Angurse: If you meant the point where someone dies, yes, otherwise no.
If you meant the point where someone dies, yes, otherwise no.
yes, "the point where someone dies".
Angurse: wilderness: To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument. No. the question was aimed directly at this argument "a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans." Your defending a different argument, a moral laden argument.
wilderness: To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument.
To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument.
No. the question was aimed directly at this argument "a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans." Your defending a different argument, a moral laden argument.
Explain. I don't understand what you're bringing up.
Angurse: wilderness:Why are we talking about Tom's puberty? Because hes not "the same Tom as before"
wilderness:Why are we talking about Tom's puberty?
Because hes not "the same Tom as before"
And what does that have to do within the context of the current discussion?
Angurse: wilderness:sigh... Please don't. That's simply a ridiculous assertion and my time is more valuable than that to spend it listening to you go on about how medicine is unnatural, etc... You are at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to not entertain this. Its completely in line if we are going to say that murder is unnatural and continue using the term "natural" wherever we feel it fits, and rejecting it when we don't.
wilderness:sigh... Please don't. That's simply a ridiculous assertion and my time is more valuable than that to spend it listening to you go on about how medicine is unnatural, etc... You are at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to not entertain this.
Its completely in line if we are going to say that murder is unnatural and continue using the term "natural" wherever we feel it fits, and rejecting it when we don't.
No. First you need to understand what natural means in the context of natural philosophy and science. Not the pseudo-versions. Like any field one goes into the concepts need to be understood. The doctor doesn't jump right to the operating table. First the terms are to be understood within the context of medicine, same with law, same with economics, etc...
How is it in line?
Angurse: wilderness:No. I am completely inside of the discussion. Principle of free choose is of human nature. learn human nature and you'll understand, well, human nature... No, you've gone far outside the argument I commented on.
wilderness:No. I am completely inside of the discussion. Principle of free choose is of human nature. learn human nature and you'll understand, well, human nature...
No, you've gone far outside the argument I commented on.
maybe, maybe not...
Angurse: wilderness:No, perhaps you do not understanding that I'm talking about human nature and it is a natural law: all humans choose. It is universal that humans choose. And once again, you are completely ignoring the original argument I questioned, the "murder is bad" because... and are now inserting this new law, "all humans choose," Which is fine, but it is nothing more than you defending a different idea that I didn't question in the first place.
wilderness:No, perhaps you do not understanding that I'm talking about human nature and it is a natural law: all humans choose. It is universal that humans choose.
And once again, you are completely ignoring the original argument I questioned, the "murder is bad" because... and are now inserting this new law, "all humans choose," Which is fine, but it is nothing more than you defending a different idea that I didn't question in the first place.
Humans have many principles of our nature. I guess you thought there was only one principle of human nature. I can only suggest for you to read up on this subject. I'm not a book that can write long pages of a subject that is very detailed with numerous generalities to cover. Rothbards History of Economic volumes are over 1000 pages each. I haven't read them yet, but he's trying to cover a vast history full of knowledge. Covering these simple terms is like being a 101 university course when I'd rather be discussing some 300-400 level topics. At this point, I can only suggest you read up on a subject that has clarity, and provides detail and context that posting in a forum can never meet. In a forum there needs to be a little more give and take and at this moment your shuffling around without making the effort, seemingly, to notice the big picture.
Angurse: wilderness:Liberty and freedom are different than power. And? That means that some this laws - "murder is bad" - isn't really a law in the sense of any actual natural law, if so then I agree.
wilderness:Liberty and freedom are different than power.
And? That means that some this laws - "murder is bad" - isn't really a law in the sense of any actual natural law, if so then I agree.
It is a natural law of human nature. Without this natural law of human nature no more humans. Without the natural law of gravity no more gravity. A=A.
What was the original question. Bring it back then.
wilderness:To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument.
No, not so. I had no intention to discuss "right of life" or the "mystery of death." This was the premise - "The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans." That statement is all I am questioning. All this talk of boulders, trees, and fish have been you mixing arguments, using non-sequitars, circular reasoning, and missing the point.
Also, the idea that a human can violate his own nature sounds absurd
wilderness:No. First you need to understand what natural means in the context of natural philosophy and science. Not the pseudo-versions. Like any field one goes into the concepts need to be understood. The doctor doesn't jump right to the operating table. First the terms are to be understood within the context of medicine, same with law, same with economics, etc...
And? Perhaps first you should try and actually grasp where one is coming from before piling on various unrelated topics (think: boulders, fish, mystery of death, etc...)
wilderness:How is it in line?
Because my question has been taken completely off course, pretty much anything is in line at this point. ;)
wilderness:Humans have many principles of our nature. I guess you thought there was only one principle of human nature. I can only suggest for you to read up on this subject. I'm not a book that can write long pages of a subject that is very detailed with numerous generalities to cover. Rothbards History of Economic volumes are over 1000 pages each. I haven't read them yet, but he's trying to cover a vast history full of knowledge. Covering these simple terms is like being a 101 university course when I'd rather be discussing some 300-400 level topics. At this point, I can only suggest you read up on a subject that has clarity, and provides detail and context that posting in a forum can never meet. In a forum there needs to be a little more give and take and at this moment your shuffling around without making the effort, seemingly, to notice the big picture.
I have... however, I only questioned one proposal. I'm kindly asking you to stop assuming human nature is so well-defined and look at the glaring problem that comes from only categorizing murder as "bad" because it prevents existence, but at the same time not categorizing all other forms of death as bad... even though they all lead to the same non-existence, which was the basis for condemning murder. It makes no sense.
wilderness:It is a natural law of human nature. Without this natural law of human nature no more humans. Without the natural law of gravity no more gravity. A=A.
Sigh... thats not the least bit question begging.
wilderness:What was the original question. Bring it back then.
I have already multiple times, but no more as I'm afraid you might try and answer it again.
Angurse: No, not so. I had no intention to discuss "right of life" or the "mystery of death." This was the premise - "The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans." That statement is all I am questioning. All this talk of boulders, trees, and fish have been you mixing arguments, using non-sequitars, circular reasoning, and missing the point. Also, the idea that a human can violate his own nature sounds absurd.
Also, the idea that a human can violate his own nature sounds absurd.
Ok. I missed your original question and I apologize. A human can violate his or her own nature due to free-will. I brought up the principle of life, which is thus a right, due to this "absurdity" you say, "sounds". If free choice sounds absurd to you, then so be it.
Angurse: I have... however, I only questioned one proposal. I'm kindly asking you to stop assuming human nature is so well-defined and look at the glaring problem that comes from only categorizing murder as "bad" because it prevents existence, but at the same time not categorizing all other forms of death as bad...
I have... however, I only questioned one proposal. I'm kindly asking you to stop assuming human nature is so well-defined and look at the glaring problem that comes from only categorizing murder as "bad" because it prevents existence, but at the same time not categorizing all other forms of death as bad...
First you go on about how I keep bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with this topic, and you do it right here. "...not categorizing all other forms..." Don't bring it up and I won't bring it up. I think you don't understand what you are talking about.
Angurse: even though they all lead to the same non-existence, which was the basis for condemning murder. It makes no sense.
even though they all lead to the same non-existence, which was the basis for condemning murder. It makes no sense.
You see, as I've said a couple times now, what is on trial is the judgement of and thus demonstration of a person. Use forensics and some other detective work and figure out the crime. Natural death and a boulder are not voluntary nature's but are involuntary in their nature (as far as I know pertaining to natural death for as I said to explore and reason natural death and how this happens beyond old age is to leave science and venture into the land of religion and I'm not talking about religion). You see now why this comes up, cause you keep bringing it up since you don't understand human nature.
wilderness:Ok. I missed your original question and I apologize.
No problem.
wilderness:A human can violate his or her own nature due to free-will. I brought up the principle of life, which is thus a right, due to this "absurdity" you say, "sounds". If free choice sounds absurd to you, then so be it.
Its not free choice thats sounds absurd, its that idea that a human can violate his own nature. Its the premise of nature that can be violated that sounds silly, when humans naturally have free choice. Its ones nature violating ones nature. Absurd.
wilderness:First you go on about how I keep bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with this topic, and you do it right here. "...not categorizing all other forums..." Don't bring it up and I won't bring it up. I think you don't understand what you are talking about.
Thats the question I originally asked though, thats the topic, thats all that should be discussed (currently, that is). Thats the original question, the only question.
wilderness:You see, as I've said a couple times now, what is on trial is the judgement of and thus demonstration of a person. Use forensics and some other detective work and figure out the crime. Natural death and a boulder are not voluntary nature's but are involuntary in their nature (as far as I know pertaining to natural death for as I said to explore and reason natural death and how this happens beyond old age is to leave science and venture into the land of religion and I'm not talking about religion). You see now why this comes up, cause you keep bringing it up since you don't understand human nature.
No. You completely missed the point... again. If non-existence goes against the natural tendency of humans and that is why "murder is bad" (which was posited) then its perfectly reasonable to say all manners of death also go against the natural tendency of humans, even natural ones. I.E. the nature of the death occurring isn't relevant (whether it be murder, cancer, or even ...boulders) because apparently non-existence itself is what goes against the natural tendency of humans. Your argument of whether it occurs voluntarily or involuntarily is completely meaningless when applied to such a statement.
Angurse: wilderness:Ok. I missed your original question and I apologize. No problem. wilderness:A human can violate his or her own nature due to free-will. I brought up the principle of life, which is thus a right, due to this "absurdity" you say, "sounds". If free choice sounds absurd to you, then so be it. Its not free choice thats sounds absurd, its that idea that a human can violate his own nature. Its the premise of nature that can be violated that sounds silly, when humans naturally have free choice. Its ones nature violating ones nature. Absurd.
I think suicide is absurd, but people do it. People come up with all kinds of reasons to counter their on will. You see, let's start with "will". The will to live is involuntary. We can't stop living unless as a person, such a person comes up with reasons to pervert their own nature.
I understand the difficulty, but this is getting very detailed but oh well, let's go down that path. I like what you wrote here, "Its ones nature violating ones nature." The first nature well call nature-a, and the second nature-b. Nature-b is our passions, our desire, the what is called act of life that occurs in the appetitive aspect of a human. This is basically instinct. We live. Now nature-a is reason and free-choice. Nature-a can override nature-b. Nature-b will continue living involuntarily, the heart will beat, the brain will operate, the blood will pump, the nutritive aspect of a human will operate (what has been digested will be absorded in through the intestine's, etc...), the cells will operate, if a cold virsus enters my body my white blood cells attack the virus but may not be affective depending upon various factors. I think you get the picture. Yet, a person can reason to go against what is happening involuntarily having us live (all that I listed). A person can decide and thus choice to go against this nature of their own.
Angurse: No. You completely missed the point... again. If non-existence goes against the natural tendency of humans and that is why "murder is bad" (which was posited) then its perfectly reasonable to say all manners of death also go against the natural tendency of humans, even natural ones. I.E. the nature of the death occurring isn't relevant (whether it be murder, cancer, or even ...boulders) because apparently non-existence itself is what goes against the natural tendency of humans. Your argument of whether it occurs voluntarily or involuntarily is completely meaningless when applied to such a statement.
I don't know what your going on about. If we are not talking about a violation of the right of life, the voluntary judgement of a criminal that has done so - a murderer - and therefore we are not talking about such a criminal being on trial and the trial is about the judgement of a person doing something that is bad or good - meaning if they are guilty or innocent - then I don't know what we are talking about either.
Charles Anthony: You failed.
Charles Anthony:You failed to offer an objective reason why rights SHOULD be respected.
Charles Anthony:You throw out that irrelevent Euthyphro Dilemma like as if it proves anything.
Charles Anthony:Yet you have no reason why a cannibal SHOULD not eat you.
laminustacitus:And will means free will. Will is an intellectual appetency; it is the faculty of tending to, or choosing, what is proposed as the intellect as good. Man, who is less perfect in the realm of intellegent creatures than angels, has free will; certainly, an angel possesses it. An angel exercises free will more perfectly than man does.
Excuse me while I try to drive a bus over that cliff of assumption. 'Will means free will.'? All will is suddenly now really free will?
In the Christian religion, christians are expecting to do the acts that God requires of them. Salvation through action [ granted there are some who believe in pre-determinism in which they already think they are going to heaven but that itself is another debate and I think astoundingly presumpuous ] Perhaps you have heard the idiom that christians are 'doing the will of God.' [ I have several biblical passages demanding such behavior ] Therefore you state that angels have a more perfected will then humans, perhaps, but here is the kicker. If man is suppose to be doing the will of God through humanistic will [ and we can say no if we so desire ] and we have imperfect will then an angel who has perfect will is constantly doing the will of God and therefore has no free will of its own because it does not suffer from imperfection and is always doing the will of God. And yet again I ask why God needs humans or angels to enact his/her/its will.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
s
wilderness: Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet? What I 'get', is that you have no real methodology. You have no objective standard to judge whether something is in human nature or not. And you have shifting boundaries of what is 'good' and 'evil.' It's science and the social studies Stephen. That's as real as a methodology can get. A combination that rises above separate departments in which the sciences join the social studies, including philosophy, etc... It is considering culture by any person that wants to study and apply such a subject as well as the biologist using forensics, etc..., etc... Your lack of knowledge on the subject is obvious now and you tried to step into the conversation earlier as if you knew something but I knew that was a front.
Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet? What I 'get', is that you have no real methodology. You have no objective standard to judge whether something is in human nature or not. And you have shifting boundaries of what is 'good' and 'evil.'
hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad?
To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
What I 'get', is that you have no real methodology. You have no objective standard to judge whether something is in human nature or not. And you have shifting boundaries of what is 'good' and 'evil.'
It's science and the social studies Stephen. That's as real as a methodology can get. A combination that rises above separate departments in which the sciences join the social studies, including philosophy, etc... It is considering culture by any person that wants to study and apply such a subject as well as the biologist using forensics, etc..., etc...
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is obvious now and you tried to step into the conversation earlier as if you knew something but I knew that was a front.
I strongly urge you to read this and branch off into other works and take a general survey of the literature before you embarrass yourself again.
hashem: Stephen Forde: hashem:To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?[No, you're wrong.] To be in the nature of man, it has to be universal. If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
Stephen Forde: hashem:To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?[No, you're wrong.]
hashem:To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
To be in the nature of man, it has to be universal. If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
Let's assume you're right. Why are you right? How do you categorize some actions as natural and others as unnatural? How do you categorize some as good and some as bad? What objective criteria is there for the categorizations?
I.e. what is your methodology?
Stephen Forde:I strongly urge you to read this and branch off into other works and take a general survey of the literature before you embarrass yourself again.
Why are you giving out economic literature in a discussion of deducing natural law theory?
Stephen Forde:Why are you right?
If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
Stephen Forde:How do you categorize some actions as natural and others as unnatural?
The action itself is neither natural or unnatural. It is the existence of the tendency, the necessity of it, and the universality that characterizes nature.
Stephen Forde:How do you categorize some as good and some as bad?
Are you serious? For a student you have an incredibly short memory.
Stephen Forde:I.e. what is your methodology?
Empirical observation and reflection.
wilderness:I think suicide is absurd, but people do it. People come up with all kinds of reasons to counter their on will. You see, let's start with "will". The will to live is involuntary. We can't stop living unless as a person, such a person comes up with reasons to pervert their own nature.
Wrong. We can stop living completely naturally (i.e. old age), I don't think nature perverts nature, people don't just choose to age or get cancer, the "will" to die is also involuntary. Further if one chooses to speed up that natural process I don't think they've countered their own will in any way, they've fulfilled it.
wilderness:I understand the difficulty, but this is getting very detailed but oh well, let's go down that path. I like what you wrote here, "Its ones nature violating ones nature." ...A person can decide and thus choice to go against this nature of their own.
See above.
wilderness: I don't know what your going on about. If we are not talking about a violation of the right of life, the voluntary judgement of a criminal that has done so - a murderer - and therefore we are not talking about such a criminal being on trial and the trial is about the judgement of a person doing something that is bad or good - meaning if they are guilty or innocent - then I don't know what we are talking about either.
You could have just thought this and not responded at all a day or so ago, as you're just not getting it.
Stephen Forde: I strongly urge you to read this and branch off into other works and take a general survey of the literature before you embarrass yourself again.
lol...
Angurse: wilderness:I think suicide is absurd, but people do it. People come up with all kinds of reasons to counter their on will. You see, let's start with "will". The will to live is involuntary. We can't stop living unless as a person, such a person comes up with reasons to pervert their own nature. Wrong.
Wrong.
Nope - it's right.
Angurse: We can stop living completely naturally (i.e. old age),
We can stop living completely naturally (i.e. old age),
That's an involuntary action.
Angurse: I don't think nature perverts nature, people don't just choose to age or get cancer,
I don't think nature perverts nature, people don't just choose to age or get cancer,
Involuntary action
Angurse: the "will" to die is also involuntary.
the "will" to die is also involuntary.
What will? Free-will? As in free-will is involuntary. A is not A... you are illogical.
Angurse: Further if one chooses to speed up that natural process
Further if one chooses to speed up that natural process
Oh, so now there is choice. Or yet you say "if"... There is a judgement occurring. Bounce, e'bounce, e'bounce...
Angurse: I don't think they've countered their own will in any way, they've fulfilled it.
I don't think they've countered their own will in any way, they've fulfilled it.
Scroll down to involuntary action at this site. Learn some physiology. Maybe you'll take note of some anatomy too. Then go here to learn voluntary action.
I see you don't even realize that's humans have free-will. I see you have no biological understanding of humans. We have voluntary and involuntary actions.
Angurse: wilderness: I don't know what your going on about. If we are not talking about a violation of the right of life, the voluntary judgement of a criminal that has done so - a murderer - and therefore we are not talking about such a criminal being on trial and the trial is about the judgement of a person doing something that is bad or good - meaning if they are guilty or innocent - then I don't know what we are talking about either. You could have just thought this and not responded at all a day or so ago, as you're just not getting it.
I'm "not getting it" - wrong - I do get it.
You're deriving nature from morality. For example, because murder is bad, murder is therefore unnatural. See the moralistic fallacy.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Once again you make no sense:
1.
wilderness:The will to live is involuntary. We can't stop living unless as a person, such a person comes up with reasons to pervert their own nature.
2.
Angurse:Wrong.
3.
wilderness:Nope - it's right.
4.
Angurse:We can stop living completely naturally (i.e. old age),
5.
wilderness:That's an involuntary action.
You see where I disagree with your statement - that we can't stop living unless we make ourselves stop (read 1. then 2. ). Then I explain why (4.) and you say that no you are right (.3) but then go on to completely agree (.5)
Dying is completely natural, as you say involuntary, that's the entire correction I was making, you saying it can only occur when a person comes up with reasons is completely and utterly wrong. It will occur regardless.
wilderness:Oh, so now there is choice. Or yet you say "if"... There is a judgement occurring. Bounce, e'bounce, e'bounce...
When hasn't the choice to kill oneself also been present? You're so confused and have bounced so far off topic. Apparently you think that is the only way for one to die (besides boulders or murderers, that is.) The question is (now) whether its really such a perversion for one to voluntarily die, even though they will die involuntarily regardless. Using a different example, by your bizarre logic, forcing oneself to blink is to counter ones own will.
wilderness:Scroll down to involuntary action at this site. Learn some physiology. Maybe you'll take note of some anatomy too. Then go here to learn voluntary action.
Honestly, is English your first language?
wiki:Some responses are involuntary, but may be also generated by free will...
wilderness:I see you don't even realize that's humans have free-will. I see you have no biological understanding of humans. We have voluntary and involuntary actions.
I've actually explained this multiple times now. Take some time to read.
wilderness:I'm "not getting it" - wrong - I do get it.
No you don't. There is a mental shortcoming occuring and occuring and occuring and... Got the premise wrong (admittedly), wrong about Aquinas, confused now...Bounce, e'bounce, e'bounce...
To briefly quote laminustacticus:
laminustacitus:I suggest that one knows a subject before one pontificates upon it, wilderness.
Angurse: Once again you make no sense:
yeah, cause you don't understand...
Angurse: Dying is completely natural, as you say involuntary, that's the entire correction I was making, you saying it can only occur when a person comes up with reasons is completely and utterly wrong. It will occur regardless.
No. Natural death is an involuntary action. A person comes up with reasons to die such as when I stated "suicide" or "murder". Suicide and murder do not occur "regardless" cause they are voluntary actions, unless, as I've stated repeatedly it can be somehow proved that the person lost their mind, in other words, they are insane and had no decision making abilities/reason to begin with as they committed the act. Thus, as I stated numerous times too, what is on trial is the judgement of the innocent until proven guilty person.
Angurse: wiki:Some responses are involuntary, but may be also generated by free will... (emphasise my own)
And so? Those generated by free-will are voluntary actions, such as blinking ones eyes.
Angurse: To briefly quote laminustacticus: laminustacitus:I suggest that one knows a subject before one pontificates upon it, wilderness.
He was referring to Angels having free-will, and how I misrepresented Aquinas on that subject. At least I know when to admit when I incorrectly provided a position, in this case Aquinas on angels. It's not as if I know if angels exist let alone if they have free-will. You meanwhile can't fess up to your lack of understanding or else you wouldn't be asking me questions. Are you talking about angels having free-will or not now? You are being intellectually dishonest.
hashem: I contend that all humans are necessarily property owners; at the very least, every human has a property in his person. I contend that property is inherent in the nature of man.
I contend that all humans are necessarily property owners; at the very least, every human has a property in his person.
I contend that property is inherent in the nature of man.
Hoppe's self-ownership principle can logically derive many versions of homestead principles. It does not necessarily limit itself to a non-proviso Lockean homestead principle. For example, Hoppe's self-ownership principle can logically derive the anarcho-communist "possession" principle, the Proudhonian usufruct homestead principle, or the Tuckerite absentee ownership principle, without invalidating neither his self-ownership principle nor Aristotelian logic. Hoppe has arbitrarily chosen his non-proviso Lockean homestead principle, even though he can logically derive the three others.
A person must possess his brain and vocal chords in order to survive and argue with others. However, this does not necessarily imply that the same person has the right to own his entire body. Because many versions of the homestead principle can logically follow from his self-ownership principle, the self-ownership principle can logically derive a homestead principle that confines the person to homestead his entire body. This version has similarity to the Lockean proviso because it allows others to share the person's body just like how the Lockean proviso allows others to have a more equal share of property.
Oh Anarcho-Mercan... the A is not-A makes his appearance... lol You were debunked ages ago in this forum.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:A person must possess his brain and vocal chords in order to survive and argue with others. However, this does not necessarily imply that the same person has the right to own his entire body.
I don't think right to self-ownership (different from the fact of property in one's self) derives from possession of brain and vocal chords, so to that extent, you are right. A right, in order to be a just right, must be universal. Obviously everyone doesn't own each other at all times in all places regardless of circumstance, so the the right to as much is null.
wilderness:yeah, cause you don't understand...
Its hard to understand someone who blatantly contradicts himself.
Again no sense:
Angurse:Dying is completely natural, as you say involuntary....
wilderness:No. Natural death is an involuntary action.
Do you see where you say "no," even though you are agreeing?
wilderness:A person comes up with reasons to die such as when I stated "suicide" or "murder". Suicide and murder do not occur "regardless" cause they are voluntary actions, unless, as I've stated repeatedly it can be somehow proved that the person lost their mind, in other words, they are insane and had no decision making abilities/reason to begin with as they committed the act. Thus, as I stated numerous times too, what is on trial is the judgement of the innocent until proven guilty person.
I never said suicide and murder occur regardless. This is where your comprehension fails. Death, non-existence, etc... is the end result of murder or suicide, yet it occurs regardless of whether one was murdered or committed suicide. Death can happen involuntarily or voluntarily, just like blinking, naturally it doesn't change a thing how it happened. Dead is dead. A = A. This trial and judgment talk is unrelated and all you.
wilderness:And so? Those generated by free-will are voluntary actions, such as blinking ones eyes.
And it happens involuntarily as well, just like death. If you purposefully blink, call it suiblink, or if someone physically closes and opens you eyelids, call it homiblink, your eyes still become as moist as if you had naturally blinked, call it old-eye-age, involuntarily.
wilderness:He was referring to Angels having free-will, and how I misrepresented Aquinas on that subject. At least I know when to admit when I incorrectly provided a position, in this case Aquinas on angels. You meanwhile can't fess up to your lack of understanding or else you wouldn't be asking me questions. Are you talking about angels having free-will or not now? You are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm merely pointing out your incessant gabbing about subjects you don't entirely understand or have knowledge of, such as Aquinas, my originial question, or this. Perhaps its a pattern.
What you've said above, the same can be said right back at you. Since you now understand what I've been saying all along, then the discussion is over, and you can stop asking questions. If you have other questions, then feel free to ask others. I have important considerations to tend to.
I understand the subjects I 'gab' about and I am intellectually honest enough to honor truth and point it out when I am wrong. On the other hand, you've attempted to expand that into "perhaps its a pattern" without due warrant. Now if you will, I have more important events to tend to.
hashem:Obviously everyone doesn't own each other at all times in all places regardless of circumstance, so the the right to as much is null.
If supposedly some people own some others as slaves, does that given them a right to own others? Seems like you are deriving prescription from description.
hashem:A right, in order to be a just right, must be universal.
I criticize the existence of 'universality'.
The right to property is not universal because criminals must pay compensation for the victim. The criminal thus has his property violated. You purposefully define "property rights" as the right to own property unless pertaining to self-defense or restitution. That definition makes the right to property universal. If you define "property rights" differently, then it will not be universal anymore.
Everyone has a right to life. However, you also defend the right to kill criminals in self-defense. So the criminal does not have a right to life. If you instead define a "right to life" as the right to not be murdered (as opposed to the right to not be killed), then it makes it universal. Merely switching the terms from killing to murdering makes it universal.
So the existence of "universality" depends on the definition of terms. Seems like sophistry.
I give you another critique of the existence of "universality" below.A right, by definition, means the ability to do an action without facing punative violence.A rich person can pay for health care. Therefore, he has a right for health care. He does not suffer from punative violence by doing that.A poor person, however, cannot pay for health care. He can only pay for health care by stealing money, which he has no right to do. If he steals to pay for health care, he will suffer punative violence. Therefore, he does not have a right for health care.Therefore, all rights can behave non-universally in certain contexts.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:If supposedly some people own some others as slaves, does that given them a right to own others?
No, because that right doesn't exist. It is not, and cannot be universal. The only rights that exist are necessarily universal. It is in the nature of a right to be universal.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Everyone has a right to life.
No they don't. Everyone has the right to exercise their faculties free from aggression, which results in the ability to experience life.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The right to property is not universal because criminals must pay compensation for the victim.
Property rights are the only rights I'm aware of. The right has nothing to do with whether humans agree to punish criminals. "Criminals must pay compensation," is a false premise. It is not a natural fact or law.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:You purposefully define "property rights" as the right to own property unless pertaining to self-defense or restitution.
The right to own property is only one property right. The right to defend property against aggression is a necessary aspect of full-ownership.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:A right, by definition, means the ability to do an action without facing punative violence.
These are not rights. Rights are natural and therefore universal. A right to something which all persons in all places at all times regardless of circumstance do not or cannot have is not a right.
hashem: Anarcho-Mercantilist:You purposefully define "property rights" as the right to own property unless pertaining to self-defense or restitution. The right to own property is only one property right. The right to defend property against aggression is a necessary aspect of full-ownership.
Why is only Lockean property rights "natural"? Why do you defend Lockean property rights instead of anarcho-communist "possession", Prodhonian, etc.?
I don't care who first outlined them or what name you give them. I defend property rights because they are the only natural rights.
wilderness:What you've said above, the same can be said right back at you.
No, not really.
wilderness:Since you now understand what I've been saying all along, then the discussion is over, and you can stop asking questions.
Now I understand that you've been saying all along? You've been blatantly contradicted yourself, how could I possibly understand that?
wilderness:If you have other questions, then feel free to ask others. I have important considerations to tend to.
I'm still waiting for a response to my original question, the one you (admittedly) missed. But again, please, do not try and answer it.
wilderness:I understand the subjects I 'gab' about and I am intellectually honest enough to honor truth and point it out when I am wrong. On the other hand, you've attempted to expand that into "perhaps its a pattern" without due warrant. Now if you will, I have more important events to tend to.
If you admit your wrong then it seems you don't quite understand the subjects so well. And this pattern, this pattern of not reading, or not comprehending, or not something, has become more and more obvious as this dragged on.
ditto... so obviously there's something else to this. At least I'm being honest about it, but I see you have a need to rant.
good day... time to go.
wilderness: ditto... so obviously there's something else to this. At least I'm being honest about it, but I see you have a need to rant. good day... time to go.
I'm not sure what you are dittoing - the least you can do is be honest and point it out.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why is only Lockean property rights "natural"? Why do you defend Lockean property rights instead of anarcho-communist "possession", Prodhonian, etc.?
I think the Proudhonian system is flawed. Why can we own personal possessions yet not land? Possessions are in fact made from the commons directly or indirectly. Land is a common.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist: But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.' Deriving consent from a party or person. That is a loose definition of voluntary.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.'
But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.'
Deriving consent from a party or person. That is a loose definition of voluntary.
Well, Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson defines 'voluntary' differently than you do. They simply define 'voluntary' as 'non-violent'. They will classify hate speech, defamation, and boycotting as 'voluntary' even though the 'victim' did not consent to those acts.
The term 'voluntary' has too many definitions, and will cause confusion. I suggest using either 'non-violent' or 'consensual' in place of 'voluntary'.
Using the derived words 'voluntaryism' and 'voluntarism' can also cause confusion.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:They will classify hate speech, defamation, and boycotting as 'voluntary' even though the 'victim' did not consent to those acts.
Because hate speech, defamation and boycotts are voluntary actions because the individual who is enacting them did so through consentual acts. There is no right that says one cannot be told off or ridiculed.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:They will classify hate speech, defamation, and boycotting as 'voluntary' even though the 'victim' did not consent to those acts. Because hate speech, defamation and boycotts are voluntary actions.
Because hate speech, defamation and boycotts are voluntary actions.
Seems like you have conflated two different definitions of 'voluntary'. Did the 'victim' of the boycott 'consent' to the boycott? Did the 'victim' of the defamation 'consent' to the defamation? Those acts do not fit into your previous definition of 'voluntary'. You had defined it as 'consensual', but the 'victims' did not 'consent' to the boycott or the defamation.
If you define the term 'voluntary' as 'non-violent' instead of 'consensual', then those acts do fit under that definition of 'voluntary'.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Did the 'victim' of the boycott 'consent' to the boycott? Did the 'victim' of the defamation 'consent' to the defamation. Those acts do not fit into your previous definition of 'voluntary'. You had defined it as 'consensual', but the 'victims' did not 'consent' to the boycott or the defamation.
Did I ever imply that the vicitim consented to anything? Obviously a victim of defamation does not consent to being defamed unless they are some sort of masochist, however does the defamor not consent to his actions? If he did not consent and is not acting on his will then it ceases to be voluntary.
We were orignally discussing heroin being a voluntary action which can lead to death, while murder is an involuntary action and one in which I propose one party consents to the murder and another doesn't. For how can there be murder withone one consenting to the action itself. It is on page 9 and I wanted to bring it up before we get off topic.
Anarchist Cain:Obviously a victim of defamation does not consent to being defamed unless they are some sort of masochist, however does the defamor not consent to his actions? If he did not consent and is not acting on his will then it ceases to be voluntary.
I had defined the term 'consensual' as mutual consent between both parties, not just one party. You have defined it as requiring one party to consent.
Looks like we have to use three terms—'mutually consenting', 'willful', and 'non-violent'—in place of 'voluntary'.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I had defined the term 'consensual' as mutual consent between both parties, not just one party. You have defined it as requiring one party to consent.
Do I need to get consent from the needle before I stick it in my arm? Or consent from the heroin in order to put it in my bloodstream? And for your knowledge I am defining voluntary...not consenual. In fact I said it just like this:
You: But that depends on your definition of 'voluntary'. Usually, ancaps equate 'voluntary' with 'non-aggressive'. Therefore, that depends on your definition of 'aggression.'
Me: Deriving consent from a party or person. That is a loose definition of voluntary. I am not one of those libertarians who simply thinks that if there is no aggression in the world then there can be no dominance.
Therefore is murder an involuntary or voluntary action committed by the murder?
Anarchist Cain:Why are you giving out economic literature in a discussion of deducing natural law theory?
The literature is not on economic science, it is on epistemology. And though he focuses on the methodological foundation of economics, he also provides some of the foundation of a rational ethic and the natural sciences as well. It's also short and concise.
@ hashem
K, here's what I got so far. Bear with me.
If something is in the nature of man, it is necessarily universal.
Something that is in human nature cannot be the cause of the non-existence of the human race. Therefore something that, if applied universally, would lead to the non-existence of the human race is unnatural.
The something we are talking about are not actions, but tendencies? I'm sorta confused here.
We determine what is natural or unnatural empirically?
Do I have it right?
Stephen Forde: @ hashem K, here's what I got so far. Bear with me. If something is in the nature of man, it is necessarily universal. Something that is in human nature cannot be the cause of the non-existence of the human race. Therefore something that, if applied universally, would lead to the non-existence of the human race is unnatural. The something we are talking about are not actions, but tendencies? I'm sorta confused here. We determine what is natural or unnatural empirically? Do I have it right?
You said you understood Rothbard's argument, and that you have read far more of him than I have, so how about let's hear you explain what I'm trying to get across. Fair? I'm only trying to restate what he has already written.