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: 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
  • Re: Rights, Property, and State

    [quote user="hashem"]In all fairness, let me clarify that you know nothing about Rothbardism. You are the one who falsely claimed that Rothbardians consider nuclear weapons to be in violation of property rights, an absurd claim at best, an absolutely unfounded one at worst, strictly in contradiction...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Thu, Aug 6 2009
  • Re: Rights, Property, and State

    [quote user="hashem"] [quote user="Anarcho-Mercantilist"]Roderick Long has proven that only the 'right to be not aggressed' exists .[/quote] Then we are in perfect agreement -- as long as the "right not to be aggressed" is actually the right to have property, and...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Thu, Aug 6 2009
  • Re: Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

    [quote user="Anarchist Cain"]But you have not proven anything is completely incoherent. All I have seen is that you have explain that since there is free will then natural law can be transgressed against . I don't think that anyone denies that because there is the NAP, that means there...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Thu, Aug 6 2009
  • Re: How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?

    [quote user="Juan"] [quote]You seem to conflate "really" with "objectively".[/quote] whatever. what do you mean by really ? by conflating ? [/quote] The terms 'objective', 'subjective', 'is', 'ought', 'fact', and 'value' are...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Thu, Aug 6 2009
  • Re: Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law

    I guess 'morality', in the descriptive sense, may have a 'truth' value as in the physical laws of the universe. For example, it is true that humans generally feel empathy for one another, avoid murder, and cooperate with one another. One may challenge this claim by arguing that not all...
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by Luming Zhou on Wed, Aug 5 2009
Page 2 of 2 (18 items) < Previous 1 2