This is an absurd repeated denial of the fact that you're talking about a position in ethical philosophy.
Brainpolice: This is an absurd repeated denial of the fact that you're talking about a position in ethical philosophy.
What don't you understand about the fact that the laws of nature make up Natural Law? There is nothing ethical about that. You are in denial.
hashem: Brainpolice: This is an absurd repeated denial of the fact that you're talking about a position in ethical philosophy. What don't you understand about the fact that the laws of nature make of Natural Law?
What don't you understand about the fact that the laws of nature make of Natural Law?
What don't you understand about the fact that ANY basis you use to derive ethics, including natural law, forms a position in ethical philosophy? You're taking a term that has been used in ethical philosophy for millenia now and pretending that it doesn't have anything to do with ethics. You're essentially defining natural law theory as "science", which is simply inaccurate.
hashem: 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.
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.
Mises was very hostile to the concept of natural law.
From Human Action:
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...They misconstrue their own arbitrary value judgments derived from intuition as the voice of the Almighty or the nature of things.There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of rightand wrong...The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept to make social cooperation under the division of labour possible.
Brainpolice:What don't you understand about the fact that ANY basis you use to derive ethics, including natural law, forms a position in ethical philosophy? You're taking a term that has been used in ethical philosophy for millenia now and pretending that it doesn't have anything to do with ethics.
You're changing my words. Allow me to repeat:
1. Natural Law does not require ethics.
2. Ethics requires natural law.
Get it now? It wouldn't help your argument if ethics had been based on natural law for trillions of years. Natural law does not require ethics.
Angurse:Various schools of thought parading under the pompous names of philosophv of law and political science indulge in futile and empty... brooding over the delimitation of the functions of government...They misconstrue their own arbitrary value judgments derived from intuition as the voice of the Almighty or the nature of things.There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of rightand wrong...The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept to make social cooperation under the division of labour possible.
Notice he's talking about ethics. Natural law is not ethics. Mises was opposed to natural law ethics, that is true. He is not opposed to natural law per se by the obvious fact that HIS PRAXEOLOGY is based on natural law -- humans act.
If by "natural law" one truly means "the sciences that study humans", why not just say "biology", "psychology", and so on? And if one is insisting that it has nothing to do with ethics, then what in the hell are you trying to prove in the first place and why would you act like it has anything to do with libertarianism? I know of noone who particularly denies that humans have a biology and psychology. So what? Yea, science can inform us about "human nature" to an extent on the level basic biological and psychological commonalities between people. So what? What are you trying to prove, other than harken to a debate over ethical philosophy in which you try to use this as a basis to derive ethics?
Brainpolice:And if one is insisting that it has nothing to do with ethics
It does have something to do with ethics -- that ethics are derived from it. But it does not by any means necessarily require ethics.
Brainpolice:what in the hell are you trying to prove
Didn't you already ask this question? And didn't I already answer it? I am clearing up the confusion that "natural law is ethics".
hashem: Brainpolice:What don't you understand about the fact that ANY basis you use to derive ethics, including natural law, forms a position in ethical philosophy? You're taking a term that has been used in ethical philosophy for millenia now and pretending that it doesn't have anything to do with ethics. You're changing my words. Allow me to repeat: 1. Natural Law does not require ethics. 2. Ethics requires natural law. Get it now? It wouldn't help your argument if ethics had been based on natural law for trillions of years. Natural law does not require ethics.
You're missing the point, which is that natural law theory is a position in ethical philosophy. The position that "ethics requires natural law" is a position in ethical philosophy. You're not even talking about the same thing as me - I'm not saying "natural law requires ethics", I'm saying that the very concept of natural law IS an ethical position.
Brainpolice: hashem: Brainpolice:What don't you understand about the fact that ANY basis you use to derive ethics, including natural law, forms a position in ethical philosophy? You're taking a term that has been used in ethical philosophy for millenia now and pretending that it doesn't have anything to do with ethics. You're changing my words. Allow me to repeat: 1. Natural Law does not require ethics. 2. Ethics requires natural law. Get it now? It wouldn't help your argument if ethics had been based on natural law for trillions of years. Natural law does not require ethics. You're missing the point, which is that natural law theory is a position in ethical philosophy. The position that "ethics requires natural law" is a position in ethical philosophy. You're not even talking about the same thing as me - I'm not saying "natural law requires ethics", I'm saying that the very concept of natural law IS an ethical position.
Natural Law is not ethics. It is worthless to argue that "humans act" is an ethic.
It does have something to do with ethics -- that ethics are derived from it.
Again: the position that ethics are derived from it IS A POSITION IN ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY.
hashem: Brainpolice: hashem: Brainpolice:What don't you understand about the fact that ANY basis you use to derive ethics, including natural law, forms a position in ethical philosophy? You're taking a term that has been used in ethical philosophy for millenia now and pretending that it doesn't have anything to do with ethics. You're changing my words. Allow me to repeat: 1. Natural Law does not require ethics. 2. Ethics requires natural law. Get it now? It wouldn't help your argument if ethics had been based on natural law for trillions of years. Natural law does not require ethics. You're missing the point, which is that natural law theory is a position in ethical philosophy. The position that "ethics requires natural law" is a position in ethical philosophy. You're not even talking about the same thing as me - I'm not saying "natural law requires ethics", I'm saying that the very concept of natural law IS an ethical position. Natural Law is not ethics. It is worthless to argue that "humans act" is an ethic.
That's because "humans act" is not natural law theory, it's a tenet of praxeology.
Again: if you ar saying "ethics is derived from X", that is an ethical theory. It is not the elaboration of a principle, it is what's called a meta-ethical position, which deals with the more fundamental questions about how ethics are derived in general.
Brainpolice:That's because "humans act" is not natural law theory, it's a tenet of praxeology.
You're right, it's not a theory. It is a proven fact -- an axiom, a LAW OF NATURE.
Brainpolice:it's a tenet of praxeology
And praxeology is based on natural law -- specifically, "humans act". Case closed.
hashem: Notice he's talking about ethics. Natural law is not ethics. Mises was opposed to natural law ethics, that is true. He is not opposed to natural law per se by the obvious fact that HIS PRAXEOLOGY is based on natural law -- humans act.
Perhaps our definitions are different, natural law, according to Rothbard, is basically a system of ethics grounded on an ethical philosophy, Mises was diametrically opposed to such a concept, nor would he ever accept that his praxeology was based on natural law. I don't know where your definition of natural law stems from but it certainly isn't common.
hashem: Brainpolice:That's because "humans act" is not natural law theory, it's a tenet of praxeology. You're right, it's not a theory. It is a proven fact -- an axiom, a LAW OF NATURE. Brainpolice:it's a tenet of praxeology And praxeology is based on natural law -- specifically, "humans act". Case closed.
Sorry, but you are simply not using these terms the way that Mises and Rothbard used them.
Angurse:Perhaps our definitions are different, natural law, according to Rothbard, is basically a system of ethics grounded on an ethical philosophy
Our definitions are different, which is what I'm pointing out. Your definition is wrong. According to Rothbard, from The Ethics of Liberty, natural law is: "That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason." It is called natural law because it is the laws of nature. It is NOT an ethical system. Ethics are derived from the facts that natural law presents.
Brainpolice:Sorry, but you are simply not using these terms the way that Mises and Rothbard used them.
Typical...wrong again.
hashem:According to Rothbard, from The Ethics of Liberty, natural law is: "That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason." It is called natural law because it is the laws of nature. It is NOT an ethical system. Ethics are derived from the facts that natural law presents.
From TEOL:
The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man – what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen – for whatever reason – to place high on their scales of value. Satisfaction of those ends yields to man his "utility" or "satisfaction" or "happiness." Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective – determined by the natural law of man's being, and here "happiness" for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense.
hashem: Angurse:Perhaps our definitions are different, natural law, according to Rothbard, is basically a system of ethics grounded on an ethical philosophy Our definitions are different, which is what I'm pointing out. Your definition is wrong. According to Rothbard, from The Ethics of Liberty, natural law is: "That body of rules which man is able to discover by use of his reason." It is called natural law because it is the laws of nature. It is NOT an ethical system. Ethics are derived from the facts that natural law presents.
Well, I pointed out earlier that I understand natural rights (an ethical framework I believe) are different from natural law. I also believe I unnecessarily conflated the two at times. I would need to think about this more.
This lead me to link, once, to human nature which in wikipedia describes various fields that study human nature. Anthropology, psychology, and sociology to name a few. Natural law, as I've been posting though when it comes to human nature I would display as such: natural law of human nature. I did this knowingly to point out that there are various kinds of natural law. This is well understood. Various fields such as physics, geology, and biology study and sometimes discover natural laws. I also pointed out I was not well versed in how natural rights derive from natural law. Ethics is a science due to it can be demonstrated by individuals as to what values they demonstrate in accord with morals that any particular individual values. Morals are the code, and ethics are the science, the acts of morals. That's how I understand this.
Now what I think I started to do is conflate natural rights too much with natural law to the point of shoving aside the various natural laws without clarifying that there are various other fields that have discovered natural laws - not simply of human nature only. I admit I don't know much more about the derivation at this point. But it's obvious natural law is not exclusive to the reductions natural rights or ethics.
Thank you hashem for providing clarity to this. I'm going to contemplate this.
scineram: hashem: GilesStratton:Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values. The fact is that I am myself, and I have an unalienable will. Another fact is that I must constantly act, and therefore choose actions and reject others. Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own. Is--Ought Then slavery is not wrong. The slaves were also selfowners.
hashem: GilesStratton:Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values. The fact is that I am myself, and I have an unalienable will. Another fact is that I must constantly act, and therefore choose actions and reject others. Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own. Is--Ought
GilesStratton:Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values.
The fact is that I am myself, and I have an unalienable will. Another fact is that I must constantly act, and therefore choose actions and reject others. Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own.
Is--Ought
Then slavery is not wrong. The slaves were also selfowners.
Okay, this is just stupid.
Slaves are not self owners because their natural form of property is subject to violence. You have twisted the words to meaninglessness. If a person is car jacked, they are still driving their own car, but can we not say that their ownership of it has been violated?
A right, to exist, must not conflict. In order for slavery to exist and not cause a conflict of rights humans would need to be divided into two classes: self owners and non-self owners.
White/Black. Citizen/Foreigner. Nobility/Commoner. To name a few.
The problem with these classes is they don't suggest which group must be the owners and which the non-owners. Any decision is ultimately arbitrary.
Humans are equal. In that we share a number of characteristics that make us part of the category of human. None of us are frogs, after all. We vary in other ways, but we are alike in that we are all human.
No person is any more capable of owning another person than anyone else. This is a simple natural truth. It is not imagined, it is discovered.
Peace
Both "Natural Rights," and the "Natural Law" that they allegedly hinge on, are patent nonsense.The former was reduced to a simpering puddle by Rollins in his "The Myth of Natural Rights," which sparked debate in Konkin's "New Libertarian" magazine, wherein Rothbard attempted a feeble response in his "On the Duty of Natural Outlaws to Shut Up," but succeeded only in making an abject fool of himself.The latter ("Natural Law") was then mercilessly blasted to smithereens by debate participant Wilson in his "Natural Law, or Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy," wherein he describes the less-than-civilized exchange before turning his attention to the task at hand: deconstructing his subject with mocking scorn.I've long noted with puzzlement that this site does not carry Rothbard's embarrassing essay, even though it prides itself, rightly, as a primary archive of his work. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, since I can't find the essay anywhere else, either; but I'd expect that if any site would have it, this one would -- unless it isn't considered worthy of the archive.
Okay, I give up.
Have a link to any of those works?
lolwut:The former was reduced to a simpering puddle by Rollins in his "The Myth of Natural Rights," which sparked debate in Konkin's "New Libertarian" magazine, wherein Rothbard attempted a feeble response in his "On the Duty of Natural Outlaws to Shut Up," but succeeded only in making an abject fool of himself.
I'd very much like to read this Rothbard article. There are few who can stump Rothbard and rarely does he make a fool of himself.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
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."
JonBostwick: Okay, I give up. Have a link to any of those works?
I actually just found a review of Rollin's work @ two of the blogs I frequent here: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/la-rollins-the-myth-of-natural-rights/&here: http://www.againstpolitics.com/2008/12/01/la-rollins%E2%80%99-case-against-natural-rights/Also, an older review can be found here(html version of a pdf): http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZC5vIk3BVQQJ:www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-4-4-6.pdf+rollins+the+myth+of+natural+rights&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-aI also found a commentary on the "natural lawyers" (Rothbard, Konkin) vs. the "outlaws" (Wilson & Rollins) that compares both sides here: http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=234I couldn't find a free copy of either referenced works online (entries for the books be found @ google books, but I could not actually browse the book itself, so you'll have to try out amazon)
"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
I think the proposal of utilitarianism is a rather absurd concept. Basing freedoms on the arbitrary whims of the masses is not something I would call orderly or smart. For what if we were to vote today on a bill that abolishes the Fed. 51% said no keep the Fed...would Austrianism suddenly retreat in the face of this obviously destructive nature? Are we to sit stupefied and twiddle our thumbs while stating 'well its what they want therefore we must concede'
Tu Ne Cede Malis is not something that only works if 51% of the world agrees with you.
Anarchist Cain: I think the proposal of utilitarianism is a rather absurd concept. Basing freedoms on the arbitrary whims of the masses is not something I would call orderly or smart. For what if we were to vote today on a bill that abolishes the Fed. 51% said no keep the Fed...would Austrianism suddenly retreat in the face of this obviously destructive nature? Are we to sit stupefied and twiddle our thumbs while stating 'well its what they want therefore we must concede' Tu Ne Cede Malis is not something that only works if 51% of the world agrees with you.
Cain,
Utilitarianism is not a position held on the basis of voting for what's right and following it. Utilitarianism is about finding out what is the most effective rule to follow for a given purpose and then following it.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester:Utilitarianism is not a position held on the basis of voting for what's right and following it. Utilitarianism is about finding out what is the most effective rule to follow for a given purpose and then following it.
How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ]
See one of utilitarianism's problems is that it supposedly thinks 'natural rights' is somehow arbitrarily stationed in the world, fine you want to think that way, you have free will. However to then go about setting up a system that is just AS arbitrary and say 'well this is better' is utter nonsense. Utilitarians know that private property is the only way to have humanity flourish, liberty is the only way to give humanity the ability to choose and yet they are somehow against natural rights by some obscure reasoning. Utilitarians are different in name only. In practice, they are unannounced natural rights theorists. Those who are too fearful for one reason or another to carry out their ideology to its fullest extent. They are like the small government utopians or minarchists still clutching to some ridiculous conceptual notion that keeps them from actually fulfilling anarcho-capitalism. I'm beginning now to see why Rothbard just told utilitarians to shut up.
*Sigh* Rollins and Wilson, again...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Angurse:The natural law, then, elucidates...
Precisely. Thank you for supporting me. It's not "The natural law, then, is..." It is "The natural law, then, elucidates..." (reveals).
Saying that natural law IS ethics is like saying that a tree is dirt because the tree grows out of the dirt, and because the tree needs dirt. Yes, the tree needs dirt to exist, but the dirt doesn't need the tree to exist. Likewise, ethics need natural laws to exist, but natural laws don't need ethics to exist.
1. I propose a law of nature (a NATURAL LAW): humans act.
2. I propose a law of the nature of humans (HUMAN NATURE): humans act.
hashem: 1. I propose a law of nature (a NATURAL LAW): humans act. 2. I propose a law of the nature of humans (HUMAN NATURE): humans act.
Now we have established that humans act. I would agree. So?
Sphairon:Now we have established that humans act. I would agree. So?
We have not ONLY established that. We have then established that NATURAL LAW and HUMAN NATURE exist, and are definable.
Anarchist Cain: How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ]
Cain, I wasn't saying that there needs to be a mass consensus about this for it to be law. Ultimately, the only law of the land - of any land - is the law of the gun. We're really just waxing philosophy here and what ought to happen, I say that what ought to happen is law should be based upon the best policy for humans to flourish through deliberating on the basis of rule utilitarianism. This policy may look very like natural law, but I come to it differently.
Also, if we were to say some mass consensus needs to be reached, how did you think it would be any different if one used natural law as oppossed to utilitarianism?
JonBostwick: Okay, this is just stupid. Slaves are not self owners because their natural form of property is subject to violence. You have twisted the words to meaninglessness. If a person is car jacked, they are still driving their own car, but can we not say that their ownership of it has been violated?
That was your definition.
JonBostwick:Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own.
Control and possession is ownership according to you. The slaves controlled themselves by their free will subject to constrains from the external world like anyone else. So they were self owners.
hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: 1. I propose a law of nature (a NATURAL LAW): humans act. 2. I propose a law of the nature of humans (HUMAN NATURE): humans act.
Please derive ethics from natural law!
Jacob Bloom:1. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not just thinking about myself here.
So you speak for the rest of humanity....
Jacob Bloom:2. How do you enforce your reason?
When you have reason, it does not require enforcement, respect of ones rights does....
Jacob Bloom:3. Obviously I can.
Allow me to rephrase... "Well you will be hypocritical in saying "Hey Harry, this guy stole my property, I am stealing yours to pay for my protection" The fundemantal immorality of legalized plunder does not go away with a badge"
Jacob Bloom:6. No, you need to prove to me that private courts would work or I won't want to switch to that system.
Logic dictates when there is a chance to lose ones income the performance of said job is better, why is this not true for courts? Support your claim of impartiality, please, logic supports mine....
Jacob Bloom:7. What if one party can't afford to pay at all?
As my Grandfather used to say, "Pile your what if in one hand and shit in the other, tell me which piles up first." If they have no property to pay with, why are they going to court? Or are you assuming what socialists assume there will be a vast prevalence of impoverished people in a free market society that will be slaves to the rich?
Jacob Bloom:8. There is no example because no one does it. Ever. I think that's not just a coincidence.
Sure were examples, plenty of them, just those silly statists make a habit of using coercion to "civilize" a fully functioning free market society
You will have ot read some Rothbard, the anarchist stuff, if you wish to try to continue this conversation with me on these lines....
Jacob Bloom:9. Equality and the relativity of morality are not the same. Equality is quantitative. It can be measured.
Actual equality, is not relative at all, I used the quote to paint the paradox you replied with....
Jacob Bloom:What right do you have to your property if you can't protect it from being confiscated?
Are you serious? Apparently equal rights are relative to you.... You require might to equal right, this tells me I am exactly right about you, you fear every other person becasue you project your self image on others, you are a sad napoleonic man....
Jacob Bloom:O, and about Robin Hood. He was subject to a monarchy. Which made it very difficult to get any form of due process
No more or less than today against the government, why do you think it is more difficult to get due process in a government court in a monarchy than it is to get due process in a government court outside of one? Both are legal monopolies, both are comprised of the governemnt that one is claiming injury against and both have a history of corruption...
Jacob Bloom:That being said, the Robin Hood philosophy of "take from the rich and give to the poor" which Obama is clearly so fond of just doesn't work. Has nothing to do with morality.
Yes the MYTH... Not the REALITY....
The reality is, Ragnar, in AS, was the equivalent of Robin Hood in earnest, he wanted the false myth of Robin Hood to die....
MYTH : Robin Hood "Stole from the Rich and gave to the Poor"
REALITY : Robin Hood "Confiscated the Taxes taken by the Government and returned them to the Victims of Taxation"
Jacob Bloom:This is what Atlas Shrugged is all about.
AS was all about why Communism is WRONG, why a government who steals from anyone to benefit another is WRONG, it is not about the RICH, it was all about ability, which is what is destroyed by communism, wealth is not destroyed, it is confiscated, ability on the other hand....
Not everyone in Galt's Gulch was rich, everyone in Galt's Gulch had massive ability, there were rich people who never were invited to the gulch, they had no ability... This is why Owen and James, despite being rich, were never approached, it is why at the end James has the mental breakdown, because he realized that his entire life was not justified by his ability, but rather by his ancestor's ability of which he had none....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Anarchist Cain:How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ]
How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy.
Anarchist Cain:See one of utilitarianism's problems is that it supposedly thinks 'natural rights' is somehow arbitrarily stationed in the world, fine you want to think that way, you have free will. However to then go about setting up a system that is just AS arbitrary and say 'well this is better' is utter nonsense.
Unlike natural law philosophers, utiitarians do not assert that their philosophy is as true, and binding as the laws of nature, they only humbly declare that their philosophy is the best means to attain desired ends.
Anarchist Cain:Utilitarians know that private property is the only way to have humanity flourish, liberty is the only way to give humanity the ability to choose and yet they are somehow against natural rights by some obscure reasoning.
They are against it because while the utilitarians just declare property to be the best mode towards prospering, what is wrong with that, or do I need to declare it "natural" in order to stroke my pride?
Anarchist Cain: Those who are too fearful for one reason or another to carry out their ideology to its fullest extent.
While utilitarianism is humble, and stays within the bounds of our comprehension, natural law decides to declare man the final arbiter on what is, and what is not natural. There is a far gulf between them.
Anarchist Cain:They are like the small government utopians or minarchists still clutching to some ridiculous conceptual notion that keeps them from actually fulfilling anarcho-capitalism. I'm beginning now to see why Rothbard just told utilitarians to shut up.
Blah, blah, blah, boo hoo hoo. Some of us are more worried about correct theories than submitting to the tide of history and "fulfilling anarcho-capitalism".
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Brainpolice: If by "natural law" one truly means "the sciences that study humans", why not just say "biology", "psychology", and so on? And if one is insisting that it has nothing to do with ethics, then what in the hell are you trying to prove in the first place and why would you act like it has anything to do with libertarianism? I know of noone who particularly denies that humans have a biology and psychology. So what? Yea, science can inform us about "human nature" to an extent on the level basic biological and psychological commonalities between people. So what? What are you trying to prove, other than harken to a debate over ethical philosophy in which you try to use this as a basis to derive ethics?
I second Brainpolice's anaylsis.
scineram: hashem: SIMPLE CHALLENGE TO ALL OPPONENTS OF HUMAN NATURE & NATURAL LAW: 1. I propose a law of nature (a NATURAL LAW): humans act. 2. I propose a law of the nature of humans (HUMAN NATURE): humans act. Please derive ethics from natural law!
At least you recognize the distinction now. My work here is done.