I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

Curlz31:

1. This is a statement of faith not fact. This is your bible.

The attachment of reason, reflection and rights dates back to Aquinas and the Scholastics' original formation of natural law centuries ago. That is, really, what natural rights are:the moral abilities inherent in the combination of high order reason and reflection.

Curlz31:

2. Even if you assume this statement is true, it would mean mentally retarded humans are not endowed with rights. Some pretty weird scenarios could arise from this. For example, if I fall of a horse and the 'rational' functioning of my brain is damaged, somehow the rights are magically zapped out of me.

Strawman. I combined reason with the ability to reflect on ones situation. Ones ability to feel things like injustice, etc. Even if a retarded person isn't exactly a scholar of moral philosophy he can act on moral notions in a way dogs demonstrably can't. I feel silly having to explain that further. 

Curlz31:

So you alone, user 'Nerditarian' on the mises.org forums, have the authority to decide what constitutes a libertarian. Impressive.

A libertarian as we use the term today refers to a subscriber to a certain politico-economic belief. Either for moral reasons or for utilitiarian reasons we believe in instituting some form of the NAP as the basis for law. This is the definition anyone familiar with the modern libertarian movement subscribes to.You do not have these beliefs. Ergo you can't be a  libertarian.  Questions? 

Curlz31:

Geometry has a basis in reality. Time and three-dimensional space. The homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom has no such basis.

Yes. Yes it does. It can be rooted in what is recognized by the nature of debate. Please search Argumentation Ethics, Hans Herman Hoppe on the interwebs, M'Kay?

Curlz31:

1. You can't prove things by merely using subjective words like 'rational' and 'moral'.

To call someone a moral actor is not a subjective term. It is synonymous with the concept of moral agency. It has a definition. Are you seriously denying that rational has an objective definition?

Curlz31:

2. Many humans are not rational or moral. For example the mentally retarded, murderers etc

Even if your immoral you are still a rational moral actor because you had the ability to choose to be immoral. You could think about your actions and analyze them. Even the retard or the toddler can engage in such action. However, a wolf cannot morally think about whether it should kill something which threatens its territory. It's entirely instinct.

Curlz31:

But there are reasons for this. We just have not found them yet

??? We know the reason. We each are rational beings with moral agency making value judgments independent of each other based on experiences, knowledge, upbringing etc.

 

 

Esuric:

Pablo:

Agreed. In more simplistic terms, the common sense he is refering to is an appeal to emotional reaction. When put in those terms, it becomes much more clear to recognize the danger that it poses.

Thanks Spok! Did I spell his name right?

I only slightly got that, because I've never actually watched Star Trek, but I definitely think I see what you are getting at.

Actually, interestingly enough, I did see a clip of it about some giant blob that some humans were hunting. I say its interesting because it definitely pertains a lot to what we are talking about. (animal rights/blob rights)

Curlz31:

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25797913-661,00.html

Now according to Rothbardians this guy cannot be jailed because he "owned" the puppy.

I want to see the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics try and defend a puppy having its ears and tail hacked off.

Hopefully there will not be many of you because you are a weight on the shoulders of sane libertarians.

"Animals will get their rights when they petition for them." - Rothbard

Of course what was done to this dog is morally reprehensible. But that is not the moral question facing you and I if we act to intervene. The moral question is whether we can justify the use of force to prevent the dog's owner from disposing of it as he sees fit. I think the answer is pretty clearly "no." The "rights" of things which are not real or cannot speak for themselves invariably serve as a doll through which the ventriloquist speaks to advance his own interests in a dispute.

Clayton -

Harry Felker:

Is the dog a self owner?

You live your life in an abstract world of words and definitions. You take 'language' and 'concepts' for granted. You take the words of someone like Murray Rothbard as the words of god itself. Stop doing that. Murray Rothbard is no better than you.

 

Harry Felker:

Are you really this bored?

No. I just find occasional satisfaction in annoying the hell out of people who generally hold the same views as I do but who base their philosophies on abstract absurdities like a human-exclusive non-agression axiom.

 

Harry Felker:

LS is right, this is why the statists win....

What? Because libertarians argue amongst ourselves you think statists win? If you've ever been to revleft forums you'll see statists tearing each other apart just the same.

Pablo:

I only slightly got that, because I've never actually watched Star Trek, but I definitely think I see what you are getting at.

Actually, interestingly enough, I did see a clip of it about some giant blob that some humans were hunting. I say its interesting because it definitely pertains a lot to what we are talking about. (animal rights/blob rights)

I wanted to say: "a Spokian in the truest sense of the word," but that's teetering on corny. Oh well, the deed is done!

Curlz31:

No. I just find occasional satisfaction in annoying the hell out of people who generally hold the same views as I do but who base their philosophies on abstract absurdities like a human-exclusive non-agression axiom.

So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go?  Should it be extended to plants?

sicsempertyrannis:

So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go?  Should it be extended to plants?

Good question. So far we know that overly aggressive dogs require extensive re-education, and murdering ants requires you to pay reparations to the victim's colony.

Nerditarian:

The attachment of reason, reflection and rights dates back to Aquinas and the Scholastics'

Yet another case of what I call "The deification of the celebrity philosopher". You can't use the fact that a really famous philospher said something as an argument. It's bankrupt and a reflection on the lazy "cult of celebrity" culture that exists in all areas of life today.

 

Nerditarian:

Even if a retarded person isn't exactly a scholar of moral philosophy he can act on moral notions in a way dogs demonstrably can't.

You've never come across serious cases of mental retardation have you. What about those who are permanently unconcious? What about newbord human babies?

 

Nerditarian:

You do not have these beliefs. Ergo you can't be a  libertarian.  Questions? 

So even if I believe there should be no government healthcare, no government education, no government defence, no government welfare, no government anything ...... i'm still not a libertarian because a libertarian has to believe in the human-exclusive NAP ?

Curlz31:

 ...... i'm still not a libertarian because a libertarian has to believe in the human-exclusive NAP ?

No, you're not.  I dont know if you've noticed, but humans cannot do photosynthesis.  We have to kill and eat other organisms to live.

That is just how it is.

Nerditarian:

It can be rooted in what is recognized by the nature of debate. Please search Argumentation Ethics, Hans Herman Hoppe on the interwebs, M'Kay?

This is another example of "The deification of the celebrity philosopher"

Nerditarian:

Are you seriously denying that rational has an objective definition?

I'm saying you can't make an argument by constantly spitting out "rational" and "reason". Explain your argument with a basis in the origin, existence and progression of the universe.

 

Nerditarian:

because you had the ability to choose to be immoral.

You've never heard of involuntary tics and things like Tourette Syndrome, where people can move thier body INVOLUNTARILY. Every hear of sleep walking

ClaytonB:

"Animals will get their rights when they petition for them." - Rothbard

"Retarded people will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard

"Babies will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard

"A foetus is a parasite because it relies on its host to survive" - Rothbard

"A baby is a parasite because it relies on its mother to survive" - Rothbard

On top of this is the fact that this is another case of "The deification of the celebrity philosopher".

ClaytonB:

The moral question is whether we can justify the use of force to prevent the dog's owner from disposing of it as he sees fit. I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."

Your morality derives from an axiom which is abstract and bankrupt and which calls foetuses and babies parasites. It is an axiom which itself has a basis in emotion rather than the origin and progression of the universe.

sicsempertyrannis:

So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go?  Should it be extended to plants?

Via your observation that I reject the human-exclusive non-agression axiom, you have stupidly assumed that I support another axiom and indeed an axiom that would be one of non-agression which includes all animals ?

You have assumed wrongly.

Curlz31:

Your morality derives from an axiom which is abstract and bankrupt and which calls foetuses and babies parasites. It is an axiom which itself has a basis in emotion rather than the origin and progression of the universe.

Okay, so aggressive dogs require re-education, and the colony of a murdered ant requires reparations; but what do we do to the plants we brutally murder and consume? How do we remedy this gross injustice?

sicsempertyrannis:

No, you're not.  I dont know if you've noticed, but humans cannot do photosynthesis.  We have to kill and eat other organisms to live.

That is just how it is.

You again make assumptions based on stereotypes. Stop doing that.

Esuric:

Okay, so aggressive dogs require re-education, and the colony of a murdered ant requires reparations; but what do we do to the plants we brutally murder and consume? How do we remedy this gross injustice?

I never said any of this.

Curlz31:

sicsempertyrannis:

So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go?  Should it be extended to plants?

Via your observation that I reject the human-exclusive non-agression axiom, you have stupidly assumed that I support another axiom and indeed an axiom that would be one of non-agression which includes all animals ?

You have assumed wrongly.

Because you've all but called the 'human-exclusive' non-aggression axiom arbitrary - I ask why is the non-plant animal NAA just as arbitrary?

sicsempertyrannis:

Because you've all but called the 'human-exclusive' non-aggression axiom arbitrary - I ask why is the non-plant animal NAA just as arbitrary?

Because it involves making explicit statements about the overall nature of the universe while ignoring the known facts of the universe.

Because it involves making explicit statements about the overall nature of the universe in the context of excellent and progressing but imperfect knowledge about the universe.

do you actually have a theory of justice, or is it just a bunch of ad-hocs that you call 'common sense' ?

nirgrahamUK:

do you actually have a theory of justice, or is it just a bunch of ad-hocs that you call 'common sense' ?

'Common sense' fills the grey area that humans are yet to discover and yet to master. As we progress we refine.

I assure you nothing I write here is ad-hoc.

so do you actually have a theory of justice?

nirgrahamUK:

so do you actually have a theory of justice?

I look at facts at learn things from them. If by a 'theory of justice' you mean an axiomatic proclamation from which all morality derives, then no.

Looking at the facts, I've learned of the importance of liberty and the market economy. I've also learned things about animals.

so based on the fact that you dont have a system, i think its fair to say whatever you do have is ad-hoc. and you brush over this and hide it by calling it 'cmmon sense'.

 

but anyway.

do you understand 'moral agency' ?

 

Title of the thread was originally "I want to see frothing-at-the-mouth Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off".

 

I guess its a little harsh but don't take too much offence. I think Rothbards work, particularly the revisionist history, is exemplary, however his overall theory is a failure and his arrogance and intellectual laziness (or deliberate ignorance) in justifying animal cruelty and calling foetuses and newborn babies parasites is to be condemned.

But hey, nobody is perfect .... at least yet. Including me.

i think you are lazy and arrogant.

do you understand 'moral agency' ?

Why should I care about dogs?

nirgrahamUK:

so based on the fact that you dont have a system

And lack of a system implies failure to you. To me it reflects the reality of imperfect knowledge.

Also, keep in mind that anarcho-capitalism based on the absolute human-exclusive non-agression axiom, is a comprehensive failure when applied in reality.

If interpreted correctly, it says you can't kick a guy in the guts if he's running at you with a knife because you have to wait until he actually stabs you. You can't pre-empt because it's against the human-exclusive non-agression axiom. Common sense based on the realities of the universe, however, would tell us that it is perfectly reasonable to kick the guy in the guts.

nirgrahamUK:

do you understand 'moral agency' ?

Is it something you read in a book by one of your god-like celebrity philosophers, whom you so admire?

Don't resort to sophistry. That's a Marxist's job.

Curlz31, do you eat meat?  If so, stfu and go away.

Curlz31:

And lack of a system implies failure to you. To me it reflects the reality of imperfect knowledge.

A lack of a system reflects chaotic, possibly insane, irrational behavior that is not possible in a human conscious unless one were clinically insane.

Curlz31:

Also, keep in mind that anarcho-capitalism based on the absolute human-exclusive non-agression axiom, is a comprehensive failure when applied in reality.

Given that you have no system and are pleading implied ignorance to the world around you then who are you to say what is and isn't a failure?

Curlz31:

If interpreted correctly, it says you can't kick a guy in the guts if he's running at you with a knife because you have to wait until he actually stabs you.

Actually that is a clear and present threat. We deal with strict constructivsm and your strawman fallacies lack any subtly.

Curlz31:

Is it something you read in a book by one of your god-like celebrity philosophers, whom you so admire?

Don't resort to sophistry. That's a Marxist's job.

What wonderful double think. Here you are claiming humility in not knowing everything [ perhaps an admirable trait ] yet denounce those who have a handle on intellectual endeavors. Perhaps jealously is your vice.

 

nirgrahamUK:

i think you are lazy and arrogant.

Well if we are going to reduce ourselves to childish insults then i'll say this ...

Poms are cheaters. Every single one of you. You cheated in the first Ashes test and you are jealous of Australia's sporting superiority.

Spideynw:

Curlz31, do you eat meat?  If so, stfu and go away.

This statement tells me either you havent read this whole thread or you have the level of understanding that many others in this thread have displayed.

Curlz31:

And lack of a system implies failure to you. To me it reflects the reality of imperfect knowledge.

lack of system implies failure to attempt to systemitize, it amounts to contentedness with ignorance. what i cant fathom is your arrogance in suggesting that your disorganized, unanalysed (non-systemitized) moral insight is superior to the moral insight of those who have done some due diligence. 

as a logical possibility, you might be right, all the moral positions you hold. may be the correct ones, but you have no basis with which to rationally dialogue with other pople about this, since you havent put in any effort to even thinking *about* what you think about. (you have foregone Meta-analysis).

Curlz31:

nirgrahamUK:

do you understand 'moral agency' ?

Is it something you read in a book by one of your god-like celebrity philosophers, whom you so admire?Don't resort to sophistry. That's a Marxist's job.

a) you dont understand moral agency. which makes you as foolish as someone opinionated in science who does not understand proper experimental method. It blows my mind that anyone who does not understand moral agency yet who wishes to assert moral opinions would expect to be taken seriously.

b)

Curlz31:

Is it something you read in a book by one of your god-like celebrity philosophers, whom you so admire?

despite it beign something i read about, it is also something that is necessary for discussions of morality to have any meaning.

does your ignorance of philosophy give you special priviledge to make pronouncements about morality, that those of us who have made studies of parts of that field of knowledge can not do?

Curlz31:

Don't resort to sophistry. That's a Marxist's job.

 hilarious fallacy of guilt by association. hence you are hoisted on your own petard, as sophists propount fallacies. i suppose by your standard this would make you a marxist.

Curlz31:

nirgrahamUK:

i think you are lazy and arrogant.

Well if we are going to reduce ourselves to childish insults then i'll say this ...

you said it first. you said it about Rothbard. why can you say that about him, but we can't say it about you?

Curlz31:

Poms are cheaters. Every single one of you.

your irrational collectivism has just been loosed.

Anarchist Cain:

Actually that is a clear and present threat.

An axiom is a universal truth. The fact that you have admitted what you have is proof that the human-exclusive non-agression axiom is not an axiom, but rather something you apply in conjunction with a subjective view of 'clear and present danger'.

 

I wonder what other exceptions you have. Many .... I know.

Curlz31:

An axiom is a universal truth. The fact that you have admitted what you have is proof that the human-exclusive non-agression axiom is not an axiom, but rather something you apply in conjection with a subjective view of 'clear and present danger'.

Actually the axiom states that individuals cannot aggress against another violently with moral authority. Therefore I am justified in defending my person or property when I am threatened with violence from another individual.

Curlz31:

I wonder what other exceptions you have. Many .... I know.

Haha honestly, how petty you have become in this thread. You know I supposedly have expections yet the idea of systemic logical deduction eludes you. Dig yourself deeper into the hole of idiocy. I can still hear your screams.

Curlz31:

The fact that you have admitted what you have is proof that the human-exclusive non-agression axiom is not an axiom, but rather something you apply in conjunction with a subjective view of 'clear and present danger'.

the fact that a universal axiom, is applied in conjunction with subjective beliefs, does not make the universal axiom not a universal axiom, it makes the conjunction of the two 'not necessarily' universal and axiomatic. 

contrary to your logical fallacy.

nirgrahamUK:

implies failure to attempt to systemitize

I accuse you of trying to systemise without a basis for doing so.

nirgrahamUK:

but you have no basis with which to rationally dialogue with other pople about this

That's your opinion.

nirgrahamUK:

it is also something that is necessary for discussions of morality to have any meaning.

No it's not. That's your opinion and the opinion of the celebrity philosopher from which you got that.

nirgrahamUK:

hilarious fallacy of guilt by association.

No. I'm just saying don't do what Marxists do because its just sickening. Quoting 'Das Kapital' like the word of god and not engaging argument based in reality.

Curlz31:

nirgrahamUK:

it is also something that is necessary for discussions of morality to have any meaning.

No it's not. That's your opinion and the opinion of the celebrity philosopher from which you got that.

you are going to feel very stupid when you discover what 'moral agency' means.

Curlz31:

Quoting 'Das Kapital' like the word of god and not engaging argument based in reality.

you havent made any statement about morality and reality yet. you have only said you dont 'like' the 'ugly' pracrtice of cruelty to animals. i dont doubt that you dont 'like' it. way to keep it real.

 

Nirgraham...I have no idea how you are going to combat the stunning retort of 'well that's your opinion'.

 

Best throw in the towel...

Curlz31:

nirgrahamUK:

implies failure to attempt to systemitize

I accuse you of trying to systemise without a basis for doing so.

when is it proper to systemitise? what are the reuired basii?

Curlz31:

nirgrahamUK:

but you have no basis with which to rationally dialogue with other pople about this

That's your opinion.

 

im confident its your opinion too. in a rational argument, two opponents mull over facts, check deductive steps, with the hope of reaeching agreement  by virtue of agreeing on facts, and assuring each other that deductive errors have been avoided. you have so far gone on record saying that morality is not to be systemitised, which is to say that there is no system from distinguishing moral facts from non-moral facts, nor no system for distinguising valid moral deductions from non-valid moral deductions, leading rational argument on the topic to be impossible.

are you hoping to have a rational argument here, or is this just about venting your spleen?