements that (on one hand) the validity of a logical argument is independent of its source and circumstances, and at the same time state that the validity of my (and your) arguments is somehow different (diminished to a "charade") depending on what you or I believe, joke about, or depending on whether or not you are being coerced by an evil philosopher (or me being tickled by a slave-mistress)?
Which one is it? Is an argument an ARGUMENT no matter what, or is an argument whatever YOU will conveniently define in order to avoid conceding?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Wouldn't you have to assume it in order to prove it?
You're not helping. ANYTHING that requires to be a priori assumed in order to be proven, is NOT proven. It's simply assumed. Claiming that it's thus proven is plain silly -- that is, in the grown up world outside of your sandbox.
AJ: nskinsella:Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg's, rights--or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO -- and I assume you do, if you are posting here--then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? I earlier argued that these theories only apply to people who already accept objective ethics or rights. I rest my case.
"apply"? What does this mean, exactly?
And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would "apply" to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.
z1235:You're not helping.
nskinsella:"apply"? What does this mean, exactly?
Clearer to say, "be persuasive to."
nskinsella:And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would "apply" to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.
Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade? You also seemed to overlook this possibility earlier when you wrote:
nskinsella: z1235:My point is that this is only relevant to "nice" agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories "prove" niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest. Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head. So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.
z1235:My point is that this is only relevant to "nice" agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories "prove" niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.
Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head.
So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.
You seem to be defending AE by saying that it's no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God. I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to "prove" natural law is completely fruitless.
z1235:Strawman. I never said such a thing.
ah, so you can conceptually differentiate between a real argument and a charade of such.
z1235:ow can you reconcile your statements that (on one hand) the validity of a logical argument is independent of its source and circumstances, and at the same time state that the validity of my (and your) arguments is somehow different (diminished to a "charade") depending on what you or I believe, joke about, or depending on whether or not you are being coerced by an evil philosopher (or me being tickled by a slave-mistress)?
ok. you simply don't understand that a rational argument between multiple parties is not identical with a set of propositions which may be a 'valid' or 'invalid' arguments under logical analysis.
AJ: nskinsella:"apply"? What does this mean, exactly? Clearer to say, "be persuasive to."
EXACTLY. Good. so this makes it clear that you are criticizing AE because you think it won't be "persuasive" to some people. But persuasiveness is not the same as truth. So who cares if you argue, or even show, that AE is not "persuasive"?
nskinsella:And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would "apply" to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell. Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?
Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?
aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.
But let me axe you: persuade of WHAT?
You also seemed to overlook this possibility earlier when you wrote: nskinsella: z1235:My point is that this is only relevant to "nice" agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories "prove" niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest. Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head. So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect. You seem to be defending AE by saying that it's no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.
You seem to be defending AE by saying that it's no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.
Not so. I am showing that this criticism is incoherent --that it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals, since this "problem" arises from the very nature of normativity: the fact that norms are NOT causal laws, and CAN be violated.
I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to "prove" natural law is completely fruitless.
AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified. You AE critics seem incapable of understanding this simple point. I think it is because you are in some sense anti-intellectual, and activist-results oriented (hence your focus on 'results" and "persuasiveness"). You seem to disregard the signficance of showing that, say, only the NAP is argumentatively justifiable, because to you, this doesn't do very much--because it's not self-enforceable. Because it's not a causal law, but only a wimpy, non-self-enforcing "normative" one. You are in a sense monists-scientistic types, because you really want to collapse everything down to the causal realm. If a proof of rights can be disregarded, why, what good is it? It only matters if it works; if it persuades. So you scoff at and blow off normative claims--like an economist with physics envy, you think only "norms" that "have teeth" "matter". And real norms don't, os you pooh-pooh them, and retreat into scientism-monism.
nskinsella:aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.
That's a strawman. He never claimed to only care about persuasiveness.
nskinsella:You AE critics seem incapable of understanding this simple point. I think it is because you are in some sense anti-intellectual, and activist-results oriented (hence your focus on 'results" and "persuasiveness"). You seem to disregard the signficance of showing that, say, only the NAP is argumentatively justifiable, because to you, this doesn't do very much--because it's not self-enforceable. Because it's not a causal law, but only a wimpy, non-self-enforcing "normative" one. You are in a sense monists-scientistic types, because you really want to collapse everything down to the causal realm. If a proof of rights can be disregarded, why, what good is it? It only matters if it works; if it persuades. So you scoff at and blow off normative claims--like an economist with physics envy, you think only "norms" that "have teeth" "matter". And real norms don't, os you pooh-pooh them, and retreat into scientism-monism.
Super disappointing.
<Note: full quotes included for context where necessary>
nskinsella:EXACTLY. Good. so this makes it clear that you are criticizing AE because you think it won't be "persuasive" to some people. But persuasiveness is not the same as truth. So who cares if you argue, or even show, that AE is not "persuasive"?
No, that's why I was "criticizing" estoppel (really just asking for clarification). You've yet to address my main critique of AE (which is a critique).
nskinsella: AJ: nskinsella:And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would "apply" to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell. Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade? aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.
AJ: nskinsella:And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would "apply" to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell. Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?
Non sequitur and avoids the issue: What other reason would you have for providing a "proof" if not to persuade or convince?
nskinsella:But let me axe you: persuade of WHAT?
Obvious from the quote above: Persuade of natural rights (as opposed to proving them).
nskinsella: AJ: nskinsella: z1235:My point is that this is only relevant to "nice" agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories "prove" niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest. Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head. So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect. You seem to be defending AE by saying that it's no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God. Not so. I am showing that this criticism is incoherent --that it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals, since this "problem" arises from the very nature of normativity: the fact that norms are NOT causal laws, and CAN be violated.
AJ: nskinsella: z1235:My point is that this is only relevant to "nice" agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories "prove" niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest. Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head. So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect. You seem to be defending AE by saying that it's no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.
The goalposts seem to have shifted: Now you're talking about criminals, not just those who don't accept objective ethics?
Let's recap:
z1235 wrote: "In some sense [the theories] are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest." [distinguishes between those who accept objective ethics or natural law and those who don't]
You wrote: "Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them." [distinguishes between those who choose to violate rights and those who don't]
You then wrote: "...it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals..." [same distinction, strawman of z1235's point]
Hence this doesn't address z1235's point. The question isn't, "Will it persuade criminals?" but rather, "Will it persuade anyone who doesn't accept objective ethics?"
nskinsella: AJ: I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to "prove" natural law is completely fruitless. AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified.
AJ: I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to "prove" natural law is completely fruitless.
AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified.
All right, but make the obvious substitutions and my point holds just as well for AE:
I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to prove that "no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified" is completely fruitless.
...
<Ad hominems personal speculation snipped> [Edit: KoB, point taken]
Is it that time again? Time for a lesson in what ad hominem means?
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
What does objective ethics and objective rights mean? I honestly do not understand what you mean at all and I hear these phrases repeated here so often.
Please someone, anyone, give me a tight definition so there will be no confusion what you are talking about with these two phrases.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
AJ,
a suggestion. you're not helping in the dialogue because you are not persuading anything from what i read. if you are, then repeat it or clarify. what are you trying to persuade? put the spoon where the pudding is.
I still really want an answer, because I really don't understand what some people keep going on about.
Maybe it will help if some of you read Kinsella's paper again...
Estoppel is a well-known common-law principle that prevents or precludes someone from making a claim in a lawsuit that is inconsistent with his prior conduct, if some other person has changed his position to his detriment in reliance on the prior conduct (referred to as “detrimental reliance”). Estoppel thus denies a party the ability to assert a fact or right that he otherwise could. Estoppel is a widely-applicable legal principle that has countless manifestations.8 The Roman law and today’s civil law contain the similar doctrine venire contra factum proprium, or “no one can contradict his own act.” Under this principle, “no one is allowed to ignore or deny his own acts, or the consequences thereof, and claim a right in opposition to such acts or consequences.” The principle behind estoppel can also be seen in common sayings such as “actions speak louder than words,” “practice what you preach” or “put your money where your mouth is,” all of which embody the idea that actions and assertions should be consistent. As Lord Coke stated, the word “estoppel” is used “because a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.”
Beyond all of this nonsense like, "But I might be a slave! How can you know?" and "blah blah blah eternal ownership rights to my vocal chords", what is so bad about this legal tradition? You stabbed someone in the throat out of the blue, how can you argue meaningfully against the same or worse being done to you then?
AJ: I think this just makes z1235's point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to prove that "no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified" is completely fruitless.
Fruitless how? If fruitful means persuasion then possibly no. But he doesn't really seem to care. So this inquiry seems... fruitless.
Great point, E.R. I really like that paper. When I read it, I think to myself, "Wow, this is good... I agree.. I agree. ..good point there... oh oh, I hope the author covers THIS point next..." and then -- mirabile dictu!-- he does!
AJ:(has no less convincing power)
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
z1235: This one: "The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one's head during the length of the argument. There's no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one's (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions."
This one:
"The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one's head during the length of the argument. There's no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one's (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions."
Please produce for me a talking head in a jar, otherwise I will assume the mind, body.... and head as one unit. But seriously I need some further explanation of your position, you've clearly stated your denial of the exclusive/permanent/ etc qualities when doubting the self ownership of the heads, but what I want to know is what is your counter theory? If the heads don't own themselves can you give me a plausible alternative?
It is useful to state for reference the nuke that blows argumentation ethics into oblivion:
There is no logical, performative or any contradiction whatsoever in the denial of self-ownership.
scineram:..
wrong
and heres the nuke that destroys critics of AE
If you don't understand that raional argumentation presupposes inter-personal norms, you will not be a party to a rational argument with me. Even if I am wrong about the moon being made of cheese, I won't be corrected by you...
Vigorous assertion is still no substitute for correct argument.
is someone talking?