It is amusing how pissy you become whenever some one attacks you.
Oh, you attacked me ? I tought you made an ‘empirical observation’ (probably value-free or something) (but you also admitted that it was based on interpreting data - so it was not that empirical ) ?
It’s like we’re preparing to mock left-wing sectarianism or something.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No. It was empirical. All empirical judgements require that the individual who makes the judgement possesses some theoretical framework. You should probably reread “Theory and History” or “Human Action”.
So your a Hobbesian, war against all?
do some people really think that everyone has the right to infringe everyone elses rights.?
I possess the ‘right’ to kill you. You possess the ‘right’ to stop me. I possess the ‘right’ to steal your car. You possess the ‘right’ to hire an agent to stop me. Et cetera.
They merely believe that the framework of ‘rights’ is worthless. And in an attempt to speak your language, they just say that every person has every right.
Really ?
Yes.
Is that an argument, or, as usual, an empty assertion ?
thats just saying that they dont believe anyone has any rights, contrary to what the earlier post said on the subject.
example : its like if some guy says he was for private property. in fact he is so for it he is for everyone having an equal share in all of it.
thats not being for private property at all.
Yea that is Hobbes’ state of nature argument. If the right to kill is legitimate then why do we lock up murders?
Brilliant
A very good example of the moral nihilism, the mights-makes-rights view. Whatever this is, it isn’t libertarianism.
Whatever it means to say a “framework” is “worthless,” this is an irrelevant observation. It remains the case that an aggressor cannot justify his aggression, and someone seeking to defend against aggression can.
That confuses “freedom” with “rights”.
It implied that, if you were to reread “Theory and History” and “Human Action” after I stated what preceded that assertion, you would probably realize that my observation was indeed empirical because you would probably realize that all empirical conclusions require that the observer possesses some sort of intuitive, interpretative framework. If I were to have tried to substantiate my claim, I would have had to collect all of your recent posts and then divided them into two categories: nonarguments and arguments. The data itself would be empirical but the categorization of the data itself would be apriorical because logic, the science which would convey to us whether each datum is a nonargument or an argument, is an apriorical science.
I really do not care. It is not my view.
It implies that moral rightness and wrongness does not exist. So, no, it is not the “might-makes-right” view.
It is amusing that you believe that whether the framework of an entire scientific demarcation is worthless or not worthless is somehow irrelevant.
It does that intentionally. It does not believe that any separation between “freedom” and “rights” exists.
It reveals the fuzziness of the arguments which some users have advanced in this thread. The definition of “rights” which BAAWA explicitly stated and Kinsella and other implicitly assumed to be the definition of “rights” causes it to become insane to deny that rights exist. But, because “rights” have been defined so incredibly broadly, it proves nothing. In response to such a definition, one could merely state that every one has every right and thereby destroy the worthiness of the concept via its own definition.
wrong. the definition they use is not so insanely broad as to grant everyone rights to everything. it is a theory of negative rights. is this news to you?