-
hashem, To be clear, an ought doesn't derive from an is. And to be sure, shoulds and oughts and justice are concepts —they're models formed by individual brains. They're subjective, prescriptive, normative . That's right. What I'm asking is: don't you have any such concepts? In other words, to make ethical an claim is to
-
Kelvin Silva, The Rothbardian formula is two teeth for a tooth, that's what you'll find most libertarians advocating, including myself. The logic of it is that the aggressor must return/replace whatever property he stole/damaged, and then must pay compensation equal to that property once over again. hashem, So you've given up on ethics altogether
-
How about the crossed-out beehive? : ) I invented it, far as I know - refers to Oppenheimer's metaphor for the State. First there were bandits periodically raiding people, like a hungry bear raiding a beehive - but the beehive gets destroyed in the process. Then, in the birth of the State, the bandits got smart and started farming their victims
-
Huh, me?
-
[quote user="Jargon"]The gist of free banking ethics is this: Fractional Reserve Banking is not fraud insofar as each depositor is aware that his deposit only has an immense likelihood of being available for withdrawal, insofar as it is known that a deposit certificate is not money proper.[/quote] IMO, the reason that FRB is not inherently
-
[quote user="ToxicAssets"]A more realistic assessment would be that the homestead principle of law cannot be made into an abstract objective theory for everything.[/quote] Indeed. The homestead principle relies on the concept of "use," but the trouble is that "use" has an incredible variety of meanings depending on what's
-
Interbank competition is also a limiting factor. If banks inflate at various rates, the more inflationary banks will gradually lose reserves to the less inflationary banks until there's a default. Hence, for any prolonged inflation to be possible, the banks have to inflate at the same rate. They have to form a cartel to coordinate their inflation
-
[quote user="Southern"]I'm not sure its possible to wage a war, as it is conventionaly understood , without violating the NAP. Minimizing civillian casualties is not enough. In order to remain true to the NAP you could not kill or destroy the property of even one neutral third party no matter how much "good" you would be doing
-
[quote user="Clayton"]Nope. The trouble here is that your standard breeds torts via negligence. Consider a simple farmer, let's say 1930's era. He goes about his daily life, doesn't interfere with anybody. One day, he comes across a shack he hadn't seen before, and inside, a mysterious piece of equipment. Curious, he flips
-
[quote user="Torsten"]It most certainly would. Starting with agression against a party, that did in no way aggressed against you.[/quote] One might argue that a third party has the right to intervene to stop aggression in progress. For example, if Bob is in the process of beating up Jones, Smith has the right to intervene to stop the beating