-
[quote]Hobbes sole intention was to figure out a way to prevent civil wars . He's not that special. I think he was a rhetorician and deeply religious.[/quote] In terms of religion, the exact opposite is true. Also, I second Autolykos' recommendation. You really have to read the primary texts in order to comment on it in any substantial manner
-
Herbener from Grove City College is also set to testify. http://foundationsofecon.blogspot.ca/2012/05/herbener-to-testify-on-federal-reserve.html
-
[quote]mr schnapps, you're equating God to capitalism? perhaps because you believe they're both man-made? that may be true, but there can be no way to know, because God can't be tested. which was my point. capitalism can be. i'm not going to indulge into the next point too far, so as not to derail the thread, but i agree with capitalism
-
[quote]if there were a way to prove God, or no god, we would all be in agreeance.[/quote] I think what you meant to say was that if there were a way to prove that capitalism was the most superior economic system in terms of wealth creation, then we'd all be in agreeance. I don't think that's a plausible route to take.
-
Yeah, the copyright argument. It was his attempt at an ontological argument. I'm not terribly convinced of it , let's just say.
-
Descartes is a cartesian, substance dualist--not a doubt about it. What you say may be true about the gods, but it by no means is true of God, as he would have made imminently clear. Anyway, people aren't responding to your challenge, because, well, it isn't a challenge at all. It's simply a definitional thing that goes away with a little
-
I agree with your qualification, but Jasay seems to be using sloppy langauge, here: " supported by no intersubjectively verifiable evidence , but only by..." Only by, means only by. He's defining an exclusive domain in which moral intuitionism is the only member. If he didn't wish to say that, he should have said otherwise. I'm
-
[quote] The main, and sufficient, one is that the assertion that we have a right to peaceful pursuits (and other convenient and desirable facilities of life) is supported by no intersubjectively verifiable evidence , but only by a particular moral intuition many share but which is woefully subject to interpretation and twisting, contestable in a way
-
[quote] It's like if I defined a ball as red and heavy rock and at the same time defined it as light and round airplane.[/quote] If you're going to make an argument, then make the argument that the above defined properties are a logically inconsistent set . But I just popped in this thread to add that point; let's take all the discussion
-
I once traced this claim back to a historian in the light 19th century (I believe), although I'm not sure how much stock to put into itt. It certainly is interesting that Ferguson believes this happened. Do you have a citation?