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

Browse Forum Posts by Tags

Showing related tags and posts for the Forums application. See all tags in the site
  • Re: David Osterfeld on natural rights

    [quote user="Knight_of_BAAWA"] [quote user="Anarcho-Mercantilist"]The phrase "initiation of force" cannot be logically defined without circularity[/quote]Nonsense. Do try to grasp that words have definitions. [/quote] How do you conclude that "nuclear weapon production...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Mon, Aug 17 2009
  • Re: David Osterfeld on natural rights

    [quote user="Juan"][quote user="Brainpolice"]But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric).[/quote] By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Mon, Aug 17 2009
  • Re: David Osterfeld on natural rights

    [quote user="Knight_of_BAAWA"] [quote user="Brainpolice"]I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.[/quote]Question: if someone...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Mon, Aug 17 2009
  • Re: David Osterfeld on natural rights

    [quote user="nirgrahamUK"]circularity doesnt come into it when you are talking facts.[/quote] Alfred Korzybski (1933, pp. 429-432) will probably attribute the conflation of the 'mental self' with the 'physical self' as the confusion of orders of abstractions . Read pages 429...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Sat, Aug 15 2009
  • Re: Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

    [quote user="Zavoi"] [quote user="AJ"]Else please define "objective" more precisely to distinguish the two.[/quote] "Objective" means "true or false independent of the preferences of people." It contrasts with "subjective," which refers to statements...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Sat, Aug 8 2009
  • Re: Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

    [quote user="Juan"][quote user="Lilburne"]I might, however, ask him whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" and showing him that he is actually...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Sat, Aug 8 2009
  • Re: Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

    [quote user="nirgrahamUK"] [quote user="Anarcho-Mercantilist"] "'Natural law' theories derive their 'moral codes of conduct' from the mere laws of logic, without any reference to 'empirical' constructs such as 'human biology'."[/quote] thats...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Fri, Aug 7 2009
  • Re: How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?

    [quote user="Lilburne"] [quote user="Juan"]I'm simply stating the common sense position that there's right and wrong, contrary to what a bunch of relativists who fancy themselves great philosophers believe.[/quote] The common sense position regarding right and wrong is that...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Fri, Aug 7 2009
  • Re: Rights, Property, and State

    [quote user="hashem"]"“Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else." [/quote] That definition is circular in the sense that it uses terms that refer to the same thing as the word as you...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Fri, Aug 7 2009
  • Re: Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

    [quote user="I. Ryan"] [quote user="Anarchist Cain"] Only because you fail to define it. Amoralism is defined as lacking a distinction between right and wrong. [/quote] So, if you are an amoralist, then you could not comment on the rightness or the wrongness of the proposition that...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Thu, Aug 6 2009
Page 1 of 2 (14 items) 1 2 Next >