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."
zefreak: If you don't care, then don't respond. Maybe the OP should be "Rothbard proves the illegitimacy of the State if you accept these underlying principles".
If you don't care, then don't respond. Maybe the OP should be "Rothbard proves the illegitimacy of the State if you accept these underlying principles".
You can prove gravity and somebody may not believe. Wow is this what people have a problem with. Some people think the Greek gods still exist. So be it. zefreak I think you need to understand that it's a given that free-will exists.
So somebody professing natural law and liberty needs to remind you over and over again what liberty is. Does it have to be defined every sentence, post, or what?
This comment just blew me away. wow
someone who makes the pain and suffering of others his principle value can derive a system of morality
wilderness: It's a given that free-will exists.
It's a given that free-will exists.
Despite being pro free-will, I think it's more complicated than a "given", imo.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: wilderness: It's a given that free-will exists. Despite being pro free-will, I think it's more complicated than a "given", imo.
a given for me, natural law, liberty, must I write a book each post or do you figure out it's me that's talking eventually. Absurdity getting more absurd...
I mean it's complicated for a child to figure out 1+1=2 but if they learn or not or if determinism such as extreme Newtonian mechanism is somebody's route - oh well. The world was flat once too.
as pooh said, "Think, Think, Think."
see ya, this thread died in my opinion due to people having difficulty with liberty.
Juan, please, a little patience with zefreak, the problems of moral objectivism and moral realism are tricky stuff.
we could make zefreaks example less obnoxious, but potentially challenging by supposing
"someone who makes comfort and pleasure of others his principle value can derive a system of morality'
and then the criticism might does not make right, seems to miss the point, and my first instinct as a trained libertarian is to say
'you ask for too much'
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
Juan:So zefreak did you manage to explain how A can have moral authority over B ? No you didn't. The only thing you did is state that some people can choose to act like animals and do what they please. someone who makes the pain and suffering of others his principle value can derive a system of morality might is right. You are a boring sophist.
You are a troll.
Firstly, whether or not A can have moral authority over B is irrelevant to the question of whether A can have moral authority over A. Moral authority implies exclusive use or action.
And actually, I can prove that A has authority over B just as ably as you can prove A has moral authority over A.
Given the principle value of B having absolute moral authority, by divine right or whatever nonsense, it logically follows that B has authority over A. Just as, assuming individual sovereignty, A has authority over A. Assuming no exclusivity, there is no moral authority.
You may think I am being absurd, but given that the thread topic is on a somewhat high level of abstraction, I think it is relevent.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Nir:Juan, please, a little patience with zefreak,
You shouldn't reject any analysis based on its conclusion anyways. Plus, an amoralist wouldn't say "might makes right", a value term in and of itself. He would say "might makes might".
zefreak:You are a troll.
zefreak:You shouldn't reject any analysis based on its conclusion anyways. Plus, an amoralist wouldn't say "might makes right", a value term in and of itself. He would say "might makes might".
and now a little joke.
Giles has said, 'might makes is....'
zefreak:Given the principle value of B having absolute moral authority, by divine right or whatever nonsense, it logically follows that B has authority over A. Just as, assuming individual sovereignty, A has authority over A. Assuming no exclusivity, there is no moral authority. You may think I am being absurd
Juan: zefreak:Given the principle value of B having absolute moral authority, by divine right or whatever nonsense, it logically follows that B has authority over A. Just as, assuming individual sovereignty, A has authority over A. Assuming no exclusivity, there is no moral authority. You may think I am being absurd I must admit - that's the first sensible think you said so far - thanks.
Do you consider Hume's problem of induction to be absurd too?
Juan:You mean his absurd skepticism ? Yes.
Can you disprove it? If you are uninterested in abstract concepts then you are in the wrong thread. This is not a thread about practicing liberty, furthering AE or any such thing.
This is going nowhere.Moral objectivists will continue to bend their axioms and analogies so as to write interesting essays which prove nothing, ultimately, if one doesn't believe in these axioms. Moral subjectivists will point this out. Then, after a short flame war, the cycle continues anew.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom: So is the Manifesto nonsense? Should I learn about communism now? I think you should actually read something before you call it nonsense. That is usually the action of an intelligent individual. Concerning whither you should learn communism, you obviously want to refute it though you would find it difficult to dispute something you don't know.
Jacob Bloom: So is the Manifesto nonsense? Should I learn about communism now?
So is the Manifesto nonsense? Should I learn about communism now?
I think you should actually read something before you call it nonsense. That is usually the action of an intelligent individual. Concerning whither you should learn communism, you obviously want to refute it though you would find it difficult to dispute something you don't know.
I don't need to read the book, I just look at the effects the policies have in real life. Communism doesn't work. I don't need to read the communist manifesto to see why. The best way to disprove a theory is to try it out. Someone needs to institute some kind of scientific method on anarchy here. We'll find out much faster who is right and who is wrong. Right now, we sound like a bunch of WOW nerds arguing about whose character is better.
zefreak:Can you disprove it?
If you are uninterested in abstract concepts then you are in the wrong thread.
If you think that way should you really be discussing economics and political theory? The point is to put to death theories that have a strong hold over people's minds and hinder them from committing to anti-statism/voluntaryism.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
hashem: Wilmot of Rochester:To say that natural law is the ethical standard because it's in man's nature Because that's wrong. And because I've pointed this out several times. Natural Law is NOT ethics. Ethics are DERIVED FROM natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. I'm surprised at the inability of people here to comprehend that simple statement -- hence why I can legitimately doubt the capacity of anyone here to refute Rothbard.
Wilmot of Rochester:To say that natural law is the ethical standard because it's in man's nature
Because that's wrong. And because I've pointed this out several times. Natural Law is NOT ethics. Ethics are DERIVED FROM natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. I'm surprised at the inability of people here to comprehend that simple statement -- hence why I can legitimately doubt the capacity of anyone here to refute Rothbard.
Uh huh...
So why are rights derived from your theory of natural law?
The point is that as much as you say it, your theory of natural law is not the objective standard to which people must act. Scream derived from from the top of the hills, but it doesn't mean that natural law theory is good or bad.
existence is elsewhere
Sphairon: This is going nowhere.Moral objectivists will continue to bend their axioms and analogies so as to write interesting essays which prove nothing, ultimately, if one doesn't believe in these axioms. Moral subjectivists will point this out. Then, after a short flame war, the cycle continues anew.
Yeah, pretty much.
I propose a law of nature (a natural law): humans act. I propose it is also a law of the nature of humans (human nature).
Disprove the above. Good luck.
hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: I propose a law of nature (a natural law): humans act. I propose it is also a law of the nature of humans (human nature). Disprove the above. Good luck.
It's true - humans act. However, this premise has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a descriptive statement. Yea, humans act - so what? The establishment of such a premise by itself is not a proof of libertarian ethics.
Brainpolice:It's true - humans act. However, this premise has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a descriptive statement. Yea, humans act - so what? The establishment of such a premise by itself is not a proof of libertarian ethics.
Good. I'm not trying to prove ethics. I'm proving that natural law exists. And I'm proving that human nature exists -- that human's have a definite definable nature.
hashem: Brainpolice:It's true - humans act. However, this premise has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply a descriptive statement. Yea, humans act - so what? The establishment of such a premise by itself is not a proof of libertarian ethics. Good. I'm not trying to prove ethics. I'm proving that natural law exists. And I'm proving that human nature exists -- that human's have a definite definable nature.
"Natural law" is a system of ethics.
As far as defining human nature goes, "humans act" is not particularly profound. It isn't even specific to humans - animals act too. So nothing about "humans act" by itself really does anything to distinguish "human nature" from the nature of any other species.
I propose that a smart-ass can come along & say, wait a sec, biologically, human action is technically a reaction to the various processes that enable human action to occur in the first place. I'm pretty sure without synapses firing, I would be thoroughly incapable of making a human action, & I'm pretty sure I am incapable of thinking before those synapses fire. Otherwise, why would synapses exist in the first place, if I could just be a non-corporeal being without a body that magically acts & thinks?Would not infinite regression occur in trying to prove humans act, accordingly?How does natural law address the issue of what is consciousness, since you would need to define it in an attempt to show whether a 'human act' is a action, or a reaction?
Brainpolice:"Natural law" is a system of ethics.
Wrong. Natural law is the laws of nature. This must be the 10 quadrillionth time I've said that. Natural law is NOT ethics.
Brainpolice:As far as defining human nature goes, "humans act" is not particularly profound. It isn't even specific to humans - animals act too. So nothing about "humans act" by itself really does anything to distinguish "human nature" from the nature of any other species.
And yet you have still failed to disprove my 2 original statements.
1. That it is a law of nature (natural law) that humans act.
2. That it is a law of the nature of humans (human nature) that humans act.
Nitroadict: hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: I propose a law of nature (a natural law): humans act. I propose it is also a law of the nature of humans (human nature). Disprove the above. Good luck. I propose that a smartass can come along & say, wait a sec, biologically, human action is technically a reaction to the various processes that enable human action to occur in the first place. Would not infinite regression occur in trying to prove humans act, accordingly?How does natural law address the issue of what is consciousness, since you would need to define it in an attempt to show whether a 'human act' is a action, or a reaction?
I propose that a smartass can come along & say, wait a sec, biologically, human action is technically a reaction to the various processes that enable human action to occur in the first place. Would not infinite regression occur in trying to prove humans act, accordingly?How does natural law address the issue of what is consciousness, since you would need to define it in an attempt to show whether a 'human act' is a action, or a reaction?
I'm not sure that what he's talking about really is "natural law". The "humans act" saying is part of praxeology, not natural law theory. Of course, one could say that the fact that "humans act" is a prerequisite in order to form a natural law theory, but natural law theory isn't praxeology and I still insist on distinguishing them.
Nitroadict:I propose that..........
1. It is a law of nature (a NATURAL LAW) that humans act.
2. It is a law of the nature of humans (HUMAN NATURE) that humans act.
Disprove that, or natural law and human nature stand. Synapses will fire whether you want them to or not. That does not disprove natural law or human nature. Try again.
In the history of philosophy dating back to Thomas Aquinas (and Aristotile for that matter), "natural law" is a system of ethics.
If it is merely a descriptive device, what is your point? If it has nothing to do with libertarian ethics, what are you trying to prove?
And yet you have still failed to disprove my 2 original statements. 1. That it is a law of nature (natural law) that humans act. 2. That it is a law of the nature of humans (human nature) that humans act.
That's because I'm not argueing against those statements, I'm questioning their relevance.
Brainpolice: Nitroadict: hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: I propose a law of nature (a natural law): humans act. I propose it is also a law of the nature of humans (human nature). Disprove the above. Good luck. I propose that a smartass can come along & say, wait a sec, biologically, human action is technically a reaction to the various processes that enable human action to occur in the first place. Would not infinite regression occur in trying to prove humans act, accordingly?How does natural law address the issue of what is consciousness, since you would need to define it in an attempt to show whether a 'human act' is a action, or a reaction? I'm not sure that what he's talking about really is "natural law". The "humans act" saying is part of praxeology, not natural law theory. Of course, one could say that the fact that "humans act" is a prerequisite in order to form a natural law theory, but natural law theory isn't praxeology and I still insist on distinguishing them.
Natural law is the BASIS of praxeology! It forms the FIRST LAW of economics -- the ACTION AXIOM (aka humans act). You are confusing ethics with natural law. Ethics are derived from natural law -- ethics require natural law. Natural law is not derived from ethics -- natural law does not require ethics.
hashem: Brainpolice: Nitroadict: hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: I propose a law of nature (a natural law): humans act. I propose it is also a law of the nature of humans (human nature). Disprove the above. Good luck. I propose that a smartass can come along & say, wait a sec, biologically, human action is technically a reaction to the various processes that enable human action to occur in the first place. Would not infinite regression occur in trying to prove humans act, accordingly?How does natural law address the issue of what is consciousness, since you would need to define it in an attempt to show whether a 'human act' is a action, or a reaction? I'm not sure that what he's talking about really is "natural law". The "humans act" saying is part of praxeology, not natural law theory. Of course, one could say that the fact that "humans act" is a prerequisite in order to form a natural law theory, but natural law theory isn't praxeology and I still insist on distinguishing them. Natural law is the BASIS of praxeology! It forms the FIRST LAW of economics -- the ACTION AXIOM (aka humans act). You are confusing ethics with natural law. Ethics are derived from natural law -- ethics require natural law. Natural law is not derived from ethics -- natural law does not require ethics.
You're blatantly confusing praxeology with natural law theory. Mises, for example, supported praxeology and rejected natural law theory. So they simply are not intertwined in the way that you seem to think that they are. In the context of political philosophy, natural law theory is invoked as a basis for ethical discourse.
Brainpolice:In the history of philosophy dating back to Thomas Aquinas (and Aristotile for that matter), "natural law" is a system of ethics.
Wrong again. Natural law forms the basis from which ethics can be derived. Thus, ethics require natural law, while natural law does not require ethics. Natural law is not ethics. If you think so it is because you are uneducated in natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. Natural law is NOT ethics.
My point is precisely to point out the distinction between the two. Almost everyone that's posted in the last 22 pages is as confused as you, so I'm clearing it up once and for all.
Brainpolice:You're blatantly confusing praxeology with natural law theory. Mises, for example, supported praxeology and rejected natural law theory. So they simply are not intertwined in the way that you seem to think that they are.
You are wrong, for the third time. Mises rejected natural law ETHICS. He supported natural law, as proved by his praxeology which is literally based on natural law. The first law of praxeology is a natural law (a law of nature) -- humans act.
hashem: Brainpolice:In the history of philosophy dating back to Thomas Aquinas (and Aristotile for that matter), "natural law" is a system of ethics. Wrong again. Natural law forms the basis from which ethics can be derived. Thus, ethics require natural law, while natural law does not require ethics. Natural law is not ethics. If you think so it is because you are uneducated in natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. Natural law is NOT ethics. My point is precisely to point out the distinction between the two. Almost everyone that's posted in the last 22 pages is as confused as you, so I'm clearing it up once and for all.
I'm sorry, but it is you who is confused. I'm using the term "natural law" in the same way that Murray Rothbard did in "The Ethics of Liberty". It forms the basis for a moral argument - it is not in the field of descriptive value-free economics.
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but it is you who is confused. I'm using the term "natural law" in the same way that Murray Rothbard did in "The Ethics of Liberty".
No you're not. You're super confused and just outright wrong. From TEoL:
Natural Law: That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason. "The view that an objective ethics can be established through reason." "The observable behavior of [humans] is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law."
hashem: Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but it is you who is confused. I'm using the term "natural law" in the same way that Murray Rothbard did in "The Ethics of Liberty". No you're not. You're super confused and just outright wrong. From TEoL: Natural Law: That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason. "The view that an objective ethics can be established through reason." "The observable behavior of [humans] is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law."
That quote proves me correct! It is an ethical philosophy that attempt to derive ethical rules from "human nature".
Brainpolice: hashem: Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but it is you who is confused. I'm using the term "natural law" in the same way that Murray Rothbard did in "The Ethics of Liberty". No you're not. You're super confused and just outright wrong. From TEoL: Natural Law: That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason. "The view that an objective ethics can be established through reason." "The observable behavior of [humans] is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law." That quote proves me correct! It is an ethical philosophy.
That quote proves me correct! It is an ethical philosophy.
It is exactly not. It is "That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason." Natural law CONCERING ETHICS is a VIEW, that ethics CAN BE DERIVED from natural law, through reason.
hashem: Brainpolice: hashem: Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but it is you who is confused. I'm using the term "natural law" in the same way that Murray Rothbard did in "The Ethics of Liberty". No you're not. You're super confused and just outright wrong. From TEoL: Natural Law: That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason. "The view that an objective ethics can be established through reason." "The observable behavior of [humans] is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law." That quote proves me correct! It is an ethical philosophy. It is exactly not. It is a VIEW, that ethics CAN BE DERIVED from natural law, through reason.
It is exactly not. It is a VIEW, that ethics CAN BE DERIVED from natural law, through reason.
Yes, and the premise that ethics can be derived from natural law through reason is a position in meta-ethical philosophy. ANY basis that one picks to derive ethics from forms a position in ethical philosophy.
Brainpolice:Yes, and the premise that ethics can be derived from natural law through reason is a position in meta-ethical philosophy.
hashem:[edit] It is exactly not. It is "That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason." Natural law CONCERING ETHICS is a VIEW, that ethics CAN BE DERIVED from natural law, through reason.