Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
GilesStratton:http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY: THE ESTOPPEL APPROACH - Kinsella
Suppose A uninvitedly slaps B lightly on the cheek for a rude remark. Is B entitled to execute A in return? A, it is true, has initiated force, so how can he complain if force is to be used against him? But A is not estopped from objecting to being killed. A may perfectly consistently object to being killed, since he may maintain that it is wrong to kill. This in itself is not inconsistent with A’s implicit view that it is legitimate to lightly slap others. By sanctioning slapping, A does not necessarily claim that killing is proper, because usually (and in this example) there is nothing about slapping that rises to the level of killing.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Neither Stephan Kinsella's "estoppel" argument, Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics, Rand's survivalism or Stefan Molyneux's UPB provides a comprehensive proof of individual liberty as an ethical norm.
That being said, Juan brings up a good point: in the quote, Kinsella's argument only bolsters the proportionality perspective.
Juan: Were you making any specific point by referencing the article ? Well, interestingly enough it seems that estoppel, which nirgraham invoked actually is to be used against his case...
No, seeing as I'm undecided on this myself. I was just posting it to provide some material on the subject.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Actually, he's correct. Although, so are you, you just presented a weaker reduction ad absurdum since the absurd conclusion can merely be accepted.
GilesStratton:I was just posting it to provide some material on the subject.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: There's been a strange inability to comprehend reductios here. "Straw man!". No, it's a reductio ad absurdum. Not necessarily, often attempts to post a reductio ad absurdum devolve into a strawman, irrespective of whether they mean to or not.
Brainpolice: There's been a strange inability to comprehend reductios here. "Straw man!". No, it's a reductio ad absurdum.
There's been a strange inability to comprehend reductios here. "Straw man!". No, it's a reductio ad absurdum.
Not necessarily, often attempts to post a reductio ad absurdum devolve into a strawman, irrespective of whether they mean to or not.
A valid reductio is not a statement that "this is what your argument is", it is a statement of "this is what your argument logically leads to, wether you accept that conclusion or not". Many of my arguments against you and others here have been perfectly valid as reductios.
Juan: GilesStratton:Actually, he's correct. Although, so are you, you just presented a weaker reduction ad absurdum since the absurd conclusion can merely be accepted. His definition of reductio-ad... is incorrect. I'm not sure what you mean in your second sentence.
From wikipedia.com.
the numbers added are my own
1)In mathematics and formal logic, this refers specifically to an argument where a contradiction is derived from some assumption (thus showing that the assumption must be false).
2)However, Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. This is a comparatively weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd.
i was using it in the correct formal sense 1. you were thinking of the weaker everyday sense 2. I will graciously accept your admission of defeat in this minor tangent to our main dialogue :-p
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
ok, putting aside the fact that A and B are on C's property (where C could be A or B or another, and might have laid out explicit rules of conduct. and also ignoring that the two may be paid up members of pda, local law firms or providers of codes of conduct)
so we are in the rawest possible state of natural law. And lets say we assume the validity of the argumentation ethics approach.
.......... now that i led you down the path to thinking i was going to say B could kill A.
at the point in time we are considering, after the slap, there is no issue of B acting in self-defence against A. There is nothing to defend. A has finished administering the slap, its done, sunk cost. move along nothing to see here.
nirgrahamUK: Juan: GilesStratton:Actually, he's correct. Although, so are you, you just presented a weaker reduction ad absurdum since the absurd conclusion can merely be accepted. His definition of reductio-ad... is incorrect. I'm not sure what you mean in your second sentence. From wikipedia.com. the numbers added are my own 1)In mathematics and formal logic, this refers specifically to an argument where a contradiction is derived from some assumption (thus showing that the assumption must be false). 2)However, Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. This is a comparatively weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. i was using it in the correct formal sense 1. you were thinking of the weaker everyday sense 2. I will graciously accept your admission of defeat in this minor tangent to our main dialogue :-p
This is what I meant.
I'm not surprised to see neither BP or Juan decided to take on NUK's substantial post on natural law.
I'm starting to see Juan and BP's position on this though. If a mother has a late term abortion, she is a murderer for using lethal force against a benign trespasser.
Also, I am probably going out tonight, and want some advice. If someone tries to stab me, is the proportional response different than if they tried to shoot me? What about if someone tries to rape me? Kidnap me? We could make a whole website explaining what the correct proportional responses are, and solve the whole knowledge problem. Think of it as central economic planning for self-defense.
Another problem I have, is that if I can't shoot a trespasser, can I shoot an animal (like a bear) that trespasses? Or am I required to get my wheelbarrow and give him a ride to the edge of my property? I know a bear is not a man, but the act of trespass can be and might be the same. Or does man have the right to aggress against property and animals do not?
All this subjectivity is so confusing. So, anyone going to address NUK's wonderful post?
nirgrahamUK:From wikipedia.com....
nirgrahamUK:a reductio is a powerful argument where you show that various premises are incompatible.
i was using it in the correct formal sense 1.
I will graciously accept your admission of defeat in this minor tangent to our main dialogue :-p
LS:I'm not surprised to see neither BP or Juan decided to take on NUK's substantial post on natural law.
LS:All this subjectivity is so confusing. So, anyone going to address NUK's wonderful post?
perhaps juan needs someone he trusts like brainpolice to explain to him the ins and outs of the reductio. I know my logic professor took some pains to explain it to me, and i dare say i understand it fine despite the intervening years. We are having a conversation on the logical coherence of moral axioms, we are not discussing whether unintended consequence which appear absurd (in the 'isnt that strange' sense of the word) would result from adoption of these positions.
As for Kinsella i dont know how forcefully you could make that argument, i certainly did not fall for the bait you set in regards to it. I almost wonder if you understand how I was able to logically evade it.
lol, here we go with appeals to authority....
Juan: So that you know, NUK has no argument and his no-argument has been addressed. Also, he doesn't stick to logic, so he's left with faith or subjectivism if you prefer.
lol Oh man, you're killing me Juan. Shrill! Shriek your assertions out! The more shrill you are, the more right you are!
Juan:I'll play a dirty trick on you
Ok, but I'm not taking my pants off this time.