Suppose a mother went to an exorcist to perform an exorcism on her daughter, which according to all who knew her was wild and very bad. The exorcism ritual was very violent and as a result the girl died. Do you think the mother or the exorcist should be held responsible for murder?
On one hand the majority of people believe in medical procedures, yet some people believe in religious procedures for healing, so an act of exorcism could be seen as a medical procedure that went wrong (which is common and holds no liability in most cases). On the other hand it is unikely that the daughter, would have wanted the exorcism for herself had she had the adult capacity to reason. So this case is not an easy one. What do you make of it?
There is no answer. There is no right or wrong in a theoretical void. To think otherwise is a form of insanity.
All that matters is the values, customs, cultures, and expectations within recognized legal systems in place. To think there is a reality beyond that is a "fixed idea", and chasing ghosts. And if you are trying to go further than that in thinking that morality applies - particularly in a theoretical void based on words and grammer structure is even more insane. There is no philosophizing in a void when discussing practiced arts - be it religion, culture, or law.
Whenever you have a legal question chant this mantra until you get the answer:
Custom, custom, custom, custom, custom, custom.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
This is a matter of rights of children in a libertarian legal theory. This is a subject on which books were written. Were the authors also insane? I think it is absolutely crucial to understand how could things work in a libertarian society.
I agree. If we cannot come to logical conclusions about rules then there's no point arguing anything on these forums. Remember, custom leads to the statistical average. Libertarianism is about choosing your position on the normal curve.
It's somewhat irrelevant for the hypothetical, but as a witness to and occasional participant in many (Protestant) exorcisms in past years, no exorcism (if handled correctly) should threaten a life (with caveats -- once had some serious trouble with a very physically strong individual who was under the control of a demon and nearly injured me and two others). I would personally classify such an event (especially with a young girl) to be misconduct and negligence on the part of the exorcist. Outside of extrordinary circumstances, I can think of no other reason for something like that to happen.
You can talk about your aesthetics all you want, and that is all they are. Know this though, all aesthetics, ethics, or whatever you want to call it is an equal proposition to any other aesthitic/ethic/custom. All that matters is real human actions, and if they can be discussed, the consequences that entail from them.
Read DeJasay or David Freidman if you want to figure out what legal theory is all about, and how it relates to libertarianism. Honestly, it is not a bizzare notion to look at things from a "legal/ amoral positivistic" angle, in fact it is the norm and is expected in any sane form of discusson when we are talking about universal claims, and which is what we are doing if we are trying to figure things out from a sociological point of view.
When you "chose a position" you are turning a non-thing into a thing - these "non things" are processes and consequences of actions - not "things in themselves". That is the reason why all this stuff is just empty rationalizations and arguments that can never go anywhere about what "libertarianism really means", and how one "misrepresents one's position" all the time.
I think this is a danger of many Miseans, they treat Mises as a rationalist, when in fact he is a radical Aristotelian styled empiricist This seems to give some of his political ideologist followers the habit of rationalizing things that no one in their right mind would claim they could rationalize. When trying to discuss universal exact laws of real power mechinisms in the real world from an ontological unit of measurment, not a fixed fantasy timeless world of ideas where things outside of your own context "really mean something" you have to drop looking at all this mumbo jumbo about looking at consequences of actions as things, it is a categorical error.
Custom is no more than statistically-average beliefs accepted by people in a region. Any custom only matters as long as there are people to accept it, and ultimately cutom breaks down to individual choice. Imposing customs as laws is essentially democracy as a judicial system.
Very clearly Satan is responsible. Duh!
But at the same time, the mother and priest would be burned at the stake because of lack of faith. And standard procedure is to slay every first born son in town, in order to bring the fear of God back. Homosexuals, pork eaters, witches, masturbators, bestialators, and adulterers would also need to be found and slain. This is pretty simple stuff.
Then we have to talk about how much pea soup the girl projectile vomited. That would be subject to certain property damage penalties. It's hard to get out of carpet. I'm thinking at least 20-40 bucks per square yard of carpet in a room. And then we have to examine if she spilled any blood when inevitably spiderwalking down the staircase. We're talking around 800 to 1000 bucks or more for that type of replacement and installation.
Next?
The custom can be that all blondes must be killed, in other words it can be completely un-libertarian. Therefore I am asking you about a libertarian custom for the problem I described. Clearly if we treat exorcism as it is treated today by law, it would be unlibertarian, because the law today encompasses morality, which we as libertarians try to avoid.
Once again I am going to recommend you look into custom law and what it actually is and means. If you want links to online books or articles I will provide them. Though even a quck search on Mises or the 2 names I provided ought to be sufficient.
If not ,enjoy your rationalizations about things which I am sure will lead to productive dialogue about things that are relevant. Maybe you can get super "edgy" and out do even Hoppe with his "ice cold" reasoning, which I am sure are not self-fulfilled prophecies.
Either way know this, this line of inquiry is highly heterodox and not acceptable among most people who wish to take their sociology and legal theory seriously.
"The custom can be that all blondes must be killed, in other words it can be completely un-libertarian."
The world is perfectly libertarian as it is. Everything is just aesthetics. Math, logic, science, etc. Or whatever you want to call them.
Stalinism is a libertarian, Sharia law is libertarian, Israel is libertarian, christian theocracy is libertarian, republics are libertarian, democracies are libertarian, Zimbabwe is libertarian, the moon is libertarian, a prison is libertarian, the forest is libertarian, spiders are libertarian (arachno-capitalism!), beetles are libertarian, etc.
The only reason you don't like them is, because you just don't understand man!
No, libertarian is libertarian. In the fact that it doesn't refer to the consequences of my actions and you assume it to be "real" - it will concern itself only with liberterianism, think only of liberterianism, serve only liberterianism, and work to destroy all that is not libertarian. The reality is though, it probably isn't real and is just a bit of a customary tautology.
Shiara Law is a practice in action in the real world. It has a power structure where we can look at the consequences of actions. The Market is a scientific process that we can define and talk about consequences. Law is a practiced art, not a science...it can't really be discussed the way I think people want to here in a void, it can only be done.
"libertarian is libertarian... probably isn't real and is just a customary tautology"
Yep, sounds like a tautology to me. I don't know what 'customary' adds to that.
And is precisely what I said above.
The consequences of the market are just aesthetics. People think they want junk and conspicuous consumption, instead of what Allah wants. That is the only difference between it and Sharia Law. They are both Libertarian.
I don't know what 'customary' adds to that.
It has a very "general meaning" but of no real essence. It is a short cut to put someone elses mind on the track you desire it. For the most part I don't think that many minds would associate Stalinism with liberterianism. The fact that it doesn't really work that well in general conversation ought to convince you of that obvious fact. The "currency" and utility function of that word does not serve the purpose well there.
The consequences of the market are just aesthetics
No the consequences manifest as facts in the world, so much as they can be talked about - your opinion of the fact would be the aesthetic, you talking about the opinion is fact. However, that opinion serves no use in trying to set up a universal inter-subjective language when talking about practiced arts that don't exist. You are talking about your aesthetics of a ghost world in this case. It is the equivlent of talking about who would win in a fight Godzilla or Rodan.
Exorcism, in the case presented is a legal term - there is no "essence" of exorcism (or any other cultural/ legal term). It is a custom that is determined by a real culture, with real people, at a real place, at a real time, with a real power structure judging it. To muse about phantoms makes no sense. Again, this shouldn't be contraversial.
Man, you're using all of this jargon and obscure terms of this and that, and then talking smug like we're the last people in the world to know all of this.
My point is not that people think Stalinism or whatever is Libertarian. But that you are saying 'libertarian' is just a sort of stoic view in which everything is relative and any interference to say something isn't libertarian is irrational.
But that you are saying 'libertarian' is just a sort of stoic view in which everything is relative and any interference to say something isn't libertarian is irrational.
Do you mean sophist? And also I have not defended the word "libertarian" as something worth worrying about. In fact I am trying to state the opposite. It is a "non thing", and should only exist as a short hand way to set the tone of a conversation. When people quibble about what capitalism, liberterianism, or whatever "really means" and start focusing on these words as if they are some mystical "real" entity or some ideal - they are in trouble. This seems to be a curious trait among intellectuals, as opposed to most other personality traits. You can't think "in libertarian terms", it is a silly notion.
As for the claim of sophistry - we are in the world of Heraclitus and Nietzche's perspectivism. A world of facts and perspectives when we speak of intersubjective disciplins. This is a staple of Austrian economics - Mises and Lachmann among others make that clear I think.. Even if that is the case, I still don't think I said anything that even broke logical positivism, or mainstream market thinking - much less delve into "hererodox" Austrian sociological thought - or said anything that is contraversial when it comes to the practice of studying law.
As for obscure language and jargon, so far as I can tell I haven't used anything past a nickle word. The most obscure words I used were pop culture references. So you'll have to point out the obfuscating language if you need clarification.
Eugene I'm surprised you persist after so long.
Your focusing too much on "Libertarian rights". And not enough on markets.
So long as you continue to try and find a universal system of rights your going to run these silly scenarios around in your head unsuccesfully ad infinitum. Such scenarios are not solved by any over-arching universal systme of rights, be it natural or otherwise. The market is the only way to handle these things. Individuals and cultures will coalesce to recieve the justice they most desire. Rather thana minority oppressing their idea of justice over all.
"Do you mean sophist?"
No, that implies that one is actively involved in rhetoric in the interested of convincing someone. Quite the opposite is here the case.
What I mean is that you are taking an approach that it is merely silly to have any interest in matters at all. It's all just aesthetics, after all, or seemingly disinterested legal and economic theory.
Nietzsche would says it bad to exorcise someone. Or at the very least say to be careful.
"Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you."
I am saying everything is in one's own interests, you can never be "in liberterianism's interests", it is best looked at as a generalizing word of consequence of ones position to show people what you are talking about if you insist on using the term.
I think by you saying "just" aesthetics you think I am implying it is worthless, that is false as aesthetics by definition imply a subjective valuation of the aesthetic being discussed. I am saying there is no way to universally speak of them, and to assert them into logical propositions they become nonsense. Perhaps they are important nonsense, but they are nonsense none the less. They are Aesthetics, no more - no less. It is impossible to assert aethetics over "reason" by the standards of reason by the way.
Sure, but I specifically mentioned Nietzche's perspectivism - not his more dubious moralizing aspects. In that fact I consider his incessant moralazing, at best, to be sociological trend predictions that were fairly accurate - but more likely escapist elitist nonsense that tried to "transcend" egoism, and confirm and make one "feel better" about ones irrelevence in relevant society. It is "impolite" language because it can afford to be impolite, because it is for social outcasts.
Then you have no business in a thread that asks for your opinion; since you claim to have none. And no interest in anything intellectual.
I think you missed the humor in the nietzsche quote.
If you are going to say that this is an aesthetic question, and not one that involves legal theory or whatever let me set up for you what is going on:
1) In a "real" libertarian world where everything is truly liberterian who would win in a fight Darth Vader or He Man. Discuss.
2) If Dr Doom and The Terminator were running for presidint on Golbad 6, and the terminator said he was going to run on the platform of xarbod law, as opposed to Dr Doom's platform of jilixee law - who would you vote for?
These "arguments" have nothing to do with judgments of relevence of incorperating the concrete. At best if your judgments agee it is some "hypothetical imperative", if not it is out and out nonsense..this is the same as all those moral arguments, and why it is "nonsense on stilts"
Once again this isn't contraversial stuff. I don't think I even need to get into heterodox Misean / Artistotlian stuff, when outdated and more widely accepted positivism works just fine here.