Wilmot of Rochester: Majevska has the smartest post on this page. So do you guys just routinely talk past each other or is this new?
Majevska has the smartest post on this page.
So do you guys just routinely talk past each other or is this new?
Only when it's funny.
"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
Its merely an analytic proposition: A means B, it is tautological, and yields no new knowledge then we have started off before.
It's actually a statement of the law of identity, "tautological" or not. Have fun "tearing" apart natural laws...
Oh, and by the way, regarding religious beliefs, please don't think I am going to ban anyone for attacking arguments made by the "faithful". They are no less exempt to criticism than any other argument. However, Juan, I am going to ask you to tone it down a little, and if you want to criticise the beliefs of others, do so in a way that does not reduce to an ad hominem attack.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:It's actually a statement of the law of identity, "tautological" or not. Have fun "tearing" apart natural laws...
The minute that our these about the laws of nature are removed from the realm of natural law, I no longer attack it, I've only been against that naturalistic understanding, which they have given as of yet no examples of hitherto. If you desire to call a priori judgments "natural laws", I hold no quarrel, but when someone declares that the laws of nature are "natural laws", as had been done before, then I hold quarrel. After all, those were not mentioned in Hashem's own about nature for I contend that we cannot know the specific nature of natural phenomenon:
hashem:Nature: "If apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one? And if man does have a nature, why cannot it too be open to rational observation and reflection? If all things have natures, then surely man's nature is open to inspection." Man's Nature: "Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out!" "The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible...No man is omniscient or infallible -- a law, by the way, of man's nature." "The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive -- his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms -- all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is, and how man may survive and flourish." 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."
Man's Nature: "Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out!" "The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible...No man is omniscient or infallible -- a law, by the way, of man's nature." "The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive -- his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms -- all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is, and how man may survive and flourish."
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."
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Keep on bringing up random objections all you want. Anyone who has studied natural law knows this one fact: it is the laws of nature. It is not specific to humans. Or ethics. Or economics. But human nature, ethics, and economics are DERIVED from it.
Again, disprove or be silenced:
to be necessarily means to be something
You are the one making the assertion, you are the one who has to offer the proof here. And no, your argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't count as proof.
Lord Shore-Twilly: You are the one making the assertion, you are the one who has to offer the proof here. And no, your argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't count as proof.
Who are you? lim wanted me to list laws of nature for him to "tear apart". Go away. I need not prove the law to be correct; the job is for him to disprove it -- a job, by the way, which he has not even attempted since I listed the first law last night.
hashem: Lord Shore-Twilly: You are the one making the assertion, you are the one who has to offer the proof here. And no, your argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't count as proof. Who are you? lim wanted me to list laws of nature for him to "tear apart". Go away. I need not prove the law to be correct; the job is for him to disprove it -- a job, by the way, which he has not even attempted since I listed the first law last night.
I am the person who understands where the onus of proving an assertion lies, who are you? I couldn't care less whether 'lim', like you, fails to appriciate where the burden of proof lies. You contend that natural law exists as such it is upto you to prove it; it isn't up to anyone to disprove anything. And thus far the major contribution you have made in providing your proof has been to say 'read Rothbard'; that isn't good enough.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
'At all times the compulsion of proving weighs upon him who brings the suit.'
Sentiment to live by.
Do you consider the means-end dichotomy as a natural law? I reject it. I also reject the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle. Read Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity to see the flaws of the law of identity. The prototype theory of categorization also rejects Aristotelian logic.
Korzybski asserted that the law of identity is unsound because simply because no two objects are identical. The law of identity will produces boundary problems. An identity of an object neglects in specific finely-tuned details. For example, a "pencil" neglects the specific materials and colors.
Prototype theory also disproves the law of identity because categorization is based on prototypes within that category. For example, a robin fits more in the category of "bird" than a penguin does. It is fallacious to identify an entity to be within a category, because the categorization of entities are not black-and-white. Categorization depends on the similarity of an entity compared to its prototype within that category.
I reject Descartes' argument for consciousness. Mises asserted that human action requires the axiom of consciousness. Therefore, I also reject the law of human action.
Descartes' argument for consciousness is unsound because it confuses the orders of abstractions, to borrow Korzybski's terminology. A "confusion of order of abstractions" means that it confuses its higher level abstraction with the more-detailed finer-grained abstraction. Descartes' argument is very abstract because it disregards the neurons and molecules in the more concrete abstraction. See LaughingMan0X's critique for an analysis more concretely.
Because Descartes' argument neglects a more concrete analysis of the human brain, it is unsound for its lack of precision. A more finely-grained analysis proves that Descartes' argument is scentifically false. Therefore, even though that the law of human action can be derived from Descartes' consciousness axiom, it lacks precision. Why does Mises use the consciousness axiom to prove the law of human actions, while he could disprove the law of human action by using a more concrete analysis of human conciousness? Probably because of cognitive dissonance.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe also confused the orders of abstractions because he assumes a very abstract principle to deduce "self-ownership". He neglects more fine-grained and detailed assumptions of property relations, such as slavery or partial infrigement of property rights. Hans-Hoppe does not analyse the more concrete detaileds.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem: Lord Shore-Twilly: You are the one making the assertion, you are the one who has to offer the proof here. And no, your argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't count as proof. Who are you? lim wanted me to list laws of nature for him to "tear apart". Go away. I need not prove the law to be correct; the job is for him to disprove it -- a job, by the way, which he has not even attempted since I listed the first law last night. Do you consider the means-end dichotomy as a natural law? I reject it.
Do you consider the means-end dichotomy as a natural law? I reject it.
I'll admit outright that this is a fallacy, but why should I trust someone who's very name is the ultimate contradiction? Anarcho-mercantilist? Honestly man, I chuckle every time I read your name . Isn't that sort of like being named "Anarcho-Statist"?
@Twilly: The job still remains, as lim claimed it for himself (I did not ask him to), for him to disprove the natural laws I list. I do not need to prove them, just list them. Indeed, if I spent time proving them, his task would be preempted.
hashem: GilesStratton:So when/ if humans die out, how well will your law of nature hold then? Flawlessly of course. Nature exists in the presence and absence of humans. Laws too, are true regardless of whether humans exist, or whether humans recognize them.
GilesStratton:So when/ if humans die out, how well will your law of nature hold then?
Flawlessly of course. Nature exists in the presence and absence of humans. Laws too, are true regardless of whether humans exist, or whether humans recognize them.
How can human action be a law of nature when human action is entirely absent from nature?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:How can human action be a law of nature when human action is entirely absent from nature?
Because the laws of human nature are explicitly not absent from nature. The nature of humans are laws of the nature of humans. Nature-al laws.
Juan:Hey sonny, explain how a free thinker like you believes catholic dogma...or else shut up ?
Objection: Relevance? Not everyone is a brainwashed conservative out to get you, juan.
hashem: Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem: Lord Shore-Twilly: You are the one making the assertion, you are the one who has to offer the proof here. And no, your argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't count as proof. Who are you? lim wanted me to list laws of nature for him to "tear apart". Go away. I need not prove the law to be correct; the job is for him to disprove it -- a job, by the way, which he has not even attempted since I listed the first law last night. Do you consider the means-end dichotomy as a natural law? I reject it. I'll admit outright that this is a fallacy, but why should I trust someone who's very name is the ultimate contradiction? Anarcho-mercantilist? Honestly man, I chuckle every time I read your name . Isn't that sort of like being named "Anarcho-Statist"?
Nitroadict: Juan: Hey sonny, explain how a free thinker like you believes catholic dogma...or else shut up ? Objection: Relevance?
Juan: Hey sonny, explain how a free thinker like you believes catholic dogma...or else shut up ?
Not everyone is a brainwashed conservative out to get you, juan.
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."
conservatives are out to get you !
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
Sphairon: Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence... What is ethics? Is it not just another set of preferences? Can something that rests on an arbitrary axiom ever leave the realm of preference?What is natural law? Was it chiselled in stone somewhere by Gaia, thus the word "natural"?What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically, except rejection by those who hold a different ethical preference? How does this prove anything?
Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence...
Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence...
What is ethics? Is it not just another set of preferences? Can something that rests on an arbitrary axiom ever leave the realm of preference?What is natural law? Was it chiselled in stone somewhere by Gaia, thus the word "natural"?What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically, except rejection by those who hold a different ethical preference? How does this prove anything?
You can easily "prove" natural law by comparing it to the freedom a wild animal enjoys in the absence of a predator.
Think about it.
A wild animal, in the absence of a predator, has complete self-ownership and exercises self-preservation. It enjoys life, freedom of movement, freedom of association, reproductive freedom, and private property. Birds own nests; beavers own dams; etc.
Now, did the Creator intend for humans to have less than the animals? Did God mean for the birds of the air to be free, and for man to live in slavery? No!
Hope that helps.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: Sphairon: Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics... What is ethics? What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically You can easily "prove" natural law...
Sphairon: Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics... What is ethics? What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically
Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics...
Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics...
What is ethics? What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically
You can easily "prove" natural law...
It would seem that there is an utter absence of any knowledge about "natural law" among you 3. The natural law is not an ethical system. The natural law are the laws of nature. By studying the laws of the nature of each living thing, we can derive ethical systems for each accordingly. Natural law is NOT ethics.
Laws cannot be broken. Ethics can. By that simple fact alone it is clear that the two are not the same.
A LAW of man's NATURE is that he must choose. That CANNOT be broken -- the reason why it is called a LAW. An ethic may (or may not) be DERIVED FROM that natural law. Natural law is NOT ethics any more than dirt is a tree.
hashem:It would seem that there is an utter absence of any knowledge about "natural law" among you 3.
Take it down a notch pee wee.... I know you are cranky from dealing with others, but do not take that out on me....
hashem: The natural law is not an ethical system. The natural law are the laws of nature. By studying the laws of the nature of each living thing, we can derive ethical systems for each accordingly. Natural law is NOT ethics. Laws cannot be broken. Ethics can. By that simple fact alone it is clear that the two are not the same. A LAW of man's NATURE is that he must choose. That CANNOT be broken -- the reason why it is called a LAW. An ethic may (or may not) be DERIVED FROM that natural law. Natural law is NOT ethics any more than dirt is a tree.
The natural law is not an ethical system. The natural law are the laws of nature. By studying the laws of the nature of each living thing, we can derive ethical systems for each accordingly. Natural law is NOT ethics.
I agree, I believe I thanked you once for shedding that light for me....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: hashem:It would seem that there is an utter absence of any knowledge about "natural law" among you 3. Take it down a notch pee wee.... I know you are cranky from dealing with others, but do not take that out on me.... hashem: The natural law is not an ethical system. The natural law are the laws of nature. By studying the laws of the nature of each living thing, we can derive ethical systems for each accordingly. Natural law is NOT ethics. Laws cannot be broken. Ethics can. By that simple fact alone it is clear that the two are not the same. A LAW of man's NATURE is that he must choose. That CANNOT be broken -- the reason why it is called a LAW. An ethic may (or may not) be DERIVED FROM that natural law. Natural law is NOT ethics any more than dirt is a tree. I agree, I believe I thanked you once for shedding that light for me....
hashem:
I am having an issue digesting what Lil is talking about with the passions and what not...
Honestly he sounds like he is equating to wanting a defined thing as an urge, and then reason is impemented to define which urge is greater....
My thought is, the instinctual or natural urge (without reason) is seen in things like hunger, thirst, attention but everything he discusses in regard to that, is secondary choices, I am just not sure how to argue it, because there is the possibility I am not understanding it all that much...
Harry Felker: hashem: I am having an issue digesting what Lil is talking about with the passions and what not... Honestly he sounds like he is equating to wanting a defined thing as an urge, and then reason is impemented to define which urge is greater.... My thought is, the instinctual or natural urge (without reason) is seen in things like hunger, thirst, attention but everything he discusses in regard to that, is secondary choices, I am just not sure how to argue it, because there is the possibility I am not understanding it all that much...
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at either...
Does this help? If it is a natural law that man need's water, then it follows that he will feel that as an imperative to act (ingest water). The ethic derived from the law of man's natural tendency to require water is that when man requires water, it is good for him to ingest water.
So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced.
wilderness: So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced.
If actions are choices and incentives don't matter then the choice to pay taxes is human nature and so taxes are an outgrowth of natural law.
Harry Felker:Honestly he sounds like he is equating to wanting a defined thing as an urge, and then reason is impemented to define which urge is greater....
I don't think reason is necessarily used to decide between urges. I wrote a response to this basic question to Anarchist Cain in another thread:
Anarchist Cain: There must be a third 'party' that rationalizes whither the love of food is stronger then the love of fame and vice versa.
I'm not sure if "rationalize" is the right word here. Reason, to me, is a capacity for inference. And inference is concluding that one thing either deductively or inductively follows from another. But what kind of inference is it when somebody decides between two urges? When deliberating, one may use reason to determine questions of fact concerning the two options. But then, once the facts have been considered, and the actual choice is to be made, what kind of inference is involved? What is the premise from which "therefore I choose X" is concluded? It seems that, once it comes down to actually deciding on an action, the man chooses impelled by whichever is the stronger urge.
Let's take the karaoke bar and grill example. Quintus deliberates over the options of the banana split and performing. He considers exactly what sensations he would undergo with each of the choices: how the banana split would taste and how it would feel to be on stage. These questions about anticipated future states of sensation are questions of fact. And he uses his reason to inductively determine them. He anticipates that the banana split will taste a certain way, because other banana splits have tasted a certain way before, for example. But when it comes down to the decision itself, no matter how many facts he has collected in his deliberation, what really matters is how he values those facts. It's not an issue of inference, like "singing yields 10 "utils" while ice cream only yields 8, 10>8, therefore singing is objectively best". The set of facts, enlarged by deliberation, associated with the two options elicits two sets of urges. The stronger urge will impel the acting man to decide for its associated option. This decision cannot be characterized as an inference.
Jacob Bloom: wilderness: So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced. If actions are choices and incentives don't matter then the choice to pay taxes is human nature and so taxes are an outgrowth of natural law.
Exactly! So, logically, If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood; and therefore a witch!
hashem: Jacob Bloom: wilderness: So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced. If actions are choices and incentives don't matter then the choice to pay taxes is human nature and so taxes are an outgrowth of natural law. Exactly! So, logically, If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood; and therefore a witch!
Lol, I love that movie. But still, if all human actions are choices and if the incentives don't matter and if all choices are part of human nature, then how can natural law make an argument against taxation? The only argument against taxation that I know of is that 1.) it's not voluntary, you can't really choose not to pay (without some very serious consequences) and 2. It deprives people of their ability to make choices with their own money, which we assume are better for the overall economy than having the government make their choices for them.
Jacob Bloom:then how can natural law make an argument against taxation?
This goes back to what I brought up in the beginning. In order to make any case regarding property, you must first have a case for rights. The case for natural law against taxation would then be that the ethics for man derived from the laws of human nature allow for rights, particularly to property. These ethical rights forbid theft of property.
Jacob Bloom:Lol, I love that movie. But still, if all human actions are choices and if the incentives don't matter and if all choices are part of human nature, then how can natural law make an argument against taxation? The only argument against taxation that I know of is that 1.) it's not voluntary, you can't really choose not to pay (without some very serious consequences) and 2. It deprives people of their ability to make choices with their own money, which we assume are better for the overall economy than having the government make their choices for them.
Well you answered your own question, if taxes WERE a choice and NOT coerced upon people, then they would not be taxes anymore, they would be charitable donations to an organization (the government)....
It forces people to pay for things they do not agree with....
It is nothing more than legal racketeering....
hashem:This goes back to what I brought up in the beginning. In order to make any case regarding property, you must first have a case for rights. The case for natural law against taxation would then be that the ethics for man derived from the laws of human nature allow for rights, particularly to property. These ethical rights forbid theft of property.
I think this actually can be made a case against NL as it takes away the choice, it is not a voluntary choice to pay taxes...
No. The question is what goes with natural law and thus humans having choice. Liberty does. To physically coerce human choices diminishes choice and thus goes against natural law. To physically coerce and narrow choice is anti-Natural law. This is also the argument for capitalism because it provides more choices than socialism and communism.
hashem: Jacob Bloom:then how can natural law make an argument against taxation? This goes back to what I brought up in the beginning. In order to make any case regarding property, you must first have a case for rights. The case for natural law against taxation would then be that the ethics for man derived from the laws of human nature allow for rights, particularly to property. These ethical rights forbid theft of property.
This argument about natural rights and ethics being the foundation of property...seems really weak to me. Without some kind of force behind a claim of ownership, there is no ownership.
Let's say, for example, that you have a nice new laptop. I steal your laptop. How are you going to get it back from me?
Also, is it more sustainable to have a society that refuses to recognize private property or a society that recognizes private property? Why?
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:Lol, I love that movie. But still, if all human actions are choices and if the incentives don't matter and if all choices are part of human nature, then how can natural law make an argument against taxation? The only argument against taxation that I know of is that 1.) it's not voluntary, you can't really choose not to pay (without some very serious consequences) and 2. It deprives people of their ability to make choices with their own money, which we assume are better for the overall economy than having the government make their choices for them. Well you answered your own question, if taxes WERE a choice and NOT coerced upon people, then they would not be taxes anymore, they would be charitable donations to an organization (the government).... It forces people to pay for things they do not agree with.... It is nothing more than legal racketeering....
Ok, but what Hashem said is that ALL actions are choices and that all choices are evidence of human nature and thus a part of natural law. He didn't just say voluntary actions are choices. He said all actions are choices.
Here's your other problem, if a large percentage of the population wants something and demands taxes pay for it, how are you going to stop them from taking your money?
wilderness: Jacob Bloom: wilderness: So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced. If actions are choices and incentives don't matter then the choice to pay taxes is human nature and so taxes are an outgrowth of natural law. No. The question is what goes with natural law and thus humans having choice. Liberty does. To physically coerce human choices diminishes choice and thus goes against natural law. To physically coerce and narrow choice is anti-Natural law. This is also the argument for capitalism because it provides more choices than socialism and communism.
Ok ok, but paying taxes is just an action. And if all human actions are choices, then how can you argue that paying taxes is not part of human nature if all actions are choices? If all actions are not choices, then not all human actions are part of human nature. And thus taxes, despite being an action, is not a voluntary choice and thus not a part of human nature.
I also personally think that instead of arguing natural law as being the foundation of liberty, we should argue that liberty is the foundation of a functional, sustainable society. So instead of making a moral and ethical argument for liberty, we can make a practical argument for liberty, which is what we all really want.
Jacob Bloom:Ok, but what Hashem said is that ALL actions are choices and that all choices are evidence of human nature and thus a part of natural law. He didn't just say voluntary actions are choices. He said all actions are choices.
Yes all actions are choices, but to pay taxes as a choice is bringing the choice into the ethical standpoint....
Is it ethical to steal is the question, because the choice is pay taxes or pay consequences, it is operating on the basis of do what I tell you or you will be punished, the standpoint of the robber, is robbery ethical to you Jacob?
Jacob Bloom:Here's your other problem, if a large percentage of the population wants something and demands taxes pay for it, how are you going to stop them from taking your money?
You see Jacob what the problem with having a government is? If there was no government to enforce the majority will to steal from the minority, well then the majority has no teeth in which to coerce the minority...
wilderness:To physically coerce human choices diminishes choice and thus goes against natural law.
It diminishes the ability to choose other options, it does not diminish man's ability to choose for man is also limited in the options he is able to choose by many other factors, many of which are apart of his nature qua man as well. Coercion just raises the cost of not taking the option, nevertheless man can still not take that option, though at a greater cost. In fact, one could then retort that man's natural environment narrows his ability to choose, so that therefore man, for his own good, should not be free to choose whatever path he takes since that is unnatural.
If it is against natural law to then choose to make costs in a decision higher, which is what coercion does, imagine the implications of that, including a doctrine of just price so that man need not be fettered by costs that diminish his natural right to choose.
wilderness:To physically coerce and narrow choice is anti-Natural law.
So self-defense is "anti-Natural law" since you are diminishing your attackers ability to choose. So, in a purely natural law society, anarchy would reign since no one would be able to choose to prevent others from choosing to coerce.
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:Ok, but what Hashem said is that ALL actions are choices and that all choices are evidence of human nature and thus a part of natural law. He didn't just say voluntary actions are choices. He said all actions are choices. Yes all actions are choices, but to pay taxes as a choice is bringing the choice into the ethical standpoint.... Is it ethical to steal is the question, because the choice is pay taxes or pay consequences, it is operating on the basis of do what I tell you or you will be punished, the standpoint of the robber, is robbery ethical to you Jacob? Jacob Bloom:Here's your other problem, if a large percentage of the population wants something and demands taxes pay for it, how are you going to stop them from taking your money? You see Jacob what the problem with having a government is? If there was no government to enforce the majority will to steal from the minority, well then the majority has no teeth in which to coerce the minority...
1. If someone pays their taxes, they are acting. Which means they are choosing. This choice is evidence of human nature, according to you, which means it could be argued that paying taxes is part of human nature.
2. Ethics has nothing to do with why theft is undesirable. If theft is condoned, then theft becomes the norm. And so no one will want to produce anything because they will fear it will just be taken away from them (this is why socialism and communism fall apart). I don't care about ethics, I just care about incentives and functionality. If you incentivize (sp?) theft, you deincentivize production. A society where murder and theft and fraud are incentivized will eventually collapse because the producers and men of ability will eventually disappear (Atlas Shrugged)
3. Just because you get rid of this current government doesn't mean you won't have the majority taking advantage of the minority. It will just be done under a different name. You need a way to enforce the minority opinion. The majority (the collective), by sheer force of numbers, will always be in a position to take advantage of the minority (the individual), whether or not you have a government. The government, however, can be used as an instrument to prevent the majority from exploiting the minority or as an instrument to allow the majority to exploit the minority. Getting rid of the government won't solve your problem, making changes to the current system of government will.
Jacob Bloom: wilderness: Jacob Bloom: wilderness: So a natural law is humans act. This means humans choose. If so, then that's where the derivation of natural rights through liberty are deduced. If actions are choices and incentives don't matter then the choice to pay taxes is human nature and so taxes are an outgrowth of natural law. No. The question is what goes with natural law and thus humans having choice. Liberty does. To physically coerce human choices diminishes choice and thus goes against natural law. To physically coerce and narrow choice is anti-Natural law. This is also the argument for capitalism because it provides more choices than socialism and communism. Ok ok, but paying taxes is just an action. And if all human actions are choices, then how can you argue that paying taxes is not part of human nature if all actions are choices? If all actions are not choices, then not all human actions are part of human nature. And thus taxes, despite being an action, is not a voluntary choice and thus not a part of human nature.
Yes. It is not part of human nature, meaning, it diminishes the potential of what a human is. Human nature isn't flourishing when being physically coerced. It is being suppressed. But what is human nature in this context? Human nature if given voluntary choices, thus, given the opportunity to follow Natural Law and not narrow the natural law of human nature and thus narrowing choices would be to find out the potential of human nature. Human nature is not locked and fixed. It is open-ended and more choices means more potential human actions.
Jacob Bloom: I also personally think that instead of arguing natural law as being the foundation of liberty, we should argue that liberty is the foundation of a functional, sustainable society. So instead of making a moral and ethical argument for liberty, we can make a practical argument for liberty, which is what we all really want.
Make a moral or make a practical argument of liberty. I don't know if I'm against either. For me at the moment, it's make any and all for and of liberty!
laminustacitus: wilderness:To physically coerce and narrow choice is anti-Natural law. So self-defense is "anti-Natural law" since you are diminishing your attackers ability to choose. So, in a purely natural law society, anarchy would reign since no one would be able to choose to prevent others from choosing to coerce.
laminustacitus you just look to argue for arguments sake and it's quite the back-peddling mentally. I've learned. You haven't. And so for me to dip back continuously into the basics of this for you is due to your intellectual inept, not mine.
Self-defense is a natural right since the attacker is violating liberty and thus is violating and going against natural law of human action by narrowing the choices. The defender and attacker had plenty of choices such as persuasion, negotiation, and bartering, etc... depending on the event at hand before the initiating of physical aggression took place. Reasoning has the ability to fulfill and meet the demands of more and more potential choices by - reasoning it out. Coercion on the part of the attacker diminished the choices and thus violated Natural Law.
and do read my signature after this before you do any more dog-chasing the tail activity.