Juan:As to abandoning so called 'praxeology', good riddance! 'Praxeology' is mostly a bunch of empty tautologies. Frankly the followers of the Mises cult are no different than commies who babble about 'scientific socialism'.
you have to be kidding
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
Juan:If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires. Can't make head or tail of that one. Is that an order ? An 'utilitarian' suggestion ? Or what ?
If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires.
Is this you playing dumb & innocent again?
"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
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."
that's too bad for you then...
Juan:I don't think so. Ain't Knott and company illustrating the wonders of 'praxeology' ? Well, it doesn't really look that wonderful to me...
I don't see how economic understanding is possible without praxeology. what else is there? neo-classicism?positivism?historicism?
say what you like about people that inherit their understanding of philosophy and morality from Mises and others in the Austrian school
this counts for nought against people that inherit their understanding of praxeology and economics from Mises and others in the Austrian school.
I sympathise with your disdain for moral theories grounded differently to your own. yet i urge you to consider slacking off somewhat on those of your peers that, essentially, appraise moral acts along the same lines that you do; yet do this for different reasons (i.e. subjective vs. objective). you need to save up your venom for those anti-libertarians who appraise moral issues incorrectly ; regardless of whether this flows from their flawed subjectivism, or some bizarre construction of ethics that they claim is 'objective', though we understand they are mistaken (they are not libertarian).
Nir:I don't see how economic understanding is possible without praxeology.
yet i urge you to consider slacking off somewhat on those of your peers that, essentially, appraise moral acts along the same lines that you do;
Juan: little burne: I will no longer let you elbow your way into conversations among people who disagree but who are nonetheless trying to teach and learn from each other, only to obstruct their efforts. You mean, if I don't take seriously your amoralist buddies you're going to ban me ? One day ban. Next time it will be three. Ah, the wise and powerful moderator showing how wise and powerful he is... If you are unwilling to participate in civil discussion, then don't come back after your ban expires. Can't make head or tail of that one. Is that an order ? An 'utilitarian' suggestion ? Or what ?
little burne: I will no longer let you elbow your way into conversations among people who disagree but who are nonetheless trying to teach and learn from each other, only to obstruct their efforts.
One day ban. Next time it will be three.
Juan,
I banned you for one day for flaming this thread. I warned you about flaming and obstructing civil discussion when you return. In that one precious day of your absence a fascinating conversation among thoughtful, gentlemanly students of human nature emerged in this thread. Yet the instant your ban was lifted, you staggered into that conversation like a drunk uncle at a family gathering, called Adam Knott a liar, attempted to mock me, called the Misesians here cult-members, and brought a discussion, which all participants were thoroughly enjoying, to a screeching halt.
I told you it would be 3 days if you started poisoning the well again, but, given the extent to which you've attacked other members here, I'm making it a week.
Adam Knott: I'm more interested in the question: what thing A, is the basis for our intuitive notions of liberty, B? I'm less interested in the idea that intuition is intuition, and that liberty is liberty.
I'm more interested in the question: what thing A, is the basis for our intuitive notions of liberty, B?
I'm less interested in the idea that intuition is intuition, and that liberty is liberty.
Are you talking about the origin of A? Such as, using what you said, the basis (origins) of liberty being B? Said again in which liberty is A, thus you are interested in knowing if B is the origin of A? This is good of you to bring this up because for a long time in these forums I've said numerous times I'm not discussing the "origins" of natural rights. I consider principles to be circumstances within the medium of the intellect, but this does not say anything about the origins of the principles in and of themselves. For one, I believe in God. Now I don't discuss what place God has in any of my theorizing for that includes my beliefs and I fully don't understand what God is. I don't go around thinking I can define what God is for any one person. God though is something I believe to be a Creator and thus origin of reality, but heck I don't know all the little details from God to natural rights or from God to how a tree is here. Secondly origins of any principles do belong to matters that are not simply of the intellect but principles are also mediums pointing to aspects of this world that are not only of the intellect. For instance, gravity is not solely of the intellect, yet gravity is identified as a law by the intellect. Intellect applies mediums, it's own unique tools to convey aspects of reality in the only way intellect knows how to.
Adam Knott: Tying this into the OP, I would be more interested in what thing (A) "justifies" libertarianism (B).
Tying this into the OP, I would be more interested in what thing (A) "justifies" libertarianism (B).
What makes libertarianism just rather than unjust is your interest?
Adam Knott: I would be less interested in the idea that justification is justification, and libertarianism is libertarianism.
I would be less interested in the idea that justification is justification, and libertarianism is libertarianism.
Good. At least terms are what they are.
Lilburne: Lilburne:empathy is a natural, evolved feature of the human psyche. Esuric:That's just a fancy way to say it's been handed down to us by society. Unless you're saying it's genetic, somehow. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Lilburne:empathy is a natural, evolved feature of the human psyche.
Esuric:That's just a fancy way to say it's been handed down to us by society. Unless you're saying it's genetic, somehow.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Yet more evidence for this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=1&8dpc