Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Proving Natural Law

This post has 1,361 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

can the question be answered more directly?

many moral philosophers would say 'its wrong to be criminal, thats what criminal means, the doer of something wrong', so the answer falls out of analysis of the question.

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Juan:
The quesion hashem is,

Why 'should' a criminal not engage in criminal acts if those acts further his self-interest ?

Indeed, natural law will never stop criminals from doing criminal activities; truly, it is, at best, a window dressing of sorts for those who already hold the views that they declare are proved by natural law. Plus, in history, almost every single possible ideology has tried to defend their views declaring them to be "natural law"; therefore, it is only natural that the entire idea has lost much of its credence. 

I find Mises' own utilitalarian defense of capitalism to be, by far, the best since it does not require any moral framework - simply, it is the knowledge that capitalism can best supply man with his needs, and that therefore capitalism is most desirable in comparision with other systems of organizing society. 

 

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:19 PM

nirgrahamUK:
can the question be answered more directly?

Do you mean my response to why a criminal should not commit a crime?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:22 PM

laminustacitus:
Indeed, natural law will never stop criminals from doing criminal activities

The natural law is not "man cannot do this or that". It is "this or that tends toward mans destruction or his flourishing". Further, neither a crime nor a criminal can be considered such without a theory of rights. Without a theory of rights a crime is merely another act, and a criminal merely another actor.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

i always wrestle with describing Mises view as utilitarian, since the mainstream utilitarian view does not hold misesian subjective value principle, which would seem to be all the difference in the world, and would seem to motivate whatever theory Mises have taking a different name  ... no?

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

hashem:

laminustacitus:
Indeed, natural law will never stop criminals from doing criminal activities

The natural law is not "man cannot do this or that". It is "this or that tends toward mans destruction or his flourishing". Further, neither a crime nor a criminal can be considered such without a theory of rights.

You missed my point.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:26 PM

laminustacitus:
I find Mises' own utilitalarian defense of capitalism to be, by far, the best since it does not require any moral framework

And yet you are wrong. It does require a moral framework, because it requires subjective value judgements about what should or shouldn't be done. Again, Rothbard has crushed the value-free Mises theory in TEoL.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:31 PM
lam:
Indeed, natural law will never stop criminals from doing criminal activities;
I never suggested it would. You missed the point.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:34 PM
lam:
I find Mises' own utilitalarian defense of capitalism to be, by far, the best since it does not require any moral framework
Too bad that capitalism presupposes property which in turn presupposes property rights which presuppose a moral framework.

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."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:36 PM

Juan:
lam:
I find Mises' own utilitalarian defense of capitalism to be, by far, the best since it does not require any moral framework
Too bad that capitalism presupposes property which in turn presupposes property rights which presuppose a moral framework.

Good point, I missed that.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

well, capitalism could work with private property being purely conventional.... (the question is, is there a significance between everbody having rights and mostly acting in accord with them, and alternatively everybody simply actings in the way that people that have property rights owuld act, i.e. if the majority 'played' the reality of private property)

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

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:42 PM
If the only argument we have for freedom is that a free-market produces better gadgets than soviet russia we don't have a very strong position methinks.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

nirgrahamUK:

well, capitalism could work with private property being purely conventional.... (the question is, is there a significance between everbody having rights and mostly acting in accord with them, and alternatively everybody simply actings in the way that people that have property rights owuld act, i.e. if the majority 'played' the reality of private property)

What do you mean 'purely conventional'?

And your 'question' is confusing, please restate.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

nirgrahamUK:

i always wrestle with describing Mises view as utilitarian, since the mainstream utilitarian view does not hold misesian subjective value principle, which would seem to be all the difference in the world, and would seem to motivate whatever theory Mises have taking a different name  ... no?

In Theory, and History, he describes himself as utilitarian, and proceeds to describe utilitarianism there in Value: 8. The Utilitarian Doctrine Restated (pg.55-61). I see Mises being a utilitarian, though I wonder what you would classify him as.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:45 PM

nirgrahamUK:
well, capitalism could work with private property being purely conventiona

But natural law has been proven, and rights derive from it. So why deviate?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Plus, in history, almost every single possible ideology has tried to defend their views declaring them to be "natural law"; therefore, it is only natural that the entire idea has lost much of its credence.

Sounds a bit like contractarianism and utilitarianism if so...

I find Mises' own utilitalarian defense of capitalism to be, by far, the best since it does not require any moral framework - simply, it is the knowledge that capitalism can best supply man with his needs, and that therefore capitalism is most desirable in comparision with other systems of organizing society.

Oh but that assumes such an end is desirable. Utilitarianism/consequentialism is an ethical system, whether its adherents like it or not. It sometimes astounds me how people think it is not

 

 

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I imagine  moral nihilists that 'just happen to also be' dogmatic about posession conventions,

just because they are so...,
maybe they are traditional, or suppose that the moral nihilists find
an aesthetic beauty in the rules of property that they advocate and co-operate to enforce,
the gist of this is,
assume that they de facto respect what we would call the institution of private property
but that they never explain this or motivate this with moral language,
even assume that they dont think about it morally, they just think about 'propertarianism'
as a convention, like shakinghands to meet people, 'its just how we do it around here' .


They could look like us in terms of their structure of production,
they would have a market,  although their conversations would sound different....

its a thought experiment.

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

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

nirgrahamUK:

i'm imagining moral nihilists that 'just happen to also be' dogmatic about posession conventions, just because they are, maybe they are traditional, or assume that the moral nihilists find an aesthetic beauty in the  rules of property that they advocate and co-operate to enforce.or whatever, assume that they de facto respect what we would call the institution of private property but that they never explain this or motivate this with moral language, even assume that they dont think about it morally, they just think about 'propertarianism' as a convention, like shakinghands to meet people, 'its just how we do it around here' . they could look like us in terms of their structure of production, they would have a market,  although their conversations would sound different....

its a thought experiment.



Nir, your posts are interesting but nihilistic towards line-breaks & paragraphs.  It's hard to read em :(

 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 2:53 PM

nirgrahamUK:

i'm imagining moral nihilists that 'just happen to also be' dogmatic about posession conventions, just because they are, maybe they are traditional, or assume that the moral nihilists find an aesthetic beauty in the  rules of property that they advocate and co-operate to enforce.or whatever, assume that they de facto respect what we would call the institution of private property but that they never explain this or motivate this with moral language, even assume that they dont think about it morally, they just think about 'propertarianism' as a convention, like shakinghands to meet people, 'its just how we do it around here' . they could look like us in terms of their structure of production, they would have a market,  although their conversations would sound different....

its a thought experiment.

Are we still talking about human beings?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

there are moral nihilists, they are human beings, some of them post on this forum. they quite proudly state their beliefs.

they could 'act propertarian' and they could be market participants, if they behave 'as if' a rothbardian natural law believer could.

i'm not saying that they necessarily do behave, they obviously dont... but they logically could.

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 3:01 PM

How dare they!

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 3:19 PM
Nir:
I imagine moral nihilists that 'just happen to also be' dogmatic about posession conventions,
Hm. But the point about moral nihilism is that "anything goes" - they would never be 'dogmatic' about anything because they are 'free thinkers'.

I thought that moral nihilism implies that if I feel like stabbing you in the back then I will if I can. Maybe I even should do so in utilitarian terms because it furthers my interests, which is the only thing that matters (to me).

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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

To be fair to moral nihilists,in the spirit of understanding alternative views;
It is more accurate to say that the point of their ideology is that:
'if they neglect to stab people even though they feel like it',
what stops them
when it stops them
 are non-moral reasons.
(examples might be everything from fear of consequences,
to remembering that sometimes you like the person,
or even that you would feel psychological guilt despite
it not being a moral issue).

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

nirgrahamUK:

To be fair to moral nihilists,in the spirit of understanding alternative views;
It is more accurate to say that the point of their ideology is that:
'if they neglect to stab people even though they feel like it',
what stops them
when it stops them
 are non-moral reasons.
(examples might be everything from fear of consequences,
to remembering that sometimes you like the person,
or even that you would feel psychological guilt despite
it not being a moral issue).

I'm thinking about taking the moral nihilist route, and just killing you after doing what you did to the english language. Stick out tongue

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Is my conversational style so bad? I should rethink my approach?

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

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

nirgrahamUK:

Is my conversational style so bad? I should rethink my approach?

Proper paragraphs would be nice. Stick out tongue

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 3:43 PM

Have you guys seen this?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Hilarious.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

hashem:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
Can you define 'natural law'?

I already did. Did you miss it?

I said that some ethicists define 'natural law' differently than other ethicists. You merely cited Rothbard's notion of 'natural law'. Did you read wilderness' post?

You can neither prove nor disprove 'natural law' without clarifying what you mean by 'natural law'.

What did my post say?  I'm agreeing with hashem.  I don't see what you have interpreted to be different.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Nitroadict:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It's custodianship/guardianship, not ownership, nitro.

Thanks, I figured I was just forgetting something.  Not a good objection in of itself, but I still stand by that natural law may not be the end all be all.

"may not be"  lol

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

hashem:

IN SUMMARY:

Everything has a nature, so does man. The nature of man can be discovered by use of his reason. Natural laws are discovered by reason, and the observable behavior of man is his nature. Right reason is that which directs man's acts to the attainment of the objective good for man. Goodness is the fulfillment of what is best for each creature. (Broken wings on a bird are not good -- it cannot fulfill the tendencies which it's nature requires of it). In natural law, value is objective as ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man. Hume's own theory of justice was shown to rest on Natural Law.

Seems like a naturalistic fallacy mixed in with an ingoring of the argument on the subjectivist side.

 

The naturalistic part is obvious. That it is natural for man to be rational - which I do not agree or disagree with - does not mean that it is what man ought to be, which is the point of morality.

 

The ignoring of subjectivism comes in when the word "objective good" is used. Who says what the objective good is? Survival? Happiness? Sorrow? Death? Life? You need to define the objective to what man ought to do first, the laws change completely otherwise.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

hashem:

nirgrahamUK:
well, capitalism could work with private property being purely conventiona

But natural law has been proven, and rights derive from it. So why deviate?

Hashem,

 

I think the question is more of one about WHY should natural law be followed? Or WHY do rights derive from it? Because it's the best way for man to live and be happy individually and collectively, or what?

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Wilmot of Rochester:

Seems like a naturalistic fallacy mixed in with an ingoring of the argument on the subjectivist side.

The naturalistic part is obvious. That it is natural for man to be rational - which I do not agree or disagree with - does not mean that it is what man ought to be, which is the point of morality.

It's natural for a person to experiment with their lives and figure out what is moral or not.  Luckily with good parenting and a decent community helping to foster children, these children can hopefully mature and reason what is good.  Thus lots of the science in what is good has been passed down to the child and if all goes well, the child doesn't become a criminal.  This is a natural law of human nature way of looking at this.

Wilmot of Rochester:

The ignoring of subjectivism comes in when the word "objective good" is used. Who says what the objective good is? Survival? Happiness? Sorrow? Death? Life? You need to define the objective to what man ought to do first, the laws change completely otherwise.

See this is why people that get caught up in subjective and objective usage in their mental concepts tend to get mixed up, IMO.  It is a subjective guess on what I do will be good or not.  Will it help society flourish?  Will it help me flourish?  Or will I spend most of my time getting bogged down in trying to sustain justice?  Could I not be more productive and work, have some leisure time, and enjoy sitting quietly while listening to the wind blow?  I hope so.  If I do this "subjective guess":  pull weeds in the field, then will it lead to a good harvest full of family joy?  If pulling weeds helps the garden grow and by the end of summer the harvest flourished, then "objectively" my "subjective guess" has been proven to lead to what it set out to do.  My hypothesis about pulling weeds in the garden lead to a good harvest and healthy family with good food.  Experiment success.  Experience either proves or disproves an approach.  

Was there something else you were trying to figure out?

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 6:06 PM

First let me point out that you did not read my post, or you wouldn't bring up these misunderstandings. If you did, then you didn't comprehend what you read.

Wilmot of Rochester:
Seems like a naturalistic fallacy mixed in with an ingoring of the argument on the subjectivist side.

Hardly a thorough refutation of natural law. Try again.

Wilmot of Rochester:
That it is natural for man to be rational...does not mean that it is what man ought to be, which is the point of morality.

Natural law does not state what "ought" or "should" be done. This is the biggest misunderstanding about natural law.

Rothbard:
The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, "goodness" is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; "goodness" is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes:

The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. . . . Why is the natural good? . . . [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and . . . the most empirical and . . . rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good-whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.'

In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature.

After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wild asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics: "why are such principles felt to be binding on me?" How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's subjective value scale? Because

the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man. The values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action.

Wilmot of Rochester:
Who says what the objective good is?

Rothbard:
One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out!

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

wilderness:
If pulling weeds helps the garden grow and by the end of summer the harvest flourished, then "objectively" my "subjective guess" has been proven to lead to what it set out to do.  My hypothesis about pulling weeds in the garden lead to a good harvest and healthy family with good food.  Experiment success.  Experience either proves or disproves an approach.  

Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light, or that one did not account for element C. 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

wilderness:

Nitroadict:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It's custodianship/guardianship, not ownership, nitro.

Thanks, I figured I was just forgetting something.  Not a good objection in of itself, but I still stand by that natural law may not be the end all be all.

"may not be"  lol

 



I think this is a good stance for me to take based on the limits of my current knowledge base.  Ignorance isn't an excuse to not question things, especially since questioning helps to eventually reduce said ignorance. 

On topic, I'm not the only one to question the natural law / natural rights approach.  What would be the list of alternatives then? 

 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Nitroadict:

wilderness:

Nitroadict:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It's custodianship/guardianship, not ownership, nitro.

Thanks, I figured I was just forgetting something.  Not a good objection in of itself, but I still stand by that natural law may not be the end all be all.

"may not be"  lol

I think this is a good stance for me to take based on the limits of my current knowledge base.  Ignorance isn't an excuse to not question things, especially since questioning helps to eventually reduce said ignorance. 

On topic, I'm not the only one to question the natural law / natural rights approach.  What would be the list of alternatives then? 

Nitroadict, I thought it was funny.  Not you, the statement.  I didn't mean any harm.Smile  I think any knowledge or application boils down to value.  That's my opinion.  So natural law is not fixed, imo, but it is what I currently value, same as boiling water to make tea, it's an event that happens.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 6:16 PM

laminustacitus:
Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light

Except that the history of outlining natural law dates back to Aristotle. It has been outlined by a series of geniuses. You have not disproved their findings, and I doubt anyone here has the capacity to. Thus, Rothbard's natural law (as the most consistent compilation of the findings of the others) stands.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

laminustacitus:

wilderness:
If pulling weeds helps the garden grow and by the end of summer the harvest flourished, then "objectively" my "subjective guess" has been proven to lead to what it set out to do.  My hypothesis about pulling weeds in the garden lead to a good harvest and healthy family with good food.  Experiment success.  Experience either proves or disproves an approach.  

Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light, or that one did not account for element C. 

Well, as you say, "more experience can bring to light".  So experience proves something.  How do you argue against something that you use as your counter-argument?  Baffling

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Jun 21 2009 6:21 PM

Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10.  He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 6 of 35 (1362 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last » | RSS