-
[quote user="JCFolsom"]Well, now, if he's starving, I'd say that in a sense, he does not act immorally to do so. Yet, at the same time, you are fully within your right to resist him. Unlike some of those here, I believe that two people can be in conflict without either actually acting immorally. What I mean is, as with the man that
-
[quote user="Donny with an A"]You made the point that under some alternative system of dealing with climate change, insurance and legal firms would have incentive to figure out the precise nature of the climate change phenomenon in order to best serve their clients. But I see no reason that such research couldn't be done now (unless you're
-
[quote user="Donny with an A"] If we knew that climate change were being caused by humans, what would the proper libertarian response be? What rights, if any, would be violated? [/quote] Not sure, but here's what I think roughly. This is basically from an earlier post here, http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1746.aspx?PageIndex=4 . I
-
[quote user="brianewart"]My thought is that the minimum wage, by discouraging the hiring of more workers at a lower wage, encourages employers to ask for more hours from less workers to do the same work. [/quote] I think the minimum wage causes shorter working hours. By the law of demand, less work is demanded by employers if the price of
-
[quote user="Donny with an A"]Well I'm not sure how right-libertarians would approach the issue, but a left-libertarian could coherently argue that we have a right to a fair share of the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2 without any objectionable results, and that anyone using only their fair share would be completely absolved of
-
'China' is not an entity that acts, and neither is 'the libertarian society'. China does not bomb anyone. Individual state-agents collaborate and organize such attacks. The response of libertarians would be to hold only those specific state agents responsible, the bomber-pilots and the office holders who ordered the attacks. This may
-
[quote user="wgeary"]"market regulation is a top predator. Remove the predator, and the herd of capitalists will multiply to consume all available resources, thereby ensuring its own premature extinction" [/quote] His analogy is the food chain of an ecological system. Within a simple ecological system, you have plants, herbivores
-
[quote user="pauled"]I agree with all of this. Take two chapters of Aristotle, and call a philosopher in the morning. :) [/quote] Sorry, I'm kinda new with the whole quoting other ppl thing. This was supposed to be a response to gplauche. The posting right before your posting. Sorry fot the confusion. I agree with everything you've
-
I think that we are arguing past each other, and missing each other's main points. A judgement of value can neither be true or false. I agree with you on that point. Whether or not a person holds any particular value judgement, is a matter of truth. I don't agree that whether a persion holds value judgement is not a matter of truth. Long's
-
Check out the last paragraph in page 19 of Theory and History . Mises says that value judgement are facts of the universe. When a person says "I like chocolate cake", they may be telling the truth, or they may be lying. They may actually like chocolate cake, or not. So existentially, they are subject to the same validification and falsification