Conza88:Completely ignoring the fact that there exists seperate classes; ie. RULERS vs. RULED - doesn't come close to being any kind of coherent & successful strategy for liberty.
Non-argument.
Conza88:And yet so many support it.
Because the thought-leaders of the world do not yet understand economics and how their own interests would be better served by capitalism.
Conza88:Both methods are permissble to alter that perception, economic education - as well as political philosophy, to dismiss either entirely is beyond dumb
One is directly pertinent to the audience's self-interest. The other relies on ideological bias and credulity. The former is therefore far more effective and lasting.
Conza88:Countless others, and I'd contend the majority, find ethical considerations more so.
Mostly as posturing and as a mask for desires. There are a lot more people these days who are enamored by the egalitarian/socialist ethos than the libertarian/individualistic ethos. This is mostly because of the underlying self-interest that most people, due to faulty economic doctrines, think would be better served by an interventionist or socialist economy.
Conza88:Would you support central planning if it was more efficient than freedom?
If central planning were as bountiful as capitalism truly is, and were capitalism as ruinous as central planning truly is, then yes I probably would. I await the inquisitor's fire.
Conza88:Ahh... the exact same applies to Libertarianism.
What do you mean by that?
Conza88:I'll be needing to see your refutation of argumentation ethics some time... No doubt it will be better than the mere "lol" Liberte could muster.
If you were to start a new thread with a summary of the argumentation ethics position, I would respond.
"But the point is that Mises and Hayek's calculation/coordination arguments turned 99.99% of the Marxists into neoclassical economists."
That's not the point at all. What a red herring. Furthermore, it's not wise to simply make up statistics.
"It entirely obliterated their framework"
And yet the growth of statism continued... lol.
"In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time. They have won throughout the 20th century, while the concept of God-given [natural] rights has been almost obliterated. Austerity for the benefit of the next generation won’t get enough votes in a democratic political system. Combine it with a moral argument for natural rights, and the chances of success are greatly enhanced." - Ron Paul
"Talking about the differences between persuasion and coercion simply doesn't convince anyone."
You think that's what I am referring to? Try this. Do you support slavery? Do you think an argument against slavery would convince some people? lol... or do you think appeals to efficiency would do a better job of doing so? Naturally it depends on the style favoured by the listener as to what may be more convincing - combined both these approachs will win the day. But hey.. I'm not the one making the delusional case that we completely dismiss an approach though, am I?
Conza88:And yet the growth of statism continued... lol.
Not nearly as much as it would have had the scientific underpinnings of socialism not been shattered (read Hulsmann's bio for how much it changed the policy atmosphere). Mises' calculation argument very well may have saved innumerable lives.
Conza88:"In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time.
The best antidote against destructive and spurious moralist doctrines is not opposing spurious moralist doctrines. It is the exposure of the spurious natures of the destructive moralist doctrines. Simply ask the socialist moralist, "Why should I give a damn about your value judgments"; there is simply no way the socialist moralist can respond to that without either resorting to twisted sophistry and demagoguery, or casting aside the moralist mask, and get down to the economic questions that really underlie his position.
Conza88: Do you support slavery? Do you think an argument against slavery would convince some people? lol...
People accept double-standards regarding the state if they think it's in their interest to do so.
And yet the growth of stats continued... lol.
Mises directly saved Austria from socialism. He sat down with a leading Austro-Marxist, who was also the prime minister, and convinced him that socialism is impossible. You, on the other hand, can't even convince the likes of Drace, Leviathan, or Novus that capitalism does not equal slavery. So much for your "do you oppose slavery" argument.
I don't mean to be harsh, and I'm not saying that there's no room for a vigorous philosophical defense of freedom. I'm just saying that economics is much more effective in the vast majority of cases.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
"Non-argument."
Non response.
"Because the thought-leaders of the world do not yet understand economics and how their own interests would be better served by capitalism."
Probably because their own interests would not be better served by capitalism. So much for value freedom, haha wow.
Where can these individuals achieve their ends of power in a free society, huh? Where do they get to impose their will on others? How can you possibly contend what their self interests are. You don't think there are people who want power, just for itself? It's not an aphrodisiac?
"One is directly pertinent to the audience's self-interest. The other relies on ideological bias and credulity. The former is therefore far more effective and lasting."
Both can be directly pertinent to the audiences self-interest. Most people don't tend to like getting robbed or coerced. Nor continue to hold the metaphorical gun in their hands, which is aimed at their fellow man, once it has been pointed out to them.
"Mostly as posturing and as a mask for desires. There are a lot more people these days who are enamored by the egalitarian/socialist ethos than the libertarian/individualistic ethos. This is mostly because of the underlying self-interest that most people, due to faulty economic doctrines, think would be better served by an interventionist or socialist economy."
Yeah, thank the state education system for that one. Those that generally adopt egalitarianism / socialism do so out of a sense of justice or idealism. They see oppressors, but blame the wrong concept. Naturally, egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.
"If a population believes that a certain program is moral – i.e. war, welfare, social security and so on – then they may grumble, but they will also roll up their sleeves, get to work and support it no matter what their personal cost. Men will go off to war, mothers will turn their kids over to nannies, people will surrender massive portions of their income and freedom with nary a protest – all in the name of what is good."
"I probably would."
That's a real shame you would prefer coercion to freedom. I agree with Ron Paul, he'd still prefer his liberty.
"What do you mean by that?"
"Invincible."
"If you were to start a new thread with a summary of the argumentation ethics position, I would respond."
I believe you mentioned it in another thread. Where you were asked to do the same. Why not post it there, or here?
"Not nearly as much as it would have had the scientific underpinnings of socialism not been shattered (read Hulsmann's bio for how much it changed the policy atmosphere). Mises' calculation argument very well may have saved innumerable lives."
Yeah I know that. I was talking generally, not specifically about him in his time. That was then & was liberty achieved? What does that have to do with now? Do you advocate the strategy of trying to convince the individuals in power, in Washington to convert to laissez faire policies? You support the think tank approach by the likes of CATO? No? Then what does the above add?
How has it affected the central planners goals - of those in power, at all?
"The best antidote against destructive and spurious moralist doctrines is not opposing spurious moralist doctrines. It is the exposure of the spurious natures of the destructive moralist doctrines. Simply ask the socialist moralist, "Why should I give a damn about your value judgments"; there is simply no way the socialist moralist can respond to that without either resorting to twisted sophistry and demagoguery, or casting aside the moralist mask, and get down to the economic questions that really underlie his position."
You think that would convince them? Interesting. So how I don't think they'll find the nihilism so appealing.
"People accept double-standards regarding the state if they think it's in their interest to do so."
What is your argument against slavery?
Do you believe that people will accept the risk of wrenching social change for the sake of theoretical economic benefits somewhere down the road?
Why do you think people care about economic efficiency? What of those who completely understand the praxeological considerations, and yet persist that state power is the only way to obtain them? What have you to say? Nothing at all?
Grayson Lilburne: Conza88:Would you support central planning if it was more efficient than freedom? If central planning were as bountiful as capitalism truly is, and were capitalism as ruinous as central planning truly is, then yes I probably would. I await the inquisitor's fire.
Conza88: "I probably would." That's a real shame you would prefer coercion to freedom. I agree with Ron Paul, he'd still prefer his liberty.
Conza88:I'd prefer to be a poor freeman, than a rich slave.
Just to be clear, even if that meant committing the rest of humanity to a famine-ridden living hell, and when the alternative (a degree of state power) meant rapidly and ever-increasing prosperity for mankind?
Conza88: This elucidation may help in making my point. It kind of roughly eflects that of the movie Metropolis. There are two types of people (/general) in society, the thinkers (the only thing that matters is what they consider works, pragmatism etc.) and those with a heart (only thing that matters is what they consider is good, justice etc.). There are three approachs that are possible: Focusing only on what "works" (eg. socialism cannot calculate) Focusing only on what is "good" (eg. slavery is bad) A combination of both.
This elucidation may help in making my point. It kind of roughly eflects that of the movie Metropolis. There are two types of people (/general) in society, the thinkers (the only thing that matters is what they consider works, pragmatism etc.) and those with a heart (only thing that matters is what they consider is good, justice etc.).
There are three approachs that are possible:
That's a mischaracterization of the dichotomy before us. "What works" and "what is good" are inextricably bound up. The very teleological meaning of "works" implies ends, values, and conceptions of "the good". The difference between the non-moralist libertarian and the moralist libertarian isn't that the former is "all head, and no heart". The difference is an incorrect notion in the head of the latter.
The non-moralist libertarian, like all men, has personal ends and values; some of these ends and values may even arise out of a conviction that aggression is simply wrong (non-moralist doesn't mean amoral.) The difference is that he, unlike the moralist libertarian, doesn't try to insinuate his ends and values in the psyches of other men through self-righteous condemnation or spurious argumentation. He takes the ends and values of others as given, and, for the sake of achieving his ends (which again, may include personal moral convictions) demonstrates how economic science demonstrates that (except for ascetics and sadists) capitalism is the most effective means for the accomplishment of any individual's ends.
'The non-moralist libertarian, like all men, has personal ends and values; some of these ends and values may even arise out of a conviction that aggression is simply wrong (non-moralist doesn't mean amoral.'
That is a moral claim though, so how can one be non-moralist yet make such claims?
'He takes the ends and values of others as given, and, for the sake of achieving his ends (which again, may include personal moral convictions) demonstrates how economic science demonstrates that (except for ascetics and sadists) capitalism is the most effective means for the accomplishment of any individual's ends.'
I see no major difference between what you have said and what a natural rights theorist would say. You suppose that a human would desire freedom, prosperity and non-violence, that such is a natural state or condition and then use a line of argument to show him/her that it is beneficial to do A or B.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain: 'The non-moralist libertarian, like all men, has personal ends and values; some of these ends and values may even arise out of a conviction that aggression is simply wrong (non-moralist doesn't mean amoral.' That is a moral claim though, so how can one be non-moralist yet make such claims?
Andrew Cain:I see no major difference between what you have said and what a natural rights theorist would say. You suppose that a human would desire freedom, prosperity and non-violence,
By "take ends as given" I mean not trying to change whatever ends other people might have. I don't mean supposing that they have any particular ends (desiring freedom, prosperity, and non-violence).
Andrew Cain:that such is a natural state or condition and then use a line of argument to show him/her that it is beneficial to do A or B.
The "show him/her that it is beneficial to do A or B" bit is a matter for economics and the technical arts and sciences. The natural rights theorist has nothing to add save wishful thinking and rhetoric. As Mises affirmed in Human Action, natural rights is simply rhetorical nonsense.
Lilburne,
You haven't answered my question.
And Mises never addressed the natural rights of the Aristotle-Thomist tradition as far as I can find anywhere. You pulled that quote in Human Action up for me before but it was obvious for anybody with the knowledge to perceive he was talking about Thomas Hobbes and Spinoza's strawman version. So all you do is revert to the authority of Mises without taking the time to know the in's and out's on this subject, it continually appears to me as to that is the case, as you only continue to strawman on this one issue for months on end. It prevents the discussion from being fruitful. I've already shown you where Mises wrote in "Liberalism" how natural rights are to be protected. He doesn't call them that, but what is said not in name yet in practice (Mises: 'protect life, liberty, health, and private property') is still natural rights none-the-less. And we all know, according to you, that Mises is allowed to talk about morals, bad, good, evil, wrong, etc.... but nobody else is allowed even if they mean it in a similar way as Mises does. I really could use a more in-depth acknowledgment on your part as to what's happening instead of stonewalling philosophical discourse.
"Lilburne,
...instead of stonewalling philosophical discourse."
Wilderness,
I admire your fervor for ideas, and I am so grateful for your vast improvement in civility of late, but neither you, nor anybody else, is entitled to an answer for every single one of your questions.
You, in thinking that Mises was strawmanning natural rights, and that he was actually, in essence, for natural rights, are laboring under a severe misconception. But thankfully you do not seem to share that misconception with very many others. So I do not regard diving into a debate regarding that specific issue as worthwhile.
The specific misconceptions promoted by Conza and Andrew on the other hand are widely held by a great many libertarians, which is why I choose to address them.
Lilburne:I admire your fervor for ideas, and I am so grateful for your vast improvement in civility of late, but neither you, nor anybody else, is entitled to an answer for every single one of your questions.
I never thought I was entitled to anything. I would rather you not assume some things. But ok, you don't feel like answering them. There is a difference between personal stonewalling and philosophical stonewalling so please don't take things the wrong way. Yet this isn't really that important. So let's move on from that.
Lilburne:You, in thinking that Mises was strawmanning natural rights, and that he was actually, in essence, for natural rights, are laboring under a severe misconception. But thankfully you do not seem to share that misconception with very many others. So I do not regard diving into a debate regarding that specific issue as worthwhile.
You are only furthering misconceptions on this subject. I never said he was for natural rights. I said he wrote about 'protecting life, liberty, health, and private property'. Those are what natural rights are. Was Mises contradicting himself? Or was he not knowledgeable as to what natural rights are in the A-T tradition? I think these are important questions that you side-step. There is a distinction in Mises being for natural rights and one in which he mentions them but not in name. And it's not important to pull Mises into the natural law theorist circle. That has never been my intention and I don't need to. It's not vital for anything.
Yes Mises strawmans natural law and natural rights that much is a given as even that paper you gave me, in which I read by Rothbard addressing Professor Gonce, Rothbard notes that Mises actually never argues against A-T natural law. Give me one article or quote that has Mises make an actual substantiated argument against A-T natural law. Do I need to assume the "rhetorical non-sense" that you mention doesn't belong in the natural rights theorist camp as you profess, but actually sit's well with Mises' unevidenced rhetoric? And it doesn't even matter who Mises directed words "rhetoric nonsense" towards on this point. As I already await something of substance in which Mises actually addresses natural law of A-T. Maybe you could if Mises didn't instead of just saying "rhetorical non-sense". It's that called ironic when it comes to argumentation? Cain made substantial points in regards to A to B which is abundantly discussed throughtout the literature and you're only rebuttal is "wishful thinking... rhetorical non-sense". Isn't that the ironic part?
It is affirmable that with the knowledgable of A-T natural law that quotes you've provided of Mises in the past show only Hobbes and Spinoza. There's more to this than I think you are willing to consider. It's not that Mises is for natural law or natural rights. I didn't say that, but you like to pull the discussion back to that for some reason. On top of that, I'm not asking you to consider that either. What I did ask of you though was in a previous post but you don't want to answer it. Ok.
As to being objective on your part. Wouldn't you on reflection find it also to be amazing how you side with some people that advocate dictators and Imperial empowerment, but then are not willing to side with those that advocate protecting innocent people? It's not a question of your personal preferences. It's a slight of hand non-objective method that you say is being objective when it's actually not. That is for you to consider. If you're not willing to get involved in political argumentation and would rather discuss economics, then why don't you?
Lilburne:The specific misconceptions promoted by Conza and Andrew on the other hand are widely held by a great many libertarians, which is why I choose to address them.
Well we all think everybody is misconceptualizing everybody else. You are not left out of that. That's why I take the approach I do which is pointing out what you seem to over-arch when it's not really there. I addressed what I see as your misconceptions on the subject. You say I'm trying to pull Mises into the natural law camp and that is your only rebuttal. Yet I have numerous times before, as I have already said in this post and I'll say again. It's not that I'm considering Mises a natural law theorist. I think you're confusing a surface arrangement for something I'm pointing out that is much deeper. It's definitely not what you're saying though because I'm telling you right now - it's not. Mises isn't a natural law theorist. You're not a natural law theorist. That's obvious. Now let's consider what I'm actually saying as Rothbard in that very paper you gave me to read also states. Mises doesn't address natural law in the A-T tradition. On top of that Mises points out that a liberal is to protect what natural law theorists call natural rights. It's a semantics issue on that point. On the other point of Mises not addressing natural law of the A-T tradition but you conflate it to be is where I think it would helpful of you to consider. I've also asked of you in this post earlier if you can provide a Mises refutation of natural law other than his rhetorical flourish (which isn't even directed at the A-T natural law theorists), then it would be grand. That would help affirm what you're saying instead of me having to take what you say on faith. Show me the evidence. I have shown you plenty of evidence for what I'm saying to the thousandth. I would like for you to show something of Mises had actually said and where he actually refutes natural law theorist of the A-T tradition. I'm beginning to think you are conflating your own philosophy with Mises.
I want to add one more thing. I'm not confining Mises is addressing ONLY Hobbes and Spinoza's version. He also in the book "Socialism" and in this book "Anti-Capitalist Mentality", the two thus far, that I've come across in which Mises addresses nature or natural or natural law. He doesn't only say natural law has to do with those two people's version but he also points out Marxist versions of what is natural. He does so in "Socialism" in regards to people being equal and therefore people are to have equal amounts of things. But that's Marxism. Equality in accord with natural law of A-T has only meant equal before the law. Meaning that's what a just effort would be. A fair trial. Innocent until proven guility. And so forth. Here's Mises in the A-C Mentality book:
"The worst of all these delusions is the idea that “nature” has bestowed upon every man certain rights. According to this doctrine nature is openhanded toward every child born. There is plenty of everything for everybody. Consequently, everyone has a fair inalienable claim against all his fellowmen and against society that he should get the full portion which nature has allotted to him. The eternal laws of natural and divine justice require that nobody should appropriate to himself what by rights belongs to other people. The poor are needy only because unjust people have deprived them of their birthright. It is the task of the church and the secular authorities to prevent such spoliation and to make all people prosperous.
Every word of this doctrine is false. Nature is not bountiful but stingy." - Mises.
Here's talking about scarcity here. He's arguing against those, which are socialist, who profess that nature is not scarce and there are only poor people due to unjust people. That's Marxist rhetoric that Mises handly addresses. That's not A-T natural law theorizing that Mises is referring to.
It would be great of you to point out where Mises actually takes on and argues the natural law of A-T. I think you are conflating yours with his. The utilitarian support of Mises in accord with Jeremeny Bentham that Mises himself references numerous times in his books has already been discussed before in your conflation. I believe, thus far, it is happening here too. In part, you're correct. Mises isn't a natural law theorist. But I have never said he was so you're only providing me with knowledge that I already have.
- thank you
Wouldn't you on reflection find it also to be amazing how you side with some people that advocate dictators and Imperial empowerment, but then are not willing to side with those that advocate protecting innocent people?
The quest for truth and soundness of thought is not a team sport.
If you're not willing to get involved in political argumentation and would rather discuss economics, then why don't you?
I do discuss economic theory. And I'm not against political argumentation as such, only moralist political argumentation.
I would like for you to show something of Mises had actually said and where he actually refutes natural law theorist of the A-T tradition. I'm beginning to think you are conflating your own philosophy with Mises.
"The term "natural law" has been claimed by various schools of philosophy and jurisprudence. Many doctrines have appealed to nature in order to provide a justification for their postulates. Many manifestly spurious theses have been advanced under the label of natural law. It was not difficult to explode the fallacies common to most of these lines of thought. And it is no wonder that many thinkers become suspicious as soon as natural law is referred to(...)
It is useless to emphasize that nature is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Nature does not clearly reveal its plans and intentions to man. Thus the appeal to natural law does not settle the dispute. It merely substitutes dissent concerning the interpretation of natural law for dissenting judgments of value."
Mises, Theory and History
"Various schools of thought parading under the pompous names of philosophy of law and political science indulge in futile and empty brooding over the delimitation of the functions of government. Starting from purely arbitrary assumptions concerning allegedly eternal and absolute values and perennial justice, they arrogate to themselves the office of the supreme judge of earthly affairs. They misconstrue their own arbitrary value judgments derived from intuition as the voice of the Almighty or of the nature of things.
There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.
From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement.(...)
The problem of interventionism is not a problem of the correct delimitation of the "natural," "just," and "proper" tasks of state and government. The issue is: How does a system of interventionism work? Can it realize those ends which people, in resorting to it, want to attain?"
Mises, Human Action
1 - That quote doesn't refer to natural law of A-T theorist. Though Mises refers to 'nature' not being able to tell man what is 'right or wrong', Mises doesn't address what in A-T is understood. Man is of nature. The value of judgments of man happen in nature, ie. reality. It is why within the tradition nature in terms of natural law of human nature has also been defined as reason. Or as others have put natural law to mean as: the intellectual comprehension of reality. Even Rothbard and many other philsophers such as Barry Smith, Maki, Hoppe, etc.... take 'judgments of value' as a given. They are praxeologists of a different kind. Nobody questions that. Ok. So (1) doesn't address that.
2 - That quote is Hobbes and Spinoza's version of natural law. The bolded part doesn't help because it is tied in the rest of the quote you provided with Hobbes and Spinoza's natural law.
On a broad general notion, that Mises doesn't address, but I will here is, is that what 'the nature of things' means is Aristotelian. Yet that phrase means is 'the definition of this is'. It doesn't say who's definition or pertaining to what, etc..., it is only a generic phrase.
3 - "From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement.(...)"
This is very true. And it does address natural law of the A-T tradition. Yet what Mises doesn't fully address is what natural law theorist mean in reference to natural law. The arbitariness is only Mises referring to the use of words. It is therefore a semantics issue because Mises doesn't address how natural law theorist know what human nature is and justice pertaining to private property, ie. logic, intellect. Mises is arguing against the word natural law in that quote but not the substance. Does an individual abandon the terms capitalism, free market, or liberal because those terms are caught up debates in which capitalism is considered exploitation by some people or the free market causes economic crises or a liberal is usually thought of as a Marxist now-a-days? I would rather maintain the substance instead of trivializing what is actually meant to the backburner and diverting the philosophical discourse into a semantics turf war, maybe you as well are with me on this?
I had already given you the definition of natural law in accord with A-T. It is grounded in logic. It is why when natural law is discussed pertaining to natural law of human nature it is an effort to know what human nature entails. It is a semantics bumbling that natural law has referred to so many things over the centuries. Man is not living in a vacuum but is part of nature. It is a holistic concept. But if Mises had addressed the substance and not just the semantic turmoil, then he would only be self-refuting because if human nature can't be known in any formal logical sense then where does that leave praxeology?
4 - The interventionism naturally deducts to socialism Yes. Mises showed the impossibility of where interventionalism can naturally lead to if the policies are not changed. Though of course Mises wouldn't say "natural". But if the substance and not the names/semantics is addressed then common ground is struck more than is given credit. Mises was a liberal after all, so Mises saying 'protect life, liberty, health, and private property' is not something natural law theorist of A-T quarrel with but actually maintain.
It is helpful for any one person to know the substance of any argument and not rely only on semantics to reach into what is actually meant.
- thanks.
moralism |ˈmôrəˌlizəm; ˈmär-|nounthe practice of moralizing, esp. showing a tendency to make judgments about others' morality
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
EO:Instead of round 15 of quote battles with wilderness over "natural law", I'd still like to see your critique of Hoppe's argumentation ethics Lilburne. Mises isn't god and he is wrong on some things. Wilderness is right in differentiating between the natural law Mises talked about and the "rational natural law". I don't find the term "natural law" useful except in this type of historical analysis.
1 - Right. It's a historical semantics quibble that Lilburne hasn't been able to actually avoid in order to "expand on" what is "right there before us". I affirm this. There's so much literature available that I know you and some others have delved into that is very interesting, ie. Barry Smith's work, Franz Brentano, Carl Menger, Uskali Maki, etc.... Lilburne hasn't been able to demonstrate by the acts of his posts that he is referring to substance. He is stuck on semantics.
I don't throw around natural law or natural rights all the time either because it's easier in discussions to clear up past semantic hang-ups that others may hold and discuss subjects in other ways. It is philosophic, ie. truth-finding, by any person to think about the substance and not the semantics. That's a general generic notion. I have yet to see a Mises refutation of the A-T natural law. And I haven't seen Lilburne demonstrate it either other than Lilburne using a Mises quote for unevidential rhetoric, ie. wishful thinking, non-sense. He's lastest post in suggesting it is "lazy" of others to not post on a subject are simply additional unfounded assertions. To clear things up, it is useful to know that Lilburne is conflating his beliefs with Mises philosophy as no posts of Lilburne during this discussion point otherwise.
Lastly on this point, I know Lilburne mentions something akin to 'luckily nobody thinks what I'm saying', yet, that's not true, not even if the reference point was solely the forum. I'm learning about this by numerous philosophers and economists that are alive today who focus on this subject. There's also some that have died that provide insight. I've given numerous links to these economist-philosophers that have ties to the Mises Institute, as well as, others that discuss this subject directly from universities in various countries, though, they may not discuss Mises directly. Some do, but some don't. And further, it's not solely about particular individuals who focus on this subject, but the general idea that is abundantly available: axiom. My original post/thread linked below that I made today gets into this more, but a lot of my large original posts/threads within the last couple months have disseminated this knowledge in the forum in addition.
2 - Secondly on another particular subject, I'm wondering how Lilburne suspects to have any economic action the way Mises defines it without the founding act of private property. Since Lilburne says 'by any means necessary' is this self-refuting when economic action itself is initialized by and maintained by the founding act of private property and the natural evolution, ie. prosperity, that stems from this that Mises had wrote about in depth?
P.S. By the way E.O., Lilburne did post back to you, so, the picture was spot on. If anybody knows what argumentation ethics is, then they'll understand. filc had a great post if anybody is looking for more details. I'd like to see Lilburne write a proposition concerning human action. I completely acknowledge human action so I wonder if anybody else can see what's missing in asking for a proposition concerning human action.
P.S.S. E.O I made another post referring to some things that includes phenomenology. Here's the link. I included a very interesting book with link direct to free pdf by a Josef Seifert. Post link here.
"I affirm assert this. Lilburne hasn't been able to demonstrate by the acts of his posts that he is referring to substance. He is stuck on semantics."
ftfy
"I have yet to see a Mises refutation of the A-T natural law."
I gave you two; you just didn't accept them.
"And I haven't seen Lilburne demonstrate it either other than Lilburne using a Mises quote for unevidential rhetoric, ie. wishful thinking, non-sense."
Over the past three quarters of a year I've written extensively on the incoherence of natural law doctrine. It's only recently that I've begun to quote Mises in support of my position. And, still, no NR proponent has been able to directly answer the questions I raised 8 months ago:
"I don't know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula: __ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, [...] therefore __ should __. But how can any deductive argument like this derive a "should" from an "is"? For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense? Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?"
"I don't know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula:
__ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, [...] therefore __ should __.
But how can any deductive argument like this derive a "should" from an "is"?
For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense?
Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?"
"I'm wondering how Lilburne suspects to have any economic action the way Mises defines it without the founding act of private property. "
Economic action (market activity) is indeed impossible without private property. But that is a matter of fact, not value.
" By the way E.O., Lilburne did post back to you, so, the picture was spot on. "
How does the conclusion follow from the premise?
"I'd like to see Lilburne write a proposition concerning human action. I completely acknowledge human action so I wonder if anybody else can see what's missing in asking for a proposition concerning human action."
What are you talking about?
Grayson Lilburne: "I don't know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula: __ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, [...] therefore __ should __. But how can any deductive argument like this derive a "should" from an "is"? For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense? Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?"
Excellent, excellent, excellent. The way that the people on this thread are circumventing this question is quite astonishing. They cannot answer it. It cannot be answered. It's a logical issue: a conclusion cannot contain terms that are not contained in the premises. Good luck trying to convince these people of this.
I Samuel 8
wilderness:"I affirm assert this. Lilburne hasn't been able to demonstrate by the acts of his posts that he is referring to substance. He is stuck on semantics."
Lilburne:ftfy
I have no idea what "ftfy" means. And you're crossing out of "affirm" and inserting "assert" isn't valid. I'm not sure if you know what I mean by "affirm". Affirm philsophically means "yes". I was simply agreeing with E.O. So now I'm not allowed to "agree"? In your eyes I have to "assert"? Surely you don't mean this. That is a fine example of not getting to know substance and responding only to names.
wilderness:"I have yet to see a Mises refutation of the A-T natural law."
Lilburne:I gave you two; you just didn't accept them.
Semantics quibble again. I defined what Mises was referring to. It's not as if I'm picking this out of thin air. It's knowledge based reasoning I'm using deferring to my research on the subject. You're point here isn't valid. Why are you not willing to know what those quotes mean instead focus on the semantics?
wilderness:"And I haven't seen Lilburne demonstrate it either other than Lilburne using a Mises quote for unevidential rhetoric, ie. wishful thinking, non-sense."
Lilburne:Over the past three quarters of a year I've written extensively on the incoherence of natural law doctrine. It's only recently that I've begun to quote Mises in support of my position. And, still, no NR proponent has been able to directly answer the questions I raised 8 months ago:
Mises isn't referring to A-T natural law. The quotes are invalid. You're strawmanning due to philsophical ignorance. And since I've said this before to you, then it is a valid philosophical absurdity that you are demonstrating. This isn't name calling. It's philosophical jargon with specific meanings identified and defined in various philosophical books including "Intro. to Logic" books. I feel the need to point this out to you because you usually take these things too personally instead of focusing on the philosophical argumentation attempt.
Let me see what you've been wondering. Keep in mind you're asking in a forum full of some people who are not experts on the subject, me included. It takes dedication and years of research and I've only begun to figure out what's happening. What I do know is: the debate isn't over. To think otherwise is a pipe-dream as extant philosopher-economists that I read on the subject make clear. Sometimes you ask general questions that whole books cover, but I'll see what I can do:
Lilburne: "I don't know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula: __ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, [...] therefore __ should __. But how can any deductive argument like this derive a "should" from an "is"? For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense? Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?"
Hoppe makes this very clear. So does Aristotle, phemenologists, and others that adhere to a philosophical pursuit called realism. You want to pull the debate into is/ought. You want the debate on your terms. You assume that there involves a "should" divided from an is. To clear this up I will need to know what you mean by "is" and what you mean by "ought". And keep in mind praxeology.
wilderness:"I'm wondering how Lilburne suspects to have any economic action the way Mises defines it without the founding act of private property. "
Lilburne:Economic action (market activity) is indeed impossible without private property. But that is a matter of fact, not value.
Yes, finally. You admit private property "is". Solves the is/ought problem. But that's giving my knowledge, I need you to answer those questions above in order to get your knowledge so we can be on the same page. Also I recommend you read filc's post I linked above that goes over this in detail. Remember Rothbard and Hoppe are praxeologists. Human action is an axiom.
wilderness:" By the way E.O., Lilburne did post back to you, so, the picture was spot on. "
Lilburne:How does the conclusion follow from the premise?
You made a post, meaning, the post was a response and it included propositions and terms. You negatively demonstrated argumentation ethics by doing that.
wilderness:"I'd like to see Lilburne write a proposition concerning human action. I completely acknowledge human action so I wonder if anybody else can see what's missing in asking for a proposition concerning human action."
Lilburne:What are you talking about?
Well can you? Can you write a proposition concerning human action?
Jesse:Excellent, excellent, excellent. The way that the people on this thread are circumventing this question is quite astonishing. They cannot answer it. It cannot be answered. It's a logical issue: a conclusion cannot contain terms that are not contained in the premises. Good luck trying to convince these people of this.
It's a strawman. It's dictating to my philosopical position that it "has" to include the "should". The premise is analytical in nature, detached from the subject at hand.
Then why don't you answer it?
Because to do that would shift the discussion. It's a red herring.
You're assuming, as I've mentioned to you before and Lilburne countless times before, that you're question is valid. It's not. Why do I need to have a "should" in the conclusion pertaining to "is's" in the first place? I told you. Why would I answer a question that is a strawman to begin with?
Why do I need to have a "should" in the conclusion pertaining to "is's" in the first place?
Because that's what natural law is. And that's what logic demands.
But you can't do it. I know that you can't. So, I understand your attempt to invalidate the question.
Jesse:Because that's what natural law is. And that's what logic demands.
No. That's not what natural is. See. Misconceptions on your part.
And if logic demanded it, then why can't it be done? The axiom I'm starting with doesn't entail such a demand. I guess yours does since it's your comment on what logic demands.
Jesse:But you can't do it.
I never said it could. Yet you said "logic demands it". Your logic demands it, but mine doesn't. And there is no polylogic so pertaining to the subject at hand one of us is red herring the discussion, and it's you as you have yet to demonstrate what the subject under discussion is other than your "demanding" that I answer a question. This is exactly why the question is analytical and detached from the rest of the world. It is not grounded in a particular phenomena other than the fantasy that the question is.
Jesse:I know that you can't. So, I understand your attempt to invalidate the question.
The question is invalid because it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Can we get back to the current discussion please?
Isn't logical positivism amazing? It lets people who are fanatical believers in logical positivism to magically naysay anything they want.
Do you claim to have an axiom (or series of axioms) which can all be formatted "___is___" and which imply a conclusion that can be formatted "___should___"?
Jesse:Do you claim to have an axiom (or series of axioms) which can all be formatted "___is___" and which imply a conclusion that can be formatted "___should___"?
No
"To clear this up I will need to know what you mean by "is" and what you mean by "ought"."
...says the guy who frequently accuses me of semantic quibbling.
"Because to do that would shift the discussion. It's a red herring.
You're assuming, as I've mentioned to you before and Lilburne countless times before, that you're question is valid. It's not. Why do I need to have a "should" in the conclusion pertaining to "is's" in the first place? I told you. Why would I answer a question that is a strawman to begin with?"
As I asked in the original post, if natural rights propositions don't fit the deductive is/ought formula, then what inferential formula does it fit? And are you telling me that natural rights doctrine in the Aristotelean-Thomist tradition is value-free? That it implies no "oughts"/"should"s? If so, then you must be talking about a different Aristotelean-Thomist tradition than the one Rothbard squarely based his ethics on:
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man -- what ends man should pursue" Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty"
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man -- what ends man should pursue"
Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty"
Cool. You don't believe in natural law, then.
Edit: unless you can provide a different method of deriving a "should" from a series of "is" statements. (Which you can't do, thanks to logic. Read what I wrote about conclusions containing terms not in the premises.)
"Isn't logical positivism amazing? It lets people who are fanatical believers in logical positivism to magically naysay anything they want."
Who here is exhibiting a belief in logical positivism, and how so?
wilderness:"To clear this up I will need to know what you mean by "is" and what you mean by "ought"."
Lilburne:...says the guy who frequently accuses me of semantic quibbling.
I really did need to know in order to avoid semantic quibbling.
wilderness:"Because to do that would shift the discussion. It's a red herring. You're assuming, as I've mentioned to you before and Lilburne countless times before, that you're question is valid. It's not. Why do I need to have a "should" in the conclusion pertaining to "is's" in the first place? I told you. Why would I answer a question that is a strawman to begin with?"
Lilburne:As I said in the original post, if natural rights propositions don't fit the deductive is/ought formula, then what inferential formula does it fit?
Inferential is the psychological act of discovering implications. I don't know what you're asking.
Lilburne:And are you telling me that natural rights doctrine in the Aristotelean-Thomist tradition is value-free?
The way you use the term "value-free" yes. Not in terms of Putnam. I needed to know what you mean before I could answer this question and to avoid answering it the way Putnam would.
Lilburne:That it implies no "oughts"/"should"s? If so, then you must be talking about a different Aristotelean-Thomist tradition than the one Rothbard squarely based his ethics on: "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man -- what ends man should pursue" Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty"
No. I'm not. You can't switch paradigms and expect the same answer. I mean I could pull out quotes of Mises saying "evil" this, or "wrong" that, or "good" this. So Mises was a religious fanatic in his economic books? Certainly not, but I've taken the time to know what these different paradigms mean. It's why you need to know what the other person means before you assume. Again, you're letting the name convolute the actual meaning. You have demonstrated nothing but that throughout this current discussion. Why not take a moment to know what is meant instead of assuming? It's ok at first, but to repeat the same demonstration continually is not helping this become fruitful. It's the same exact meaningful underlying event that happened in the discussion in the other thread in reference to socialist theories and debating them. This isn't to be taken lightly. This isn't a state of affairs that is quick and easy. Do not under-estimate the philosophical debate at hand, and all that is involved especially when at times the starting points on both sides appear to be further than nearer. Esuric wrote an excellent post concerning this same exact underlying meaning. It is especially significant here. In essence, Rothbard is using the term "should" different than you are interpreting it. He is referring to it in a praxeologic way.
From “Four Critical Replies,” Appendix to The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Kluwer, 1993)
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 tomake 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.
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 tomake 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.
...
ERO, Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't. Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond. But I don't write monographs on cue.
ERO,
Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't.
Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond.
But I don't write monographs on cue.
...I think my post was a little more substantive than that. I actually thought I was being a bit charitable by not giving you a hard time about some of your previous posts ITT ("non-moralist libertarians"?). I feel a bit embarrased that you are so confused. Let's read my post again.
Everyone does this [moralizing], even those who claim to be apolitical around here. Still there's a not-so-fine line between, "I think drinking harms one's health, therefore I choose not to drink alcohol and you ought not too", and, "I think drinking harms one's health, and you are 20.999 years old, therefore you are not able to rationally choose your actions, and I will compel you under the threat of violence to not drink alcohol". Instead of round 15 of quote battles with wilderness over "natural law", I'd still like to see your critique of Hoppe's argumentation ethics Lilburne. Mises isn't god and he is wrong on some things. Wilderness is right in differentiating between the natural law Mises talked about and the "rational natural law". I don't find the term "natural law" useful except in this type of historical analysis. There are actions which are either in line with voluntary cooperation (Mises' "contractual society") or not (Mises' "hegemonial society"). This is the delimitation of law from praxeology. Whether Mises, Rothbard, Reinach, Hoppe, etc. had different foundations or their doctrines are seemingly at odds with one another, they are all compatible, and this utterly common-sense, simple solution to age old problems is right there before us to be expanded on.
wilderness:]No
Jesse:Cool. You don't believe in natural law, then. Edit: unless you can provide a different method of deriving a "should" from a series of "is" statements. (Which you can't do, thanks to logic. Read what I wrote about conclusions containing terms not in the premises.)
I do refer to natural law. Natural law in the Hoppean way and how I've read Rothbard doesn't refer to a should the way that initial question Lilburne posted does. That's why the question is invalid. When they do it's within the paradigm of praxeology. They are praxeologist and some people forget this. Praxeologically natural law doesn't include "should" the way you are using it. Remember awhile back somebody linked you to an article with Hoppe explaining this. That Kinsella article I linked you before also does this. Realism, which is Aristotelian, means, it's all about the "is". It answers "What is?".
The repetition by some posters on non-issues belays fruitful discussion. It's why I initially exchanged with you some time back because you actually did have the know-how to by-pass some webs that have been stuck in the way. I honored you for that then, and I do now too. Yet the empasse only arises when semantics takes hold, which I prefer to avoid.
If some people will get over the semantics quibble and take note of the actual meanings being discussed then there is a lot more to this than what Lilburne and you have let on to know.
It bothers me that you accuse us of semantic quibbles when you are purposefully ambiguous in your usage of the term "natural law."
We don't need to refer to Rothbard, Hoppe, or Kinsella, because the specifics of the theory do not matter at this point. If your (or their) theory does not result in a definitive "should" statement, then what you have proven is not natural law. It is something else. You have already admitted that you cannot prove a "should" using "is" statements. You cannot maintain that this is true along with any kind of natural law theory.
Jesse:It bothers me that you accuse us of semantic quibbles when you are purposefully ambiguous in your usage of the term "natural law."
I'm sorry it bothers you but I have defined it before to you. I defined it in this thread during this same discussion. That's being semantically clear.
Jesse:We don't need to refer to Rothbard, Hoppe, or Kinsella, because the specifics of the theory do not matter at this point. If your (or their) theory does not result in a definitive "should" statement, then what you have proven is not natural law. It is something else. You have already admitted that you cannot prove a "should" using "is" statements. You cannot maintain that this is true along with any kind of natural law theory.
No. Because I am using natural law. You are clinging to your version of what natural law means. Not what mine means and we are, according to what you say here, referring to mine, correct? Not yours.
I'm forgetful. Please define your meaning of 'natural law' in a sentence.
wilderness: Lilburne:As I said in the original post, if natural rights propositions don't fit the deductive is/ought formula, then what inferential formula does it fit? Inferential is the psychological act of discovering implications. I don't know what you're asking.
Natural rights doctrine says something right? And it doesn't just assert it, but it at least tries to derive its conclusions as implications of premises right? So then it attempts some kind of inference. I'm asking, if the inferences do not fit the is/ought deductive formula, then what formula do they fit?
wilderness:In essence, Rothbard is using the term "should" different than you are interpreting it. He is referring to it in a praxeologic way.
What, pray tell, is a praxeologic "should" as distinct from what I'm referring to?
btw, Rothbard makes it very clear in The Ethics of Liberty that natural law doctrine, as he conceives it, is distinct from praxeology.
Furthermore, Rothbard explicitly tried to defend the practice of deriving "ought" from "is" here.
It bothers me that you accuse us of semantic quibbles when you are purposefully ambiguous in your usage of the term "natural law." We don't need to refer to Rothbard, Hoppe, or Kinsella, because the specifics of the theory do not matter at this point. If your (or their) theory does not result in a definitive "should" statement, then what you have proven is not natural law. It is something else. You have already admitted that you cannot prove a "should" using "is" statements. You cannot maintain that this is true along with any kind of natural law theory.
2+2 keeps equalling 4 for me. You can pretend it = 5 all you want. The point is that we call ourselves "human" in distinction to "animals" for a certain reason. Mises talked about it at length in his economic analysis. Punching people in the face as we pass them in the street (no matter how much of a dumbass they appear to be to us) isn't in line with what Hoppe would call the "process of civilization". I abhor the term "natural law" only because of the great history of its confused past use.
But we'll ignore all of what I said and that there might be a rational architectonic that can grow from it. Let's posit, arguendo, that your charges here are valid, where does that leave -whatever it is you really have to say- about ethics/morality/law in epistemic relation to what we're saying?
You have way more patience for this than I do, Lilburne.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre