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

Search

  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="laminustacitus"] Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society. The purpose of property is to mollify the ills of life, it does not exist for its own end, rather it must be utilized toward the end of benefiting, and improving the human condition. I would like to emphasize that trespassing upon property
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Fri, Dec 11 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="laminustacitus"] It need not be considered "utilitarian"; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics. [/quote] So would you
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Unions

    Unions, as we see them today, are necessarily evil. The lobby for government intervention in local labor markets, making it illegal for certain businesses to hire non-union labor. They commit acts of aggression, such as violence and intimidation, yet are usually given breaks by the government. The theoretical, voluntary union is not a bad thing, however
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="wilderness"] [quote user="capitalist"] justifying theft...[/quote] up is down; glad you attempted "to show the problem", thus, it's a problem. If that's your attempt, then we agree, so, why you incline to get emotional about this tug of war in your own making, is undoubtedly complicated. Implying a
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="wilderness"] [quote user="capitalist"] justifying theft...[/quote] up is down; glad you attempted "to show the problem", thus, it's a problem. If that's your attempt, then we agree, so, why you incline to get emotional about this tug of war in your own making, is undoubtedly complicated. Implying a
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="wilderness"] [quote user="capitalist"] ...it would be right for someone who is hungry and without money to steal bread as long as he pays the baker back at another time.[/quote] What is amazing is the doublespeak that is rampant in society. Right is steal. As the other thread points out Obama is the character in the
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="Juan"][quote]So break into the cabin and pay the guy for a new door. [/quote] Wow. A sensible answer... [/quote] But, according to the logic of this answer, it would be right for someone who is hungry and without money to steal bread as long as he pays the baker back at another time. This is utilitarian and violates the non-aggression
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="laminustacitus"] [quote user="capitalist"] [quote user="bloomj31"] So break into the cabin and pay the guy for a new door. [/quote] From this, wouldn't it follow that a hungry man with no money would be just in stealing a loaf of bread and than paying the baker back at some other time? [/quote] If the man
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="bloomj31"] So break into the cabin and pay the guy for a new door. [/quote] From this, wouldn't it follow that a hungry man with no money would be just in stealing a loaf of bread and than paying the baker back at some other time?
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
  • Re: Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

    [quote user="Thedesolateone"] Even if you pay the required penalty, your breaking in would be a wrong act at the point when you did it. You couldn't have been aware of the consequences of your act (maybe the owner would starve if you used the phone, because it costs him £1000 a minute etc.) You couldn't have known he would accept
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by capitalist on Thu, Dec 10 2009
Page 1 of 8 (80 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last ยป | More Search Options