Did Rothbard deal with Hume's refutation of the notion of natural law? I find Hume pretty convincing on this point, which makes me want to look elsewhere for the basis of libertarian ethics.
I Samuel 8
Jesse:Did Rothbard deal with Hume's refutation of the notion of natural law?
Yes. Introduction to Natural Law - MNR
Jesse:which makes me want to look elsewhere for the basis of libertarian ethics.
Argumentation ethics then. Read Hoppe.
Jesse:Did Rothbard deal with Hume's refutation of the notion of natural law? I find Hume pretty convincing on this point, which makes me want to look elsewhere for the basis of libertarian ethics.
You'll do what you think best.
But I want to make some philosophical points about this as follows:
Natural law semantically means intellectual apprehension of reality.
Be careful with Ludwig Von Mises too. Mises abhors natural law, but he writes and defines a natural law of might v. right, or kill or be killed version which is Thomas Hobbes and Spinoza's version of natural law. That in no way is the natural law tradition that is rooted in Aristotle-Thomist which is the tradition that Rothbard was in. Also, Mises in his "Liberalism" writes that a liberal is to protect life, liberty, health, and private property. Those are word for word John Locke's natural rights which of course is the tradition of natural law Rothbard was in. In Mises "Socialism" he abhors natural law too but again only talks about Hobbes' version and Plato's version. Mises even in that book discusses how the private property evolves in peace, not violence, which mirrors the natural law traditionalists ontological becoming (evolution).
When reading these various philosophers-economists it's best to know what they mean and don't go by their words only. Clearly if Mises, being a liberal, says a liberal is to protect those natural rights wouldn't mean Mises is contradicting himself when he says he's against natural law. He still may have been against natural law as Rothbard says he was though I still have yet to get into the papers that discuss this in-depth, but it's also clear that Mises advocated protecting natural rights - even though he doesn't call them that.
There's a deeper argument in all of this which my link in my signature addresses and E.R. and I. Ryan both introduced good posts that bring up the philosophical arguments that exist on such deeper levels but that's not necessary to address at the moment. But if your interested in reading up on those posts any time in the future with all the articles by various other extant philosopher-economists that address these deeper concerns I linked them. I would read through the threads, not just the OP's of those threads as more links to various other articles were given in the other posts of those threads. If you want a good starting point as to which articles might be best to read first to help introduce you to the subject, then let me know and I can do that as well.
I don't know how Hume has refuted that there is an intellect (logic) and a reality (universe). The is-ought gap is a false dichotomy when it comes to describing conflicts of scarcity. The is-ought gap is an armchair, ivory tower philosophy. It is a mental abstraction detached from the rest of the world, and there are reasons for me saying this. I'm not making any blanket statements void of intellectual insight.
edit: And before it appears that I know fully Mises attack on natural law yet he uses natural law language, wouldn't mean Mises is a natural law theorist. Here's another article on that point that I found sensible.
Thank you, everyone.
wilderness:I don't know how Hume has refuted that there is an intellect (logic) and a reality (universe). The is-ought gap is a false dichotomy when it comes to describing conflicts of scarcity. The is-ought gap is an armchair, ivory tower philosophy. It is a mental abstraction detached from the rest of the world, and there are reasons for me saying this. I'm not making any blanket statements void of intellectual insight.
It wasn't Hume's goal to refute the intellect and the universe, at least not in his discussion of the is/ought distinction. (I do know that Hume didn't think very highly of the intellect, but for other reasons). The existence of scarcity does not, in and of itself, imply the existence of any moral laws. It definitely makes us want to look for them, but they would have to be found elsewhere. If you can derive a moral law from the existence of scarcity, please show me how this is done. (Don't use teleological language, this is itself embedded with "ought" claims.)
One does not have to resort to Hume's argument (whatever its strengths or weaknesses) to refute Rothbard. Rothbard makes no attempt to prove natural law at all. He doesn't even make reference to other alleged proofs. He states 'some people claim that man has no nature' and then moves on acting as though they did. As though making facetious comments is some kind of demonstration.
'Natural law' is fine in the sense of epistemic and procedural norms combined with market and social emergence of customary law. As some sort of moral dictate, it is gibberish. I take de Jasay's position, that 'justice' and 'morality' are two different concepts, and are confused to the peril of both.
Rothbard was a decent economist, he was a mediocre philosopher.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Liberté:Rothbard was a decent economist, he was a mediocre philosopher.
I agree with the second half of that statement. What do you have against him as an economist?
Jesse: Liberté:Rothbard was a decent economist, he was a mediocre philosopher. I agree with the second half of that statement. What do you have against him as an economist?
Nothing, in particular. I said he was decent. But he was no Mises.
Liberté:Nothing, in particular. I said he was decent. But he was no Mises.
Fair enough, but that seems like quite a high standard. Mises was the economist par excellence, but Rothbard was still a great economist.
Jesse:Thank you, everyone. wilderness:I don't know how Hume has refuted that there is an intellect (logic) and a reality (universe). The is-ought gap is a false dichotomy when it comes to describing conflicts of scarcity. The is-ought gap is an armchair, ivory tower philosophy. It is a mental abstraction detached from the rest of the world, and there are reasons for me saying this. I'm not making any blanket statements void of intellectual insight. It wasn't Hume's goal to refute the intellect and the universe, at least not in his discussion of the is/ought distinction. (I do know that Hume didn't think very highly of the intellect, but for other reasons). The existence of scarcity does not, in and of itself, imply the existence of any moral laws. It definitely makes us want to look for them, but they would have to be found elsewhere. If you can derive a moral law from the existence of scarcity, please show me how this is done. (Don't use teleological language, this is itself embedded with "ought" claims.)
All I'm saying is there are conflicts of scarcity. Person A wants scarce economic good X. Person B wants scarce economic good X. A judgment will be made no matter what over who will get X. The judgment will involve either Person A, B, and their individual education background (meaning almost an infinite amount of people that have contributed to the knowledge base of human beings for as long as they have existed on this earth thus that includes person A and B). Person A and B will either fight for X or join the free market, meaning, peaceful exchange. But Person A and B will not simply come to this conclusion out of thin air as it takes a knowledge base provided to them to be able to make these judgments of value. It is purely descriptive until somebody has to make the decision. In the real world there is always a decision made. Who will get X? The is-ought can't decide who gets X. It will note that either A or B got X by a particular mean. In the end they do decide and somebody of an is-ought can take notes on whether A or B got X but the is-ought is void of intellectual decision making skills. The is-ought fails to adjust to the fact that A or B makes a judgment and they do end up deciding to resolve the conflict of scarcity over who gets X.
Liberté:Rothbard makes no attempt to prove natural law at all.
Again, why does a person need to logically deduce a proof that intellect and reality exist? It's not necessary as it is self-evident that the intellect comprehends reality.
wilderness: Liberté:Rothbard makes no attempt to prove natural law at all. Again, why does a person need to logically deduce a proof that intellect and reality exist? It's not necessary as it is self-evident that the intellect comprehends reality.
Which has absolutely zero to do with normativity.
Liberté: wilderness: Liberté:Rothbard makes no attempt to prove natural law at all. Again, why does a person need to logically deduce a proof that intellect and reality exist? It's not necessary as it is self-evident that the intellect comprehends reality. Which has absolutely zero to do with normativity.
I only defined natural law and where it comes from. How a decision is made over scarcity having absolutely nothing to do with the individuals involved having an intellect and there being a reality outside of the intellect which thereby involves a scarce item alludes me. Yet you set it up that way so you explain.
Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives.
I'm not having this debate with you again, Wilderness. I don't care what you think.
Liberté:Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives. I'm not having this debate with you again, Wilderness. I don't care what you think.
Of course scarcity has everything to do with property and potential arguments/conflicts.
It's only an argument if I care what you think, though. If everything is my property to do with as I can, then there is no 'dispute'. No normatives are implied whatsoever. Any actual disputes are only disputes over survivable terms we come to rest upon because we fear the power of other people, direct or indirect. It does not mean I 'ought not' steal from you, nor that because I don't take 'your' money that I need regard it as 'yours'.
Seriously, you are just jumping straight into space from underground. There is no connexion between the existence of valuing entities in an environemnt of scarce resources and moral norms; except that moral norms - just like values - are arbitrary and can not be justified.
Liberté:Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives.
Agreed.
Liberté:It's only an argument if I care what you think, though. If everything is my property to do with as I can, then there is no 'dispute'.
Obviously everything isn't your property cause I exist and you exist and heck there's other people in the world too. You can dispute that but you can't control other people. You could potentially kill them all and after that then who cares?
Liberté:Any actual disputes are only disputes over survivable terms we come to rest upon because we fear the power of other people, direct or indirect. It does not mean I 'ought not' steal from you, nor that because I don't take 'your' money that I need regard it as 'yours'.
It really doesn't matter if you don't think you ought to not steal or take my money. What matters is if you try, then I'll make a judgment of value to stop you. Conflict of scarcity. Your judgment versus my judgment. Mine and thine. Who wins? That's the conflict of scarcity and natural law is absolutely involved unless you want to make the case that humans don't have an intellect and there isn't a reality outside of the intellect. I'll undoubtedly be waiting forever for that argument to arise.
Liberté:Seriously, you are just jumping straight into space from underground. There is no connexion between the existence of valuing entities in an environemnt of scarce resources and moral norms; except that moral norms - just like values - are arbitrary and can not be justified.
They are justified in the real world not in some ivory tower detached from real life action that you're trying to pass off here. In term of how everyday living happens either people fight, negotiate, or argue over scarcity. People affirm their justifications by their very actions. It's a range of ordinal values that each individual will absolutely decide upon with input from any other people involved.
Jumping straight into space from underground is the only way passions acknowledge through the eyes that indeed, yes, there is actually a universe here.
Jesse: Liberté:Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives. Agreed.
Jesse you are scarce.
Can you control the molecular structure of your shoes?I'll even grant you that, and rephrase: there is my property, and there are obstacles. To the extent I can make a thing do what I want, it is my property (it is under my control, bent to my purposes). This includes people. A 'contract' is no less a means of control than a stick or a gun. I do whatever suits my ends, without regard for anybody's so-called 'rights'. The only 'right' that matters is what is 'right' for me - what I please to do.
It really doesn't matter if you don't think you ought to not steal or take my money. What matters is if you try, then I'll make a judgment of value to stop you. Conflict of scarcity. Your judgment versus my judgment. Mine and thine. Who wins? That's the conflict of scarcity and natural law is absolutely involved unless you want to make the case that humans don't have an intellect and there isn't a reality outside of the intellect.
This is absolute gibberish. Nothing about the fact of cognitive patterns in a particular objects implies I ought to concern myself with it, debate with it, or consider its desires. Who wins? Whoever does. I win if I can get it under my control - and if you win, you are the stronger, but I recognize no 'right' you have to it.
You basically make no sense.
wilderness: Jesse: Liberté:Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives. Agreed. Jesse you are scarce.
That's true... but, completely irrelevant.
Liberté:You basically make no sense.
Liberte, I 100% agree with you regarding this topic, but please let's not be harsh.
Liberté: Obviously everything isn't your property cause I exist and you exist and heck there's other people in the world too. You can dispute that but you can't control other people. You could potentially kill them all and after that then who cares? Can you control the molecular structure of your shoes?
Can you control the molecular structure of your shoes?
If I burn them. Is this a pertinent question?
Liberté: I'll even grant you that, and rephrase: there is my property, and there are obstacles. To the extent I can make a thing do what I want, it is my property (it is under my control, bent to my purposes). This includes people. A 'contract' is no less a means of control than a stick or a gun. I do whatever suits my ends, without regard for anybody's so-called 'rights'. The only 'right' that matters is what is 'right' for me - what I please to do.
I'll even grant you that, and rephrase: there is my property, and there are obstacles. To the extent I can make a thing do what I want, it is my property (it is under my control, bent to my purposes). This includes people. A 'contract' is no less a means of control than a stick or a gun. I do whatever suits my ends, without regard for anybody's so-called 'rights'. The only 'right' that matters is what is 'right' for me - what I please to do.
Ok. so what? Try it. I guess in no fewer words you'd rather choose fight. Still a conflict of scarcity.
Liberté: It really doesn't matter if you don't think you ought to not steal or take my money. What matters is if you try, then I'll make a judgment of value to stop you. Conflict of scarcity. Your judgment versus my judgment. Mine and thine. Who wins? That's the conflict of scarcity and natural law is absolutely involved unless you want to make the case that humans don't have an intellect and there isn't a reality outside of the intellect. This is absolute gibberish. Nothing about the fact of cognitive patterns in a particular objects implies I ought to concern myself with it, debate with it, or consider its desires. Who wins? Whoever does. I win if I can get it under my control - and if you win, you are the stronger, but I recognize no 'right' you have to it.
I recognize I do have a right to have it. Again so what? You're trying to argue against a value judgment. My value judgment. So if you want to fight over the scarce item, then it's your call. Cause I'm willing to let you go if you leave me be.
Since you aren't willing to acknowledge my existence which is easily perceptible by the senses being that I appear even on the gross (definition 4) level of reality, would I really count on you to go the extra intellectual and heartfelt mile and acknowledge what is even more subtle such as my sensibilities?
Jesse: wilderness: Jesse: Liberté:Scarcity of resources in absolutely no way implies normatives. Agreed. Jesse you are scarce. That's true... but, completely irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Are you trying to say that you don't make judgments of value? Explain.
Grayson Lilburne: Liberté:You basically make no sense. Liberte, I 100% agree with you regarding this topic, but please let's not be harsh.
So, both of you disagree with Hoppe's argumentation ethics?
Osterfeld's fourth objection to my article states that my argument is an instance of ethical naturalism, but that I then seem to fall afoul of the naturalistic fallacy of deriving an "ought" from an "is." I am willing to accept the first part of this proposition but not the second. What I offer is an entirely value-free system of ethics. I remain exclusively in the realm of is-statements and nowhere try to drive an "ought" from an "is." The structure of my argument is this: (a) justification is propositional or argumentative (a priori true is-statement); (b) argumentation presupposes the recognition of the private property ethic (a priori true is-statement); (c) no deviation from a private property ethic can be justified argumentatively (a priori true is statement). Thus, my refutation of all socialist ethics is a purely cognitive one. And that Rawls or other socialists may still advocate such ethics is completely beside the point. That one plus one equals two does not rule out the possibility that someone says it is three, or that one ought not attempt to make one plus one equal three the arithmetic law of the land. But all this does not affect the fact that one plus one still is two. In strict analogy to this, I "only" claim to prove that whatever Rawls or other socialists say is false, and can be understood as such by all intellectually competent and honest men. It does not change the fact that incompetence or dishonesty and evil still may exist and may even prevail over truth and justice.
Kinsella's estoppel reformulation is really common-sensical. I've asked this before of skeptics: If Hoppe is wrong, is "(one having a right to) do unto others (property rights violators) as they do unto you" somehow inferior as a political ideology to Libertay's dictatorial lunacy or whatever Lilburne prescribes?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
wilderness:Why is it irrelevant? Are you trying to say that you don't make judgments of value? Explain.
Why is it relevant? Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how it relates to our discussion of whether scarcity implies normative ethics.
E. R. Olovetto:If Hoppe is wrong, is "(one having a right to) do unto others (property rights violators) as they do unto you" somehow inferior as a political ideology to Libertay's dictatorial lunacy or whatever Lilburne prescribes?
Lilburne agrees 100% with Liberte so that's known. Since Liberte doesn't even recognize the founding act of private property, economic action isn't even a consideration in that possible world.
Jesse: wilderness:Why is it irrelevant? Are you trying to say that you don't make judgments of value? Explain. Why is it relevant? Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how it relates to our discussion of whether scarcity implies normative ethics.
There is scarcity in the world. It's the hallmark of Austrian economics, natural law, and libertarian philosophy - pick your label - but scarcity is a fact. Now how will such scarcity be decided upon? Who gets it?
Maybe ask me a specific question so I know where you are coming from. In that way I'll be able to communicate what I'm saying to you better because I'll know what is familiar terminology to you. It's not unusual to come across a person that at first seems so out there but I sometimes think that's only because it's a subject that might not be as familiar to the other person. I've listened to discussions between astronomers before or even car mechanics and sometimes I haven't a clue what they mean. I mean that's something we can agree on, maybe? So ask about something that might not be coming across very well. Something I'm not, at the moment, sounding clear on. Sound like a plan?
wilderness:Lilburne agrees 100% with Liberte so that's known.
I meant with regard to the Hume/Rothbard issue, not with regard to any particular political program Liberte favors.
Grayson Lilburne: wilderness:Lilburne agrees 100% with Liberte so that's known. I meant with regard to the Hume/Rothbard issue, not with regard to any particular political program Liberte favors.
So, can you answer my question or offer your refutation of Hoppe supposedly solving the Humean Problem?
She never resorted to Hume so there was never a Hume/Rothbard issue with her. She made that clear in her first post in this thread.
wilderness: Grayson Lilburne: wilderness:Lilburne agrees 100% with Liberte so that's known. I meant with regard to the Hume/Rothbard issue, not with regard to any particular political program Liberte favors. She never resorted to Hume so there was never a Hume/Rothbard issue with her. She made that clear in her first post in this thread.
Okay fine, then I agree with her regarding natural rights doctrines being untenable.
E. R. Olovetto: Grayson Lilburne: wilderness:Lilburne agrees 100% with Liberte so that's known. I meant with regard to the Hume/Rothbard issue, not with regard to any particular political program Liberte favors. So, can you answer my question or offer your refutation of Hoppe supposedly solving the Humean Problem?
Refuting Hoppe is too much for me to take on right now. I just popped in to ask Liberte to be nice to wilderness. Jeez.
Grayson Lilburne:Okay fine, then I agree with her regarding natural rights doctrines being untenable.
Thank you for being forthcoming.
As to your argument it is with scarcity. Have fun!
wilderness: Jesse: wilderness:Why is it irrelevant? Are you trying to say that you don't make judgments of value? Explain. Why is it relevant? Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how it relates to our discussion of whether scarcity implies normative ethics. There is scarcity in the world. It's the hallmark of Austrian economics, natural law, and libertarian philosophy - pick your label - but scarcity is a fact. Now how will such scarcity be decided upon? Who gets it? Maybe ask me a specific question so I know where you are coming from. In that way I'll be able to communicate what I'm saying to you better because I'll know what is familiar terminology to you. It's not unusual to come across a person that at first seems so out there but I sometimes think that's only because it's a subject that might not be as familiar to the other person. I've listened to discussions between astronomers before or even car mechanics and sometimes I haven't a clue what they mean. I mean that's something we can agree on, maybe? So ask about something that might not be coming across very well. Something I'm not, at the moment, sounding clear on. Sound like a plan?
Sure. I won't be able to respond again until tomorrow, but here's the question that need to be answered: how does scarcity give rise to normative ethics? I feel like you're sidestepping this question. If you can write it in premise/conclusion format, this would be helpful. I just don't see how the fact that there are a limited number of vacuum cleaners in the world implies a specific method of settling the disputes that arise over them. Scarcity implies disputes, that's it. It says nothing about how we should respond to this fact. Maybe we should institute private property; maybe might should make right. You can't make a decision either way without appealing to an external standard. You can't start an argument in the indicative mood and end in the imperative mood.
Grayson Lilburne:Refuting Hoppe is too much for me to take on right now. I just popped in to ask Liberte to be nice to wilderness. Jeez.
That's valid. No lie.
have a good night
wilderness: Grayson Lilburne:Refuting Hoppe is too much for me to take on right now. I just popped in to ask Liberte to be nice to wilderness. Jeez. That's valid. No lie. have a good night
you too, wil-dy.
It wasn't his task of doing so when he wrote TEOL.
Liberté:He doesn't even make reference to other alleged proofs.
The traditions. He is working in the Aristotelian, neo-Thomistic, Mengerian tradition.
Aristotelian and neo-Thomist.
Liberté:Natural law' is fine in the sense of epistemic and procedural norms combined with market and social emergence of customary law. As some sort of moral dictate, it is gibberish. I take de Jasay's position, that 'justice' and 'morality' are two different concepts, and are confused to the peril of both.
So you don't believe Rothbard distinguished between political ethics & personal ethics?
Jesse:Scarcity implies disputes, that's it. It says nothing about how we should respond to this fact.
I'll grant you this much. Keep in mind though that you can't coherently object to turds being tossed at you when you toss turds. It's a negative proof of what I term "moral-legal" grundnorms rather than an empirical proof of what I term the "ethical-aesthetical". There are certain things that are obviously in line with a process of civilization (what separates men from beasts), i.e. an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable system of property rights as a legal philosophy, and those things that stray from it.
Jesse:How does scarcity give rise to normative ethics?
What do you mean by normative?
I'll explain what it has to do with descriptive ethics, which E.R. provided a quote of pertaining to Hoppe which Rothbard was intellectually kin to.
Demonstrations, ie. argumentation, agreements, and bodily movements, involve ethics when the demonstration or act deals with two or more people, ie. the conduct towards another person. That's basically ethics.
Property is defined as the person and whatever they originally appropriate or homestead. Human action, ie. again demonstrations such as argumentation, agreements, contracts, and bodily movements, are grounded in property because the human in human action is semantically property or in other words, scarcity. To define a human as scarcity or property is a semantics issue so therefore wouldn't take away from the actual argument. It's just a name, but a name that obviously provides meaning. The meaning would stay even if the name didn't.
To put these last two paragraphs together what we find is property is demonstrated by each individual either through argumentation or bodily movements, ie. human action. The question of what is 'mine and thine' or what is 'person A's and person B's'. That is what ethics describes. How that is answered is based on the axiom property and property is an axiom as it is self-evident that ethics involves humans. The conflict over scarcity or property is a conflict over humans. The conflict (or no conflict depends on the context) over scarcity is also a conflict over what humans originally appropriate or homestead which leads into economic goods. Ethics are descriptive in this sense, because this only describes the conflict over scarcity. This assumes that there is conflict over scarcity, but a conflict that is resolved peaceful right off the bat or one that is resolved in violence. In other words, it assumes that property will come into conflict with other property and how that conflict will be resolved is based on an ordinal value scale that all parties involved decide upon. So far still descriptive ethics because I haven't answered who gets the property. It is self-evident that logically person A and B, their starting points, first principles, thus, their axiom is property, in other words, they are individually property. That's the definition. Any conflicts that arise that involve person A and/or B therefore deal with property, ie. scarcity.
Jesse:I feel like you're sidestepping this question. If you can write it in premise/conclusion format, this would be helpful.
Axioms don't involve premise/conclusion formats.
Jesse:I just don't see how the fact that there are a limited number of vacuum cleaners in the world implies a specific method of settling the disputes that arise over them. Scarcity implies disputes, that's it.
Right. Scarcity does imply disputes. Good we agree on that. At least that's out of the way.
Jesse:It says nothing about how we should respond to this fact.
Nobody has said anybody should respond in any particular way as of this moment. Unless of course, it became person, then the individual's that made this personal will provide their individual judgment of value. That might be what's hanging you up. Maybe not.
But this is exactly the point I highlighted in my first post. Nobody technically can say how anybody should act unless they either coerce them or the person chooses to go along with them. Where I find the is-ought gap lacking is it pretends that ethical decisions are not made but they are always made. Resolutions to scarcity problems are made during any particular exchange. This is why I bring up 'in the real world' as opposed to the ivory tower construct of the is-ought gap that tries to stay out of ethical decisions when obviously in reality people are dealing with each other a trillion times over.
People involve themselves in decisions over what to do with scarcity all the time. Judgments as to how people should respond to each other happen all the time in the real world. Standards are erected everywhere from the price marked at the store and the consumer disagrees or agrees with the price to somebody punches another one in the face so each person in the fight go back and forth dictating how the exchange will end. Even a pacifist or a complete tyrant end up in issues over scarcity and each person is deciding how the scarcity should be exchanged or what will happen with the scarce good. Everybody is judging on everybody and on everything they get their hands on.
Again, nobody says how the scarcity should be resolved until the actual event takes place. Then all parties involved will definitely provide their individually judged values on the scarce good whether that scarce good is a person or an inanimate tangible good. That's all descriptive. I haven't said who exactly should get anything. But begin to apply names of real people involved in the billions upon billions of decisions made over scarcity every day and night and you'll end up with a whole array of answers and outcomes. And this is all based on the axiom of property and human action.
Now of course, personally, I will make my decisions over scarcity as I live in the real world. I will respond in ways that when I go to the store the price is set for me and I can choose the product or not. I will make countless agreements, contracts, economic monetary exchanges, and yes I've been in some fights but that was when I was young or at my old job in the justice field. And if somebody personally confronted me I'm not going to use an ivory tower is-ought remark and say to the other person, "You can't tell me what I ought to do" and then think he or she will obey that especially in light that they picked the fight with me. Of course I'll try to say they ought not to do this to me, but they, as Liberte showed her position, may think they own me and I am their property and they can do to me whatever they feel they ought to. But personally I will not let them. Now this was my own personal response in this last paragraph here in this particular response so I did declare some 'oughts'.
Jesse:Maybe we should institute private property; maybe might should make right.
That's the only ordinal range of value that exists. You draw out here an excellent point that I've been communicating in this thread.
Jesse:You can't make a decision either way without appealing to an external standard.
Not necessarily. Person A's decision happens in the intellect. That's where decisions take place. But those decisions are based not only on knowledge but also interpretations of empirical data (external standards).
Jesse:You can't start an argument in the indicative mood and end in the imperative mood.
I don't know if I did. Define those terms.
Now that it's the next day, I find it convincing to point out that a person who supports Hume would so easily ally with Liberte, ie. a Hitler supporter, which is another reason that the is-ought gap fails to provide any sense of civil justice.
Just so the thread is clear as to Liberte's position, Lilburne's "her" in this quote, would unquestionably revolve around making sure natural rights are untenable due to:
1 -
Liberte:there is my property, and there are obstacles. To the extent I can make a thing do what I want, it is my property (it is under my control, bent to my purposes). This includes people. A 'contract' is no less a means of control than a stick or a gun. I do whatever suits my ends, without regard for anybody's so-called 'rights'. The only 'right' that matters is what is 'right' for me - what I please to do.
2 -
Liberte:I wouldn't vote unless it was for Adolf Hitler. That would tickle me pink.
And that's the only argument Liberte offers as to why she thinks natural rights are "untenable". She attempts to use property, ie. a natural right, as a means in order to make sure natural rights are untenable. Her objective is clearly stated above. She's a run of the mill, what Hazlitt had called, special pleader. I contend these are the only kind of motives that exist to make sure natural rights are untenable - that and - there's always the case of fallible knowledge as to what natural rights are.
Without natural rights there is no economic action, and it is crystal clear as to the class of people that natural law theorists name as to who threaten and violate natural rights and thereby deliver ruin to people's lives and economic conditions: murderers, rapists, thieves, frauds.
Now of course there are also people that don't like to call themselves natural law theorists or don't like to say they abide by natural rights, but they do this in name only and not in actual practice. It's human action I'm referring to. I'm referring to what people actually do which maintains this as a science. Clearly Liberte though is not spelling out in name only but has pointed out how she would like this all to end up as.