zefreak: Knight_of_BAAWA: Initiating force is a positive claim. Having someone refrain from initiating force isn't. Enough of your sophistry and pompous idiocy. This is false. Both the initiation of force and the obligation to refrain from initiating force are positive claims, and both must be justified.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Initiating force is a positive claim. Having someone refrain from initiating force isn't. Enough of your sophistry and pompous idiocy.
Precisely. All ethical premises, including non-aggression, have to be justified. Whether one is taking a "pro" or "con" position on a given thing, one has to justify that position. Just because a given position is against something doesn't mean that one doesn't have to provide a justification for rejecting it.
given your rejection of the interpersonal norms inherent to argumentation you stroll into the following absurdity:
scenario setup:
we are arguing over whether the minimum wage causes unemployment, putting forward claims, and looking to convince each other over what is the true case. i.e. rational argumentation. then i get mad and i kill you with a revolver i keep for just such purposes.
conclusion:
now, based on your rejections, regarless of whatever honest ground you or a third party might have for holding that I had acted in an 'ugly' or 'uncouth' manner, or that I was not 'nice', you have certainly closed the door to accepting the true statement that my violence aborted rational argument. that one is anathema to the other . non-violence is congruent with rational argument, the opposite statement is false. I find it amusing you cannot agree.
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
Brainpolice: I control my arms, but those arms are still my property. No dualism. The implied dualism is between the "I" and the "my arms".
I control my arms, but those arms are still my property. No dualism.
The implied dualism is between the "I" and the "my arms".
Property isn't always exchangeable obviously then. I am my property and that can't be exchanged. I am still me.
Brainpolice: I mentioned "ownership" in a qualifying way, but I'll clarify further. In the case of a slave, the master owns me. It's conventional to state it this way. Yet, I am still owning me too. Yes I have liberty cause I could sit down and do nothing. And, once again...
I mentioned "ownership" in a qualifying way, but I'll clarify further. In the case of a slave, the master owns me. It's conventional to state it this way. Yet, I am still owning me too. Yes I have liberty cause I could sit down and do nothing.
And, once again...
Liberty is inherent. And it is freedom, not liberty, that has to do with what can be lost - must we go back to the basics, I've moved on from such elementary inquiries. In liberty my choices can be limited by the brute strength of another thereby limiting my liberty to combat versus reasonable dialogue but I still have liberty. It is the freedom in doing what I want without having to be confronted with aggression that can lessen. So conventionally you can easily state that my liberty is being limited by brute force (by an aggressor), but one first needs to intellectually apprehend liberty first to be able to reasonably denote these metaphysical differences - what is liberty and what is freedom.
Edit: but now after reading this thread til now, it's obvious as in previous posts of yours from the past that you are trying to justify violence, whether you intend it or not doesn't matter, and thus why dialogue goes nowhere with you...
Liberty is inherent. And it is freedom, not liberty, that has to do with what can be lost. In liberty my choices can be limited by the brute strength of another thereby limiting my liberty to combat versus reasonable dialogue but I still have liberty. It is the freedom in doing what I want without having to be confronted with aggression that can lessen. So you can easily state that my liberty is being limited by brute force (by an aggressor), but one first needs to intellectually apprehend liberty first to be able to reasonably denote these differences.
I've already explained to you why this makes no sense. A definition of rights that cannot account for the existance of rights violations is incoherant. If someone bludgeons you over the head with an axe, not in self-defense, this would be a violation of your rights to life - of an aspect of your liberty. If we understand "liberty" as a perscription, it should be quite clear that it is not inherent, that it can be violated - otherwise it would not be a *goal* or a *should* in the first place.
I think you're getting confused: I'm not saying that your "liberty" in the sense that you *should* have it goes away if I bludgeon you over the head with an axe, I'm saying that the actual realization or actualization of that *should* is clearly violated if I do so. As a perscription, liberty is something that has to be *realized* and *respected*, it is not a metaphysical given that it is realized or respected. So I'm not making the Stirnerite/amoral-egoist claim that "rights don't exist" simply because I can violate them, I'm pointing out the rather obvious fact that rights are not inherently respected or actualized.
In short, you seem to be very blatantly confusing *ought* with *is*, the claim that liberty as an *ought* is "inherent" with the claim that liberty as an *is* is inherent. The former claim is not what I'm disputing, while the latter claim is incoherant for the obvious reasons that I've already explained. The respectable notion that "liberty is not given" was never meant to imply that liberty is some sort of metaphysical fact that cannot be violated in the sense that the law of gravity cannot be violated, it is meant to imply a rejection of legal positivism. Liberty is not like the law of gravity.
Brainpolice:Precisely. All ethical premises, including non-aggression, have to be justified.
Brainpolice: Liberty is inherent. And it is freedom, not liberty, that has to do with what can be lost. In liberty my choices can be limited by the brute strength of another thereby limiting my liberty to combat versus reasonable dialogue but I still have liberty. It is the freedom in doing what I want without having to be confronted with aggression that can lessen. So you can easily state that my liberty is being limited by brute force (by an aggressor), but one first needs to intellectually apprehend liberty first to be able to reasonably denote these differences. I've already explained to you why this makes no sense.
I've already explained to you why this makes no sense.
you've said that to various posters...
Brainpolice: A definition of rights that cannot account for the existance of rights violations is incoherant.
A definition of rights that cannot account for the existance of rights violations is incoherant.
maybe that's a void in your knowledge you can fill since you've brought it up...
Brainpolice: If someone bludgeons you over the head with an axe, not in self-defense, this would be a violation of your rights to life - of an aspect of your liberty. If we understand "liberty" as a perscription, it should be quite clear that it is not inherent, that it can be violated - otherwise it would not be a *goal* or a *should* in the first place.
If someone bludgeons you over the head with an axe, not in self-defense, this would be a violation of your rights to life - of an aspect of your liberty. If we understand "liberty" as a perscription, it should be quite clear that it is not inherent, that it can be violated - otherwise it would not be a *goal* or a *should* in the first place.
you like to get stuck in categories upon categories... let's call this prescription, this description, that in-between prescription non-ethic norm... You dive into over-rationalization traps... your making...
Brainpolice: I think you're getting confused: I'm not saying that your "liberty" in the sense that you *should* have it goes away if I bludgeon you over the head with an axe, I'm saying that the actual realization or actualization of that *should* is clearly violated if I do so. As a perscription, liberty is something that has to be *realized* and *respected*, it is not a metaphysical given that it is realized or respected. So I'm not making the Stirnerite/amoral-egoist claim that "rights don't exist" simply because I can violate them, I'm pointing out the rather obvious fact that rights are not inherently respected or actualized.
continue to analyze the mind of a criminal without taking into account the mind of a cop and as any undercover agent you may question which side your on one day... simply a suggestion.
wilderness: Brainpolice: Liberty is inherent. And it is freedom, not liberty, that has to do with what can be lost. In liberty my choices can be limited by the brute strength of another thereby limiting my liberty to combat versus reasonable dialogue but I still have liberty. It is the freedom in doing what I want without having to be confronted with aggression that can lessen. So you can easily state that my liberty is being limited by brute force (by an aggressor), but one first needs to intellectually apprehend liberty first to be able to reasonably denote these differences. I've already explained to you why this makes no sense. you've said that to various posters... Brainpolice: A definition of rights that cannot account for the existance of rights violations is incoherant. maybe that's a void in your knowledge you can fill since you've brought it up... Brainpolice: If someone bludgeons you over the head with an axe, not in self-defense, this would be a violation of your rights to life - of an aspect of your liberty. If we understand "liberty" as a perscription, it should be quite clear that it is not inherent, that it can be violated - otherwise it would not be a *goal* or a *should* in the first place. you like to get stuck in categories upon categories... let's call this prescription, this description, that in-between prescription non-ethic norm... You dive into over-rationalization traps... your making... Brainpolice: I think you're getting confused: I'm not saying that your "liberty" in the sense that you *should* have it goes away if I bludgeon you over the head with an axe, I'm saying that the actual realization or actualization of that *should* is clearly violated if I do so. As a perscription, liberty is something that has to be *realized* and *respected*, it is not a metaphysical given that it is realized or respected. So I'm not making the Stirnerite/amoral-egoist claim that "rights don't exist" simply because I can violate them, I'm pointing out the rather obvious fact that rights are not inherently respected or actualized. continue to analyze the mind of a criminal without taking into account the mind of a cop and as any undercover agent you may question which side your on one day... simply a suggestion.
Are you going to address the substance of my post, which very clearly tells you why you're wrong, or are you just going to make off-the-cuff remarks that only function to demonstrate that you apparently don't understand the issue of contention here?
It isn't a void in my knowledge that your definition of liberty cannot take reality into account.
Pointing out the specific problems with incoherant ethical and political theories is not "over-rationalization". The real problem is that your vastly oversimplified conception of liberty actually leads you into a whole host of serious philosophical problems that you don't even make an attempt to take into account.
I'm not taking the side of the person who bludgeons you over the head with an axe, I'm using it as an example to point out the obvious fact that liberty is not on the same level as the law of gravity, as some sort of unbreakable law of nature in the sense of physics. That you don't grasp this point is rather astounding.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:Precisely. All ethical premises, including non-aggression, have to be justified.The one wanting to initiate force, i.e. add something which must be justified, must justify it. Not doing anything, i.e. not initiating force, does not have to be justified. You've now added a burden of proof shift to the list of fallacies you've used.
You're confused about what's being talked about. I'm not even talking about whether or not people's specific actions have to be justified, I'm saying that the *moral proposition* that the non-initiation of force is a valid ethical premise, that there is an obligation to abstain from initiating force in the first place, is what has to be justified - just like the *moral proposition* that the initiation of force is a valid ethical premise, that there is no obligation to abstain from initiating force in the first place, has to be justified. There is no shifting of the burden of proof here: I'm simply saying that all *moral propositions* have to be justified. Both or all sides of any given debate over *moral propositions* have to make a case for their positions. No double standard here.
Brainpolice: Are you going to address the substance of my post, which very clearly tells you why you're wrong,...
Are you going to address the substance of my post, which very clearly tells you why you're wrong,...
of course you very clearly think that way, but I don't.
Brainpolice: or are you just going to make off-the-cuff remarks that only function to demonstrate that you apparently don't understand the issue of contention here?
or are you just going to make off-the-cuff remarks that only function to demonstrate that you apparently don't understand the issue of contention here?
it doesn't demonstrate that at all which only goes to show the dishonesty before the actual subject has arisen in your post...
Brainpolice: It isn't a void in my knowledge that your definition of liberty cannot take reality into account.
Liberty is. That's a reality.
Brainpolice: Pointing out the specific problems with incoherant ethical and political theories is not "over-rationalization". The real problem is that your vastly oversimplified conception of liberty actually leads you into a whole host of serious philosophical problems that you don't even make an attempt to take into account.
No, it's starting from basics and then expanding from there in any given dialogue, but this discussion between you and I has me going back to the basics which is a road worn well...
Brainpolice: I'm not taking the side of the person who bludgeons you over the head with an axe, I'm using it as an example to point out the obvious fact that liberty is not on the same level as the law of gravity, as some sort of unbreakable law of nature in the sense of physics. That you don't grasp this point is rather astounding.
What you don't grasp is the criminal was at liberty to do so. The criminal applying property and the extension of such property - the axe - and the criminal applied his or her life too. Now lookie there... But of course life negating life isn't good for life - and I mean for life itself.
*eyeroll* You really don't get it, do you? You can't even seem to understand the most obvious sense of the distinction between is and ought. That's sad.
Take a look around yourself. We exist in societies in which liberty is systematically violated on a regular basis - that's why we have liberty as a goal in the first place. All over the face of the planet, we have these institutions called "states" that institutionalize liberty violations. Our grasping for liberty as a goal is precisely because it is lacking in terms of its actualization in the current state of affairs. This is so simple and obvious that your lack of comprehension is rather astounding.
Let me take your formula and apply it in another direction, just as reasonably (if not more so):
Tyranny is. That's a reality.
I'm explaining to no avail why your "basics" are basic flaws.
What you don't grasp is the criminal was at liberty to do so. The criminal applying property and the extension of such property - the axe - and the criminal applied his or her life too.
Now you're basically using a definition of "liberty" that undermines itself. "Liberty" in the normative ethical sense *does not mean people's capacity to act*. It is a state of being that is conditional upon the lack of interferance by an external authority.
Insofar as they're not denying that, they're not successfully refuting O'Neil.
Well read the rest of the paper and find out I suppose. I am stating that what you quoted is not in anyway fallacious or a sign of poor discourse.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice: Liberty is. That's a reality. Tyranny is. That's a reality.
Of course tyranny is. I mean this is pretty basic stuff there. But I don't need to have dialogue with somebody this is obviously dishonest and demeans another person - I mean - that's a sign of tending violence. see ya...
Brainpolice:You're confused about what's being talked about.
Now why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept of a prerequisite?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:You're confused about what's being talked about.False. You're confused about the claim being made by Hoppe, et al. Now why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept of a prerequisite?
I don't fail to grasp the concept of a prerequisite - I deny that the fact that a lack of aggression is a prequisite for engaging in peaceful discourse has anything to do with actually philosophically justifying libertarianism. I maintian that it is completely irrelevant to an actual positive case for non-aggression as a normative ethic.
wilderness: Brainpolice: Liberty is. That's a reality. Tyranny is. That's a reality. Of course tyranny is. I mean this is pretty basic stuff there. But I don't need to have dialogue with somebody this is obviously dishonest and demeans another person - I mean - that's a sign of tending violence. see ya...
I'm not being dishonest. And I'm hardly being demeaning in a vacuum - you yourself tend to make off-the-cuff remarks.
I have to justify not bludgeoining you with a club?
Angurse: I have to justify not bludgeoining you with a club?
*eyeroll*. No, the moral proposition of non-aggression has to be philosophically justified, just like all other moral propositions. That's how *real* standards of debate over propositions actually work.
It's odd that some of you keep switching to the context of legally justifying one's actions, when I'm talking about the philosophical justification for the content of propositions.
Brainpolice:*eyeroll*. No, the moral proposition of non-aggression has to be philosophically justified, just like all other moral propositions. That's how *real* standards of debate over propositions actually work.
Nothing against the moral proposition of non-aggression, but that isn't necessarily in play. Couldn't one just be neutral toward agression and still not see aggression as wrong?
Angurse: Brainpolice:*eyeroll*. No, the moral proposition of non-aggression has to be philosophically justified, just like all other moral propositions. That's how *real* standards of debate over propositions actually work. Nothing against the moral proposition of non-aggression, but that isn't necessarily in play. Couldn't one just be neutral toward agression and still not see aggression as wrong?
What do you mean that that isn't necessarily in play? That's precisely what this is all about.
One could be neutral towards aggression while not seeing it as wrong, but that seems to be closer to an amoralist/stirnerite position, not libertarianism. Presumably, the people making use of the argumentation ethics are not neutral about aggression.
wilderness:But I don't need to have dialogue with somebody this is obviously dishonest and demeans another person
Good call. I learned this a long time ago. Some folks may be very bright, but their arrogance and lack of socialization skills keep them from progressing beyond their own wheelhouse.
Brainpolice:What do you mean that that isn't necessarily in play? That's precisely what this is all about.
One doesn't need to have a ethical premise to refrain from initiating force. Perhaps, my comments are a bit outside of "this" though.
Brainpolice:One could be neutral towards aggression while not seeing it as wrong, but that seems to be closer to an amoralist/stirnerite position, not libertarianism. Presumably, the people making use of the argumentation ethics are not neutral about aggression.
Well, I think libertarianism is compatible with the amoralist/Stirnerite position (obviously not deontological libertarianism), nor have I made any use of AE.
Brainpolice:I don't fail to grasp the concept of a prerequisite
You're correct, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people with the moral premise that initiating force is wrong appealing to the fact that the non-initiation of force is necessary to have a peaceful debate as some sort of case for their position, and I'm dismissing this as sophistry.
I think it's ambiguous. It could be compatible with either anarchism or statism. But from I've gathered by reading the material of the amoralist Stirnerites, most of them basically hate libertarians and anarchists as a bunch of huffy-puffy "moralists". They're largely "post-libertarians".
Those who remember "Vichy" should know what I'm talking about.
Brainpolice:*eyeroll*. No, the moral proposition of non-aggression has to be philosophically justified
Brainpolice:You're correct, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people with the moral premise that initiating force is wrong appealing to the fact that the non-initiation of force is necessary to have a peaceful debate as some sort of case for their position, and I'm dismissing this as sophistry.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:I don't fail to grasp the concept of a prerequisiteIt's quite clear that you do. You can continue blathering on with your utter misconception of argumentation ethics, and I'll continue to let you know of your misconception. And you'll keep having to deal with the fact that argumentation requires certain prerequisites/preconditions. And you'll keep denying it. Even though you're using them. Which is stealing the concept.
No, in the face of perpetual strawmanning and non-sequitors, I'm continually telling you that I don't deny that argumentation has those preconditions. What I'm denying is the magical jump from the fact that argumentation has those preconditions to a case for the normative validity of those preconditions - that's actually entirely circular. I need a knife to stab you, but it doesn't follow from the fact that a knife is a precondition for stabbing you that wielding knives is "moral" or whatever.
Brainpolice:No, in the face of perpetual strawmanning and non-sequitors
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:You're correct, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people with the moral premise that initiating force is wrong appealing to the fact that the non-initiation of force is necessary to have a peaceful debate as some sort of case for their position, and I'm dismissing this as sophistry.That's because you stupidly believe that there is a 3rd option. You must. If you deny it, then you must accept that there's only aggression and non-aggression. Mutually exclusive and covers all options. And if initiating aggression is not philosophically justifiable, then we ONLY have non-aggression left, DON'T WE? And that, dear sophist, is the justification.
Whether or not there is a "3rd option" is an entirely different question than what I'm talking about. You're the king of non-sequitors and strawmen. No, it isn't a justification, it's very bad and oversimplistic philosophy. You haven't even begun to make a comprehensive philosophical case for the moral premise that initiating aggression is immoral or that there is a moral obligation to abstain from initiating aggression. Nor have you made anything remotely approaching a case for falsifying the premise that initiating aggression is justificable.
My comment wasn't directed to you and I certainly haven't engaged in the AE debate at all. Perhaps you'll take back that *eye roll*.
Brainpolice:I think it's ambiguous. It could be compatible with either anarchism or statism. But from I've gathered by reading the material of the amoralist Stirnerites, most of them basically hate libertarians and anarchists as a bunch of huffy-puffy "moralists". They're largely "post-libertarians".
Perhaps now, I know in the early days of this debate it wasn't nearly as heated or insulting. Further, from what I've read many of these people who reject libertarianism in name still support it practice.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:No, in the face of perpetual strawmanning and non-sequitorsFrom you, yes. And you can say that you don't deny that argumentation has those preconditions, but then you go on and deny it! So please: pick a damned position, sophist. And no more of your strawman about a magical jump. I'm tired of that sophistry.
Anyone that actually comprehends the post I made will clearly see that I am not denying it. I have explained to you, ad nauseum, that the justification for the ethical validity of those preconditions do not follow from the fact that they are preconditions, because that is entirely circular logic. It might be a precondition of killing you that I choke you, but it doesn't follow from this that choking you is moral. That is just as circular as what you are saying with respect to non-aggression.
Brainpolice:Anyone that actually comprehends the post I made will clearly see that I am not denying it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: if initiating aggression is not philosophically justifiable, then we ONLY have non-aggression left, DON'T WE? And that, dear sophist, is the justification.
if initiating aggression is not philosophically justifiable, then we ONLY have non-aggression left, DON'T WE? And that, dear sophist, is the justification.
It looks like Juan's sophistry is spreading.
There is a third option you are leaving out.. NEITHER aggression nor non-aggression is "philosophically justifiable", if by that you mean deducible from facts of observation.
side note:
Aggression is as justifiable as non-aggression (both require ought propositions) given a different set of propositions. It may not be as persuasive as the NAP, but the proposition
P1: Individual A should do whatever is pleasing to him
allows aggression to be a moral activity within that ethical system.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak:There is a third option you are leaving out.. NEITHER aggression nor non-aggression is "philosophically justifiable", if by that you mean deducible from facts of observation.
Allow me to rephrase that so as to eliminate the possibility of being misunderstood.
Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not "philosophically justifiable". Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.
zefreak: Allow me to rephrase that so as to eliminate the possibility of being misunderstood. Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not "philosophically justifiable". Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.
in other words you don't know that non-aggression and aggression exists and therefore can't intellectually apprehend what they are... without a foundational epistemology and metaphysics on this topic you'll find yourself, zefreak, coming up with all kinds of vacuous claims.
zefreak:Both the principles of non-aggression and aggression as moral imperatives are not "philosophically justifiable". Both rely on or are ought propositions that are not justified.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not doing anything needs no justification.
Man acts. Also, A is A. Furthermore, existence exists. Hence man always does something.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's because you stupidly believe that there is a 3rd option. You must. If you deny it, then you must accept that there's only aggression and non-aggression. Mutually exclusive and covers all options. And if initiating aggression is not philosophically justifiable, then we ONLY have non-aggression left, DON'T WE? And that, dear sophist, is the justification.
And why, Sir, is initiating aggression not philosphically justifiable?
scineram:Man acts. Also, A is A. Furthermore, existence exists. Hence man always does something.
scineram:And why, Sir, is initiating aggression not philosphically justifiable?