Anarchist Cain:So there is order, but we have no way of proving there is order, nor can we ascertain this order and deduce objective truths from it?
That is the conundrum. Surely, the natural law folks can solve it for you, but I personally don't see a way around what seems to be our human limitations.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:That is the conundrum. Surely, the natural law folks can solve it for you, but I personally don't see a way around what seems to be our human limitations.
Why can't humans deduce these truths?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:That is the conundrum. Surely, the natural law folks can solve it for you, but I personally don't see a way around what seems to be our human limitations. Why can't humans deduce these truths?
Mind clarrifying what sort of "truths" you speak of? There are certain truths that can be deduced, like mathematics, and there are certain truths that cannot be deduced, like the natural sciences. The fact that the world has an order, the order upon which natural law would be built upon, beyond our perception of it is impossible to ever know.
laminustacitus:it would seem that objects always have weight, and many ancient philosophers thought that to be an a priori characteristic of objects;
however, that is not true, and those philosophers were fooled by randomness:
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."
laminustacitus:The fact that the world has an order, the order upon which natural law would be built upon, beyond our perception of it is impossible to ever know.
Yet we know there is a natural law. How can we ascertain there is such an order without knowing what the order prescribes? It would be like saying 'I know the fruit 'class' exists but what makes up the fruit 'class' is unknownable.' One must know first the apple before they can understand what fruit is. So too must one know the objective truths before they can say it creates a natural objective order. It is simple deductive logic. Start with separate truths that when combined together to create an order.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The fact that the world has an order, the order upon which natural law would be built upon, beyond our perception of it is impossible to ever know. Yet we know there is a natural law.
Yet we know there is a natural law.
No we don't.
Anarchist Cain: Start with separate truths that when combined together to create an order.
And then you proceed to create a philosophical facade which is the result of being fooled by randomness. Just because you percieve objects being heavy does not mean that being heavy is in the nature of all objects.
laminustacitus:No we don't.
See now here we go again in the circular argument. Is there is or isn't there a natural order?
laminustacitus:And then you proceed to create a philosophical facade which is the result of being fooled by randomness. Just because you percieve objects being heavy does not mean that being heavy is in the nature of all objects.
Understanding human ethics is a facade? First you admit with me that there is order in the world, now you are saying that philosophy and human ethical development is a facade? Nietzche makes more sense then this. And yes I know that some objects vary in weight, they also very in consistency, and a great multitude of characteristics. This is obviously because they objects of the world are not a collective blob, there is difference and these differences are experimental and knowable. Hence there are varying 'natures' to the products of Nature and Man being a product of such an 'institution' have a distinctive nature to them which is discoverable.
laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The fact that the world has an order, the order upon which natural law would be built upon, beyond our perception of it is impossible to ever know. Yet we know there is a natural law. No we don't.
I can know it. It's not that difficult. Whether it changes at some point in time is irrelevant to what I know now. And no this doesn't mean I'm not open-minded.
laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain: Start with separate truths that when combined together to create an order. And then you proceed to create a philosophical facade which is the result of being fooled by randomness. Just because you percieve objects being heavy does not mean that being heavy is in the nature of all objects.
I know it's heavy when I weigh something heavy. If you think that's randomness then so be it.
Anarchist Cain:See now here we go again in the circular argument. Is there is or isn't there a natural order?
I cannot find a better answer to that then Mises' own description of natural order in Theory, and History, pg. 44-45, here he distills what is right about the idea of natural law, from that which is not:
Ludwig von Mises:The term "natural law" has been claimed by various schools of philosophy and jurisprudence. Many doctrines have appealed to nature in order to provide a justification for their postulates. Many manifestly spurious theses have been advanced under the label of natural law. It was not difficult to explode the fallacies common to most of these lines of thought. And it is no wonder that many thinkers become suspicious as soon as natural law is referred to. Yet it would be a serious blunder to ignore the fact that all the varieties of the doctrine contained a sound idea which could neither be compromised by connection with untenable vagaries nor discredited by any criticism. Long before the Classical economists discovered that a regularity in the sequence of phenomena prevails in the field of human action, the champions of natural law were dimly aware of this inescapable fact. From the bewildering diversity of doctrines presented under the rubric of natural law there finally emerged a set of theorems which no caviling can ever invalidate. There is first the idea that a nature-given order of things exists to which man must adjust his actions if he wants to succeed. Second: the only means available to man for the cognizance of this order is thinking and reasoning, and no existing social institution is exempt from being examined and appraised by discursive reasoning. Third: there is no standard available for apraising any mode of acting either of individuals or of groups of individuals but that of the effects produced by such action. Carried to its ultimate logical consequences, the idea of natural law led eventually to rationalism and utilitarianism.
Yet it would be a serious blunder to ignore the fact that all the varieties of the doctrine contained a sound idea which could neither be compromised by connection with untenable vagaries nor discredited by any criticism. Long before the Classical economists discovered that a regularity in the sequence of phenomena prevails in the field of human action, the champions of natural law were dimly aware of this inescapable fact. From the bewildering diversity of doctrines presented under the rubric of natural law there finally emerged a set of theorems which no caviling can ever invalidate. There is first the idea that a nature-given order of things exists to which man must adjust his actions if he wants to succeed. Second: the only means available to man for the cognizance of this order is thinking and reasoning, and no existing social institution is exempt from being examined and appraised by discursive reasoning. Third: there is no standard available for apraising any mode of acting either of individuals or of groups of individuals but that of the effects produced by such action. Carried to its ultimate logical consequences, the idea of natural law led eventually to rationalism and utilitarianism.
Anarchist Cain:Understanding human ethics is a facade? First you admit with me that there is order in the world, now you are saying that philosophy and human ethical development is a facade?
No, I'm just saying that man has often built up his philosophical, and ethical philosophies further than human reason can carry them - I did not say that all of it is a facade.
Anarchist Cain: And yes I know that some objects vary in weight, they also very in consistency, and a great multitude of characteristics.
Weight is not an a priori property of objects; you've been fooled by randomness here by assuming that what you exerience is the norm everywhere. Weight is a property given to objects by gravity, without gravity there is no space.
Anarchist Cain:This is obviously because they objects of the world are not a collective blob, there is difference and these differences are experimental and knowable
Of course, but, with the exception of the synthetic a priori judgements, they are also given to man by experience, and therefore are problematic judgements, and are not necessarily true.
Anarchist Cain:Hence there are varying 'natures' to the products of Nature and Man being a product of such an 'institution' have a distinctive nature to them which is discoverable.
Through experience, not through deduction.
wilderness:I can know it. It's not that difficult. Whether it changes at some point in time is irrelevant to what I know now. And no this doesn't mean I'm not open-minded.
It does not change, your understanding of it becomes more exact, and you realize that your previous theories were not true.
wilderness:I know it's heavy when I weigh something heavy. If you think that's randomness then so be it.
Weigh an object in space, and you'll learn that weight is not a characteristic of objects qua objects.
laminustacitus:Weigh an object in space, and you'll learn that weight is not a characteristic of objects qua objects.
laminustacitus: I cannot find a better answer to that then Mises' own description of natural order in Theory, and History, pg. 44-45, here he distills what is right about the idea of natural law, from that which is not:
Why should I listen to a utilitarian about natural law?
laminustacitus:No, I'm just saying that man has often built up his philosophical, and ethical philosophies further than human reason can carry them - I did not say that all of it is a facade.
So if these ethical philosophies are conceived then obviously they can be carried on by human reason for it is in fact humans that created them.
laminustacitus:Weight is not an a priori property of objects; you've been fooled by randomness here by assuming that what you exerience is the norm everywhere. Weight is a property given to objects by gravity, without gravity there is no space.
So you must actually weigh a boulder before you figure out that you cannot lift it?
laminustacitus:Of course, but, with the exception of the synthetic a priori judgments, they are also given to man by experience, and therefore are problematic judgments, and are not necessarily true.
So a priori that does not synthesize with empiricism are incorrect? Do you know which website concerning school of thought you are at? Whole economic truths can be deduced from pure a priori. In fact I have heard numerous times [I think Roderick Long states this] that praxeology, one can sit in a chair with their eyes closed and a priori-ize whole economic theory.
laminustacitus:Through experience, not through deduction.
If you are a proponent of empiricism instead of rationalism then I think you are out of your habitat
laminustacitus:It does not change, your understanding of it becomes more exact, and you realize that your previous theories were not true.
You sound like a Hegelian speaking of self-realization.
I just had a bit of a revelating thought. You are a utilitarian so basically you somehow formulate through supposed empiricism legislation that is supposed to bring the greatest amount of social pleasure to the greatest amount of people while I believe that natural rights is a universal concept embraced by a vastly large majority of individuals. So really I came to the realization that you are just a utilitarian in name and a natural rights theorist in practice.
hashem: Jacob Bloom:So it's kind of like a human law where murder is deemed illegal and I can transgress the law but the law still stands? Fallacy. The law is "murder is illegal". If you murder someone, murder is still illegal. The law stands.
Jacob Bloom:So it's kind of like a human law where murder is deemed illegal and I can transgress the law but the law still stands?
Fallacy. The law is "murder is illegal". If you murder someone, murder is still illegal. The law stands.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Except with human laws, there is an enforcer on the other end. In other words, "natural laws" (which I submit uses the word law deceptively) say the same thing as human law, which says: "if you do this and we catch you and we can prove it, there will be consequences", except that with human law, there is actually an observable consequence for law breakers. Moral laws, when transgressed...do nothing!
Fundamentally, moral laws are not the same as universal laws such as the laws of physics, which say: this is either possible or not possible, there is no way to transgress these laws. Universal laws (reason) are observable and actually have a built in cause and effect mechanism which makes them objectively true. Moral laws are not based on any kind of real cause and effect, they are totally subjective. Reason, not morality, needs to be the foundation for any kind of legal system.
Reason places effectivness and sustainability as the chief virtues rather than right and good. Socialism is undesirable not because it's morally wrong but simply because it doesn't work. It's ineffective and unsustainable and that's observable.
The other problem you have with morality and ethical systems is that they are very much given to deity based belief systems that ultimately lead to the establishment of religious groups (which inevitably leads to theocracies of some kind, which are, incidentally, one of the most pernicious and difficult forms of statism to deal with.) Systems based on cause and effect and reason do not need a deity to legitimize them. They simply need empirical evidence. Systems based on reason do not lead, then, to theocracies or any other form of overbearing statism. This also is what makes reason based system superior to moral based systems.
If anarchism manages to privatize the courts, this whole idea of an objective set of rules devised out of SUBJECTIVE sets of principles devised from "natural laws" will prove itself inherently unstable and self defeating because...basically it leads to a toss up as to who is paying the judge and what they think is moral or not. So you will always have a totally subjective set of laws that is unenforceable because they're based on opinion AND judgments will be burdened by narguable conflicts of interest on the parts of the arbitrators. That is exactly the kind of non-descriptive non-objective convoluted elastic slipperiness which all "progressive-statist" laws and legal systems are based on and the problem with modern liberal thinking in general: it's all relative.
I also wanted to say, flatly, that not everyone on this planet is as...."moral" as the people on this forum nor do they necessarily recognize property rights or the sovereignty of the individual when faced with the consensus of the masses. So...you're going to need to need to defend yourselves somehow. Unless you guys are all super super rich, I don't think you're going to be able to afford a large enough army. So while I do think that maybe every anarchist on this forum could handle their own little anarchist region I do not think they will be free from encroachment from remaining statist governments nor do I think you'll be ready to fight those publicly funded militaries off effectively with your private army.
wilderness: scineram: hashem: 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. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that. Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness...
scineram: hashem: 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. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that.
hashem: 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.
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.
This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones.
I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that.
Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness...
Wilderness, this is a person who believes that people cannot be trusted with freedom, which means that he knows he cannot be trusted with freedom and therefore projects his insecurity on others....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
laminustacitus: wilderness:I know it's heavy when I weigh something heavy. If you think that's randomness then so be it. Weigh an object in space, and you'll learn that weight is not a characteristic of objects qua objects.
When I weigh something heavy, then it's heavy - why? Cause it's weighed to be heavy. Whether I'm referring to an ounce or 1000 pounds, doesn't matter, I'm labeling it heavy. And I was referring to the gravitation forces on earth. I understand objects weights are the effects of gravity - not gravity itself. I've said that in this thread a couple times already.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:It does not change, your understanding of it becomes more exact, and you realize that your previous theories were not true. You sound like a Hegelian speaking of self-realization.
Or someone talking about hypothetical hypothoses slowly becoming more, and more accurate with respect to their objects.
Juan: laminustacitus:Weigh an object in space, and you'll learn that weight is not a characteristic of objects qua objects. Uh oh. Weight is the most common manifestation of gravity here on earth. In space objects still attract each other (gravity) so they have 'weight' except that weight is smaller in space because the huge mass of the earth is not involved. Again, you confuse your personal lack of knowledge of physics with 'randomness'
Exactly!
I have no clue why laminustacitus is on this randomness trip.
wilderness:When I weigh something heavy, then it's heavy - why? Cause it's weighed to be heavy. Whether I'm referring to an ounce or 1000 pounds, doesn't matter, I'm labeling it heavy. And I was referring to the gravitation forces on earth. I understand objects weights are the effects of gravity - not gravity itself. I've said that in this thread a couple times already.
You missed the entire point: weight is an empicial concept learned through experience that many have thought to be a trait of all objects, yet by doing so were mistaken because they failed to understand the problematic nature of experience.
laminustacitus: wilderness:I can know it. It's not that difficult. Whether it changes at some point in time is irrelevant to what I know now. And no this doesn't mean I'm not open-minded. It does not change, your understanding of it becomes more exact, and you realize that your previous theories were not true.
It could change. What the? Even you said not too long ago in this thread that something better could come along than natural law. And as I said whether something does or not is irrelevant to what I know now. I've been in a dog-chasing its own tail thread with you before. If this is going that way, then consider this discussion to be ending soon.
Anarchist Cain:Why should I listen to a utilitarian about natural law?
Because its an interesting passage.
Anarchist Cain:So if these ethical philosophies are conceived then obviously they can be carried on by human reason for it is in fact humans that created them.
Of course, but how binding are they then if they are merey the creation of human reason?
Anarchist Cain:So you must actually weigh a boulder before you figure out that you cannot lift it?
No, but that boulder is not heavy because heaviness is a trait of all objects, that was my point.
Anarchist Cain:So a priori that does not synthesize with empiricism are incorrect? Do you know which website concerning school of thought you are at? Whole economic truths can be deduced from pure a priori. In fact I have heard numerous times [I think Roderick Long states this] that praxeology, one can sit in a chair with their eyes closed and a priori-ize whole economic theory.
You can deduce a priori truths when you are in the realm of the a priori: due to the synthetic a priori nature of the action axiom, economics is strangely enough in that category.
wilderness: Juan: laminustacitus:Weigh an object in space, and you'll learn that weight is not a characteristic of objects qua objects. Uh oh. Weight is the most common manifestation of gravity here on earth. In space objects still attract each other (gravity) so they have 'weight' except that weight is smaller in space because the huge mass of the earth is not involved. Again, you confuse your personal lack of knowledge of physics with 'randomness' Exactly! I have no clue why laminustacitus is on this randomness trip.
Randomness is just a description for how things are not always as ordered as we believe they are; hence, it is the result of our personal lack of knowledge, and our human instict towards generalizing everything we experience.
Jacob Bloom:That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Except with human laws, there is an enforcer on the other end. In other words, "natural laws" (which I submit uses the word law deceptively) say the same thing as human law, which says: "if you do this and we catch you and we can prove it, there will be consequences", except that with human law, there is actually an observable consequence for law breakers. Moral laws, when transgressed...do nothing!
You've got the concept of natural law confused (as with everyone else here, except maybe wilderness and juan). Natural Law is the body of rules which man can discover through use of his reason. I.E. laws of physics, are NATURAL laws -- laws of nature; that apples grow on trees; that dogs grow teeth; that grass exists. There's no point in trying to disprove natural laws. Through reason, from observing nature, we learn the nature of humans. Thus we learn what is good and bad for humans. I.E. broken legs are bad for humans; learning to communicate is good for humans.
Jacob Bloom: That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Except with human laws, there is an enforcer on the other end. In other words, "natural laws" (which I submit uses the word law deceptively) say the same thing as human law, which says: "if you do this and we catch you and we can prove it, there will be consequences", except that with human law, there is actually an observable consequence for law breakers. Moral laws, when transgressed...do nothing!
Humans can and do back up moral laws and natural law now. Except the government picks and chooses when it wants to and when it doesn't want to. The government also declares arbitrary laws that are not universal and therefore automatically does harm to one party in favor of another party. Natural law has been explicit in most western countries but the governments of these countries have transgressed against their own laws. Look at the Constitution it's been violated by the government on numerous occasions for over a century. The Constitution was written by people who had a common understanding of natural law. When you learned law, such as John Dickinson did in England at the time (was part of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution conventions), you learned about the natural rights of a person. Jefferson wrote about them. Franklin studied them. Etc, etc... It was more commonly understood until the 1800's came along with logical positivism that rid "value", thus the individual from philosophy and thus you have Keynesian or utilitarianism that don't recognize the consumer or individual respectively. It doesn't fit their math models and such. They took subjectivity to the extreme and declared it false and thus individuals were thought to be able to observe the world without their thoughts. Keynesians say the "animal spirits" control human behavior cause they think they can predict and model human behavior in a Newtonian machine fashion.
Jacob Bloom: Fundamentally, moral laws are not the same as universal laws such as the laws of physics, which say: this is either possible or not possible, there is no way to transgress these laws. Universal laws (reason) are observable and actually have a built in cause and effect mechanism which makes them objectively true. Moral laws are not based on any kind of real cause and effect, they are totally subjective. Reason, not morality, needs to be the foundation for any kind of legal system.
No, the natural laws of human nature can be transgressed due to free will. Rocks don't have free will or they quite possibly could transgress physics too. Humans are unique in nature due to free-will and reason. As Aristotle said we are rational animals. And being the social animals we are, another Aristotle concept, humans have rationalized laws that do not violate liberty but actually provide a way for humans to experience liberty. Arbitrary laws, that are not of natural law, violate liberty.
The nature of humans involves a universal law that is not of the nature of gravity. Gravity doesn't have free-will and thus doesn't change in respect to understanding on earth.
Jacob Bloom: Reason places effectivness and sustainability as the chief virtues rather than right and good. Socialism is undesirable not because it's morally wrong but simply because it doesn't work. It's ineffective and unsustainable and that's observable.
Call it ineffective or effective, those are still mirroring bad and good, wrong and right. Of course humans are unique and diverse. No two are alike. This is the beauty of liberty. This is the beauty of natural law that doesn't transgress liberty and sustains individual value and the uniqueness of each and every billions of people on earth.
Jacob Bloom: The other problem you have with morality and ethical systems is that they are very much given to deity based belief systems that ultimately lead to the establishment of religious groups (which inevitably leads to theocracies of some kind, which are, incidentally, one of the most pernicious and difficult forms of statism to deal with.) Systems based on cause and effect and reason do not need a deity to legitimize them. They simply need empirical evidence. Systems based on reason do not lead, then, to theocracies or any other form of overbearing statism. This also is what makes reason based system superior to moral based systems.
Morality that is reasoned - ethics is a science due to it can be demonstrated and observed as facts when an individual performs what is in accord with natural law - is based on reason. If you don't except religion because a deity can't be reasoned by you that doesn't mean I can't demonstrated not murdering. I can demonstrate this and have my whole life. It is thus an observable fact and thus real science demonstrating a non-transgression of natural law.
Jacob Bloom: If anarchism manages to privatize the courts, this whole idea of an objective set of rules devised out of SUBJECTIVE sets of principles devised from "natural laws" will prove itself inherently unstable and self defeating because...basically it leads to a toss up as to who is paying the judge and what they think is moral or not. So you will always have a totally subjective set of laws that is unenforceable because they're based on opinion AND judgments will be burdened by narguable conflicts of interest on the parts of the arbitrators. That is exactly the kind of non-descriptive non-objective convoluted elastic slipperiness which all "progressive-statist" laws and legal systems are based on and the problem with modern liberal thinking in general: it's all relative.
Explain natural rights.
Jacob Bloom: I also wanted to say, flatly, that not everyone on this planet is as...."moral" as the people on this forum nor do they necessarily recognize property rights or the sovereignty of the individual when faced with the consensus of the masses. So...you're going to need to need to defend yourselves somehow. Unless you guys are all super super rich, I don't think you're going to be able to afford a large enough army. So while I do think that maybe every anarchist on this forum could handle their own little anarchist region I do not think they will be free from encroachment from remaining statist governments nor do I think you'll be ready to fight those publicly funded militaries off effectively with your private army.
Don't jump ahead of yourself. Get educated first as Lew Rockwell mentioned on Freedom Watch some weeks ago.
hashem:You've got the concept of natural law confused (as with everyone else here, except maybe wilderness and juan). Natural Law is the body of rules which man can discover through use of his reason. I.E. laws of physics, are NATURAL laws -- laws of nature; that apples grow on trees; that dogs grow teeth; that grass exists. There's no point in trying to disprove natural laws. Through reason, from observing nature, we learn the nature of humans. Thus we learn what is good and bad for humans. I.E. broken legs are bad for humans; learning to communicate is good for humans.
I think Jacob's Issue is he needs someone with a big stick to make sure he does not violate other people's property rights, free market court and contractual restitution does not come into view as effective to him....
And because he needs it, he feels everyone should have to be subject to it....
Just an observation... not an attack
laminustacitus: Randomness is just a description for how things are not always as ordered as we believe they are; hence, it is the result of our personal lack of knowledge, and our human instict towards generalizing everything we experience.
Ok but that doesn't have to do with this thread about natural law.
Harry Felker: hashem:You've got the concept of natural law confused (as with everyone else here, except maybe wilderness and juan). Natural Law is the body of rules which man can discover through use of his reason. I.E. laws of physics, are NATURAL laws -- laws of nature; that apples grow on trees; that dogs grow teeth; that grass exists. There's no point in trying to disprove natural laws. Through reason, from observing nature, we learn the nature of humans. Thus we learn what is good and bad for humans. I.E. broken legs are bad for humans; learning to communicate is good for humans. I think Jacob's Issue is he needs someone with a big stick to make sure he does not violate other people's property rights, free market court and contractual restitution does not come into view as effective to him.... And because he needs it, he feels everyone should have to be subject to it.... Just an observation... not an attack
Thanks for this Harry. I have to remind myself that at times or be reminded. People that can't follow the law without somebody nearby carry a big stick to stop them from violating it do project their insecurities, lack of responsibility, and inability to use reason to flourish. As you mentioned with that other poster in this thread on the previous page.
Hashem, you cannot derive ethics from the laws of nature. It is simply impossible as far as I can see.
What is good or bad for humans depends on their wants.
ignore button
Exactly, and it's pure arrogance.
The fact of the matter is that you can't cross the is - ought gap, it's far wider than most people understand. Most people who try to either ascribe some nonsensical notion of "goodness" to objects and thus go against Misesian subjectivism, or, they lapse in subjectivism themselves. For example, Rothbardian-Randian ethics is essentially subjectivist, and thus uses the word "ought" in an idiosyncratic manner. Now, if you wish to advocate some sort of ethics, you have to start on the "ought" side of the gap, and the only way to do this is to take a starting point on faith alone. Religious people can coherently do this, thus allowing them to stay true to Misesian subjectivism and not fall into ethical subjectivism, since they can claim that good is that which is ordained by our Lord. On the other hand, what sense does it make for somebody who is not a theist to say that "nature" has made something "good".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jacob Bloom:Except with human laws, there is an enforcer on the other end.
And I am sure Big Brother loves you too...
Jacob Bloom:Fundamentally, moral laws are not the same as universal laws such as the laws of physics, which say: this is either possible or not possible,
Natural Law is not "moral" Law, it is the most morally correct law, but it does not legislate morality, like abortion laws do, whixh are a correct example of moral law...
In all truth, Moral Law has little to do with being morally correct and more to do with attacking personal freedom....
Jacob Bloom:Universal laws (reason) are observable and actually have a built in cause and effect mechanism which makes them objectively true.
When someone steals your property the effect is not observable?
Jacob Bloom:Reason, not morality, needs to be the foundation for any kind of legal system.
And natural law is reason, anything else is arbitrary and controlling, are you saying totalitarianism is the only reasonable legal system?
Jacob Bloom:Reason places effectivness and sustainability as the chief virtues rather than right and good. Socialism is undesirable not because it's morally wrong but simply because it doesn't work. It's ineffective and unsustainable and that's observable.
Socialism is undesirable because it STEALS FROM A TO BENEFIT B, it is also why it is unsustainable, and ineffective, so the moral objection (Violation of Natural Law - Property Rights), which is observable, is the root of the socialism issue, wow that sounded reasonable too... who could have imagined that....
Jacob Bloom:The other problem you have with morality and ethical systems is that they are very much given to deity based belief systems that ultimately lead to the establishment of religious groups (which inevitably leads to theocracies of some kind, which are, incidentally, one of the most pernicious and difficult forms of statism to deal with.)
I own my property has what to do with deities?
Jacob Bloom:Systems based on reason do not lead, then, to theocracies or any other form of overbearing statism. This also is what makes reason based system superior to moral based systems.
Then what happened to America? Communism was not based on religion at all, and we see how reasonable that turned out...
Jacob Bloom:If anarchism manages to privatize the courts, this whole idea of an objective set of rules devised out of SUBJECTIVE sets of principles devised from "natural laws" will prove itself inherently unstable and self defeating because...basically it leads to a toss up as to who is paying the judge and what they think is moral or not.
Wrong, in a free market system reputation is everything, since the judge will not have a monopoly on the position, he will stand the potential to lose business when he is corrupt....
There is a vested interest in earning a living in a profession, so long as you can reason this to be true, you can kiss your arguments goodbye, they do not hold water, I would refer you to the Rothbard piece about courts, but I do not want you to read something you apparently do not want to...
Would not want people to think you are an anarchist....
Jacob Bloom:I also wanted to say, flatly, that not everyone on this planet is as...."moral" as the people on this forum nor do they necessarily recognize property rights or the sovereignty of the individual when faced with the consensus of the masses.
What is really funny is you attack the tactic of "It's all relative." and come up with this one, so is it all relative?
Jacob Bloom:So...you're going to need to need to defend yourselves somehow. Unless you guys are all super super rich, I don't think you're going to be able to afford a large enough army. So while I do think that maybe every anarchist on this forum could handle their own little anarchist region I do not think they will be free from encroachment from remaining statist governments nor do I think you'll be ready to fight those publicly funded militaries off effectively with your private army.
I am going to refer you to the reason the United States had not been invaded since 1812....
It was not the military that won this war, but the militias, and it was not the military that kept other nations from the United States as occupational territory, but the armed citizenry and the cost that such an attempt would toll on the occupying force, the same holds true for the federal government and dealing with independent people in the appalachian mountains. Reading some Sun Tzu would serve you well on this topic....
I do find it humorous that you think defending from statism requires statism....
wilderness: laminustacitus: Randomness is just a description for how things are not always as ordered as we believe they are; hence, it is the result of our personal lack of knowledge, and our human instict towards generalizing everything we experience. Ok but that doesn't have to do with this thread about natural law.
It actually does:
hashem:Natural Law is the body of rules which man can discover through use of his reason. I.E. laws of physics, are NATURAL laws -- laws of nature; that apples grow on trees; that dogs grow teeth; that grass exists. There's no point in trying to disprove natural laws. Through reason, from observing nature, we learn the nature of humans. Thus we learn what is good and bad for humans. I.E. broken legs are bad for humans; learning to communicate is good for humans.
The laws of nature cannot be revealed to man through his reason, they can only be discovered on a problematic basis as hypotheses, which are mere theories, not laws. In addition, man often deceives himself into thinking that he can reason with these hypothoses to deduce the nature of the world, but, in reality, he cannot for hypothoses can always be wrong, and our knowledge is never perfect. I'm not disproving natural laws, what I am saying is that man can never shine light onto what those "laws" are, he is always limited to hypothetical knowledge about them, and can be fooled by randomness if he takes those problematic judgements as being the truth (for instance: the belief that weight is a trait of all objects).
My hypothesis is following the NAP leads to a flourishing life and from my experience this experiment has been a success. I've been in rough conditions involving criminals so I know first-hand what it's like to watch a society collapse under the tyrannous void of reason and without very strong rational people to calm and lead in such situations these events would have become even more maddening and bloody. The latter is not flourishing.
I demonstrate that reasoning a good way of living life is a scientific experiment that has proved valid for me. I am a fact that goodness in and of itself are my actions same as an apple falling is principled by gravity.
Now if you need to ask where does nature come from and this natural human, then that question is either not sought and all it's conclusions not sought or like me somebody could recognize God. But to recognize God and all the subjectiveness of trying to figure out what God is all about can actually be more of a slippery slope than relying on what I can demonstrate and then proclaim God had a hand in such and such. But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least. This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life.
GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that you can't cross the is - ought gap, it's far wider than most people understand. Most people who try to either ascribe some nonsensical notion of "goodness" to objects and thus go against Misesian subjectivism, or, they lapse in subjectivism themselves. For example, Rothbardian-Randian ethics is essentially subjectivist, and thus uses the word "ought" in an idiosyncratic manner. Now, if you wish to advocate some sort of ethics, you have to start on the "ought" side of the gap, and the only way to do this is to take a starting point on faith alone. Religious people can coherently do this, thus allowing them to stay true to Misesian subjectivism and not fall into ethical subjectivism, since they can claim that good is that which is ordained by our Lord. On the other hand, what sense does it make for somebody who is not a theist to say that "nature" has made something "good".
All this from a man that thinks people "ought" to prescribe to dogmatic law based on his subjective view of the invisible sky man who impregnates women without sex, and the words of the aforementioned sexless pregnancy's offspring, related to him in a book transcribed some centuries later based on stories no one could at the time, or currently, objectively prove....
I guess that might make sense somehow....
laminustacitus: hashem:Natural Law is the body of rules which man can discover through use of his reason. I.E. laws of physics, are NATURAL laws -- laws of nature; that apples grow on trees; that dogs grow teeth; that grass exists. There's no point in trying to disprove natural laws. Through reason, from observing nature, we learn the nature of humans. Thus we learn what is good and bad for humans. I.E. broken legs are bad for humans; learning to communicate is good for humans. The laws of nature cannot be revealed to man through his reason, they can only be discovered on a problematic basis as hypotheses, which are mere theories, not laws. Hypothesis, theories, laws are reasoned. These are thought about in the physical organ called brain. laminustacitus: In addition, man often deceives himself into thinking that he can reason with these hypothoses to deduce the nature of the world, but, in reality, he cannot for hypothoses can always be wrong, and our knowledge is never perfect. I'm not disproving natural laws, what I am saying is that man can never shine light onto what those "laws" are, he is always limited to hypothetical knowledge about them, and can be fooled by randomness if he takes those problematic judgements as being the truth (for instance: the belief that weight is a trait of all objects). good for you, but whenever you come up with something better than natural law let me know, until then I love life - so - I have to act. You act too unless you plan on locking yourself up in a closet waiting for something better since you believe man is often deceived so you don't want to think and deceive, isolation may not work either you'll eventually need food and water if you want to live. "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19 | Post Points: 20
The laws of nature cannot be revealed to man through his reason, they can only be discovered on a problematic basis as hypotheses, which are mere theories, not laws.
Hypothesis, theories, laws are reasoned. These are thought about in the physical organ called brain.
laminustacitus: In addition, man often deceives himself into thinking that he can reason with these hypothoses to deduce the nature of the world, but, in reality, he cannot for hypothoses can always be wrong, and our knowledge is never perfect. I'm not disproving natural laws, what I am saying is that man can never shine light onto what those "laws" are, he is always limited to hypothetical knowledge about them, and can be fooled by randomness if he takes those problematic judgements as being the truth (for instance: the belief that weight is a trait of all objects).
In addition, man often deceives himself into thinking that he can reason with these hypothoses to deduce the nature of the world, but, in reality, he cannot for hypothoses can always be wrong, and our knowledge is never perfect. I'm not disproving natural laws, what I am saying is that man can never shine light onto what those "laws" are, he is always limited to hypothetical knowledge about them, and can be fooled by randomness if he takes those problematic judgements as being the truth (for instance: the belief that weight is a trait of all objects).
good for you, but whenever you come up with something better than natural law let me know, until then I love life - so - I have to act. You act too unless you plan on locking yourself up in a closet waiting for something better since you believe man is often deceived so you don't want to think and deceive, isolation may not work either you'll eventually need food and water if you want to live.
wilderness:I demonstrate that reasoning a good way of living life is a scientific experiment that has proved valid for me.
If this knowledge was gathered by experiment, it must be merely hypothetical, no absolute truths can be yielded by experiment.
wilderness:I am a fact that goodness in and of itself are my actions same as an apple falling is principled by gravity.
Mind making that statement a bit more comprehendable, I'm having trouble understanding what you precisely need, thanks.
wilderness:But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least.
And trying to deduce ethics from natural phenomena proclaiming that your reason can actually understand nature's true nature is not hubristic?
wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life.
And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life?
wilderness:Hypothesis, theories, laws are reasoned. The first two are reasoned statements that can discover the third one. These are thought.
Hypothoses, and theories are problematic judgments that can only become less problematic, they can never become a law.
wilderness:good for you, but whenever you come up with something better than natural law let me know, until then I love life - so - I have to act. You act too unless you plan on locking yourself up in a closet waiting for something better since you believe man is often deceived so you don't want to think and deceive, isolation may not work either you'll eventually need food and water if you want to live.
As I've said before, I believe that Mises' utilitarian defense of capitalism is the best for it does not make a judgement about nature itself, rather that capitalism is the best means for attaining the ends man desires.
laminustacitus: wilderness:I demonstrate that reasoning a good way of living life is a scientific experiment that has proved valid for me. If this knowledge was gathered by experiment, it must be merely hypothetical, no absolute truths can be yielded by experiment.
My life is the experiment. I demonstrate the action same as water flows down hill.
laminustacitus: wilderness:I am a fact that goodness in and of itself are my actions same as an apple falling is principled by gravity. Mind making that statement a bit more comprehendable, I'm having trouble understanding what you precisely need, thanks.
I am a fact. (the other stuff not necessary)
laminustacitus: wilderness:But to go out in a Crusade manner and for a person to think they know Gods will and then act thinking it's God's-will stamped upon the earth carried by the hand of an individual is hubris to say the least. And trying to deduce ethics from natural phenomena proclaiming that your reason can actually understand nature's true nature is not hubristic?
If I touch a hot stove, and learn it burns, then I don't do it again. If I act nicely to my neighbors, then I find out we chat and trade more (it happens where I live, it's a fact).
laminustacitus: wilderness:This kind of person is void of recognizing ones place, as humans, in the scheme of life. And you expect your limited reason to show you the place of humanity in the scheme of life?
trial and error and a good upbringing has done me well so far
laminustacitus: wilderness:Hypothesis, theories, laws are reasoned. The first two are reasoned statements that can discover the third one. These are thought. Hypothoses, and theories are problematic judgments that can only become less problematic, they can never become a law.
Yes there are laws. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not commit fraud.
laminustacitus: wilderness:good for you, but whenever you come up with something better than natural law let me know, until then I love life - so - I have to act. You act too unless you plan on locking yourself up in a closet waiting for something better since you believe man is often deceived so you don't want to think and deceive, isolation may not work either you'll eventually need food and water if you want to live. As I've said before, I believe that Mises' utilitarian defense of capitalism is the best for it does not make a judgement about nature itself, rather that capitalism is the best means for attaining the ends man desires.
Capitalism is not in a bubble void of nature. It is completely connected to nature.