-
I am much too tired right now to compose a proper response to any of the previous comments, so I'll just point out a distinction concerning the present topic I think is being overlooked (which people make take or leave as they like, depending on how useful they find it). Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort
-
Anarchism: yes Praxeology: yes Natural rights: no ABCT: yes Corporations: yes (in general) Death penalty: indifferent Abortion: indifferent Democracy: no Objectivism: no Psycological egoism: yes Ethical egoism: I would not describe the egoism that I espouse as "ethical" 100% FRB: yes (in general)
-
[quote user="laminustacitus"]The natural rights crowd can never prove why natural rights exist[/quote] Well, suffice it to say one cannot ascertain whether something exists until one knows what the hell one is looking for in such an inquiry. So the question is not so much "do rights really exist?" so much as "is 'right'
-
Profit and Loss .
-
Our argument may be dumbed down thusly: All goods and services are most efficiently produced by markets (i.e. when there's no state involvement whatever). Security is a good or service. Therefore, security is most efficiently produced by markets. The minor premise is true due to the unjustifiability of its negation, and I refer you to the corpus
-
[quote user="Knight_of_BAAWA"]Because it doesn't contradict the statement at all. Being in a coma is a well-defined condition, and when/if the person comes out of the coma, the person will act. [/quote] That only tells us how we shouldn't interpret the proposition 'humans act', viz. as 'all humans act all the time'
-
The first and last lesson of libertarianism is that human society is self-ordering. The reason for having a prescription for justice as minimalistic as the NAP is not because it is some grand "secret of the universe", but rather because humans have no direct role in making society function; it is just a simple solution to (what is supposed
-
It's not so much argumentative as it is admonitory, so it can't really be called fallacious. How "afraid" (or cautious) one should be about anything is subjective; the utterer seems to be saying that it's preferable to be cautious rather than relaxed or impulsive under certain circumstances (being around people with guns) as opposed
-
Austro-libertarian utility theory (rightly) discounts notions of social welfare (like equality and externalities); so if one consistently applies this standard, libertarian morality must, ipso facto, be utility maximizing (relative to uncertainty). See (the last section of) Long's article Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences .
-
[quote user="jwilsn1020"]why must everyone focus on the ancien regime of econmics when its full potential is closer than ever? how many of you limit economics to the exchange of goods and services? in conjunction with non-capitol economcis and crusoe economics, the whole field can move towards yielding the "pure logic of choice"