-
[quote user="gotlucky"][quote] No, we already have claims... incompatible claims... that's the problem. What we (humans) need is a principle or set of principles for determining which claims are legitimate and which claims are not legitimate. [/quote]Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. A Marxist may consider the apple to be nobody's
-
[quote user="abskebabs"] 1. 3m -> A 2. 5m -> B 3. 3m -> A [/quote] Shouldn't the m's be on the same value scale as the A's and B's, like this: 1. 9m 2. A & B 3. A & A 4. 8m 5. 7m 6. 6m 7. 5m 8. A 9. B 10. 4m
-
[quote user="gotlucky"] And to add to it, the golden rule/ethic of reciprocity has been around since recorded history in all major cultures (and I presume all cultures, but I cannot back that up easily). I don't see how homesteading could precede the ethic of reciprocity if it came into being afterwards .[/quote] I don't see what the
-
[quote user="gotlucky"][quote user="Graham Wright"]No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more
-
[quote user="gotlucky"] I'm actually in the process of writing out a less snarky response, I just wrote that because your response to me didn't really highlight anything other than that you disagreed with me. [/quote] OK. That's all I was doing. I'm answering the OP and wanted to point out that I am disagreeing with the way
-
Sorry Autolykos. Here's something you did say that I disagree with. [quote user="Autolykos"][quote user="Eran"]Self-ownership doesn't help - a landlord can legitimately prohibit smoking on his permises. So governemnt's drug prohibition, for example, would be legitimate IF government was the legitimate owner of its territory
-
Did you read the rest of my post or check out my links?
-
Eran, you are right to criticise the NAP as not being the proper "foundational principle" of libertarianism. It isn't. As Stephan Kinsella writes : [quote user="Stephan Kinsella"]The nonaggression principle is also dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me
-
[quote user="AJ"]An easy crowdsourced way to do this: have people post here some examples of what they themselves deem their best posts, or even the most illuminating conversations/threads they've participated in so far.[/quote] Here are some of mine: Estoppel – Argumentation Ethics – Aggression Homeschool vs Formal School
-
[quote user="gotlucky"][quote user="Graham Wright"]Why do they do that? Why hold some back for the last minute?[/quote] They aren't holding back any tickets. These low priced tickets are the remaining tickets they were unable to sell. They would rather sell what would normally be a $120 seat for $8 than to not sell it at all