-
Signed consent is pretty difficult to obtain in emergency situations on a regular basis. In terms of the current system, signature is obtained to verify that the patient authorizes the provider to be compensated through private billing, or by their insurance or equivalent government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. It also verifies that the patient
-
Sigh. I can't view the videos, and the articles I've dived into confuse me. This is why I asked here. How do you get, in the simplest possible language, from argumentation ethics to NAP/homesteading, because what I understood of the argumentation theory as expressed in my first couple of responses just doesn't follow all the way through
-
[W]hy homesteading and the NAP are the minimal set required for a possibly justifiable ethic? This is according to Hoppe. This is the crux of what Hoppe argues is presupposed by argument. Well, I really was hoping someone would explain how. Draw me a picture? I am totally failing to see where the light bulb moment is in this argument.
-
NirgrahamUK, please break down your statements for me, explain why homesteading and the NAP are the minimal set required for a possibly justifiable ethic? From what you said I sort of got the following: An ethic is an argument, that is a statement that requires justification. Thus to ask if a thing is right or wrong, is to make it an ethical question
-
Hi Nielsio, thanks for that link, in some ways it clarified what my question was leading to, but I'm still pretty fuzzy about the differences between the consequences of a) Believing that ethics have concrete justification, that they can be argued down to the point of One and Only Right Answer somehow, or b) Believing that ethics can be justified
-
So the part I understood is that by entering dialogue I admit that both you and I have self ownership and the ability to initiate change from within, i.e. freedom of action. Now, get me the rest of the way to the NAP please, because evidently I didn't do it. The source of my confusion is this: say I DON'T enter into dialogue? Say I believe that
-
Ok, so having read the Hoppe quote, please check my understanding: By arguing with you, I demonstrate that I know you capable of accepting my idea and implementing it, i.e. freely changing your mind. Because I argue at all, I admit that you exclusively own yourself, and once I have done this I admit that compulsion is unethical due to its being a violation
-
Such gun control would only be rational in groups made up of 100% willing members. Nobody would deny a person's right NOT to own a gun. But as soon as you make it compulsory on unwilling individuals, you become an aggressor. Furthermore, those consenting and unarmed individuals leave themselves wide open to be victimized by the inevitable aggressive
-
I've been through the Wikipedia article, and I frankly do not understand. While I agree with all the individual examples given, such as the intellectual property business, I just can't get my brain around the actual argument. What does this say, in any kind of simplistic terminology?
-
This is all the answer this thread requires, thank you Wheylous. It's too bad there weren't people in that audience with the foresight to be prepared to defend themselves against aggression. That was their right, of course, but I don't go anywhere unarmed. Creating a law that restricts ownership of any weapon simply forces the business over