That’s really extreme. Do you apply the same standard to other authors?
off-topic
I’ll echo Solid_Choke and liberty student’s call for you to provide a succinct outline of Hoppe’s conception of justice. If you expect others to provide a comprehensible but succinct theory, you ought to be able to do the same. Then a discussion can actually begin.
Not to single you out, Michael J Green, because you made less egregious off-topic posts than some others, but this is not what this thread is about. The question is not a comparitive one. By anti-Hoppean, I don’t actually mean you oppose Hoppe’s theory necessarily, though this is mainly who needs to answer the question. Hoppe has even made a defense of Rothbardian ethics on many occasions.
And, obviously, that one is unable or unwilling to provide a competing ‘theory of justice’ has no bearing on the quality of your own theory.
Strawman.
Strawman. I never said it was. I am genuinely curious about legal ideas of people who are self-styled libertarians and simultaneously reject Hoppe’s argument. I’m not interested in your opinion on Hoppe though because it routinely doesn’t go much past “He’s wrong”. I want to know what you people have to say besides dropping De Jasay’s name.
Just as a “sentence”, as a matter of a priori necessity, must contain a verb, no (non-assertive) “question” could ever be a non sequitur.
It’s pretty clear from recent experience to me that you are so intellectually dishonest that you can’t answer a simple yes or no question. It doesn’t seem likely that reporting a moderator for being off-topic (you know, that rule you are supposed to enforce) will do very much, so I am likely to ignore your nonsense in the future.
Is this an argumentum ad populem?
All I’ve personally seen is either people not having read any Hoppe (see John Ess’ post) and buying into Anti-Hoppean garbage, or attempted arguments being swatted (see the appropriate thread to discuss “AE”/not this one in case you still don’t get the topic).
While it is great to command people to spend an hour or five writing out justifications for their ethical stances, those ethical positions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not AE is based on sound premises.
Strawman. You should just say nothing if you can’t defend you own position. I probably missed some of your other logical fallacies. Please, check yourself because it has become beyond ridiculous.
(Lilburne debate is happening when? Defeating Lilburne in that debate with one sentence is happening when?)
His error is very simple. So is yours claiming(?) that “a pint of blueberries” or a “shekel” is “purely subjective” (see the thread where you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question and compare Block’s theory of proportionality to the “labour theory of value”).
As I said before, I started writing up something and am somewhat curious what the response will be but didn’t get around to finishing it. I really don’t see how a debate could come from his post, or he could do anything besides immediately concede his error. It really isn’t worth my time to do it unless I am working on advancing my own theory. Considering that Lilburne is apparently so ignorant of the use of quotation marks in contemporary philosophy to constantly call their use “scare quotes”, that no forum neophyte has any substantive response to my comments on Reinach’s philosophy or phenomenology and its possible application to Austrian theory (Ibid.), etc., I’m in no hurry.
Every time Lilburne brings up this subject (or his attack dogs such as yourself), I’m going to remind you of my original response to his supposed refutation. Make a Mises Daily, write a journal article, send an email to Hoppe about it and post his response. Wouldn’t that be a damn shame if your “resounding refutation” of the major theory of Hoppe went down like the Titanic because o’le Olovetto never made the debate thread?
on topic
Hasnas: Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights is more up my alley. Starting pg. 14 (124).
Z.
Are you an anarchist?
I’ve lain out the following analogy before, please tell me if you understand the relationship and explain it if possible:
economic theory:econometrics::legal philosophy:jurisprudence
What does the bolded part mean? An anti-Hoppean is not someone who necessarily opposes Hoppe’s theory, then is it someone who opposes Hoppe?
You would do me a big favor to ignore me because you keep trashing discussions with your obsessive trolling of me.
You can claim I am intellectually dishonest, but you’re the only person here I won’t answer, and that is because you’re arrogant and lack adequate communication skills. I answer plenty of discussions by PM, and email. I’m always willing to explain myself to people whom I consider to be sincere, and not angry man-children, throwing fits when they don’t get their way.
Not at all. It was a statement of fact. I believe Lilburne has already challenged AE and is waiting for you to defend it.
What is anti-Hoppean garbage?
His error is simple, and yet you haven’t debated him. And you have all this time to troll me without success, and then you complain you get enraged on the forum. Seems very countere-productive to me. If his error is simple, address it. No need for this sideshow.
I likw Walter Block quite a bit, but proportionality is complete nonsense in my opinion. And yes, I think it is a solution to a non-problem, akin to the labor theory of value. If you would like to debate that, let’s have at it. Make an argument.
I like how you went from being so bold, as to claim you could smash his argument in one sentence, to now claiming you have to write up something longer.
Or now you claim there can’t be debate from his post. Or how he just has to admit his error, which again, you haven’t pointed out.
Now, you add that it isn’t worth your time, to the endless stream of excuses. And of course, where you were so bold before, you now claim to be in no hurry.
Your challenge to Lilburne to publish an article, is nonsense, and completely cowardly. His argument is already published, under his name, here in the forum, and available all over the internet. It is very lame of you to expect him to send letters to Hoppe, when you insist upon defending Hoppe here the remainder of the time.
I’m not saying his argument is beyond your capacity to refute, or even that it is correct. But your many excuses and evasions, what did you call that, oh yes, “intellectual dishonesty” is apparent for anyone to see.
Amazing.
So, this is another question for you Z:
You were talking to me about “what if someone punished 2.5x maximum allowable punishment (by proportionality)” then I was talking to you about homogenous goods and a basic problem but I’m not sure if you responded or not. (Sorry if I missed it.)
Say that I steal 10 oz. of gold from you, what is your course of action?
-
Chop off whichever hand you stole them with, or
-
Force you to marry your son with my daughter without any dowry, or
-
Urinate on your doorstep in front of everyone, or
…apply whichever (custom) rule has evolved as acceptable and fair by the community that patronizes (supports) the local courts. Free markets, and all that jazz. What would you do?
Z.
So holding a popularity contest every few years makes the legitimacy of law ooze from legislator’s pens huh?
So holding a popularity contest every few years makes the legitimacy of law ooze from legislator’s pens huh?
I didn’t see anything explicitly about legislators (politicians), it looks like he meant let the market decide the law. Maybe I’m mis-reading him though.
I think we can do better than just say “let the market decide”. Z didn’t answer 2 questions as well.
Irrelevant.
I suggest that everyone explain their own analogies. Works better that way.
So did/do Stalin, Bin Laden, the ayatollahs, and Kim Jong Il. What’s “better” than the market?
I think we can do better than just say “let the market decide”.
A cry for socialism? 
ERO, I just thought of a business model that could perform splendidly under your “two teeth for one” legal theory. Let me know if you see a glitch.
I plan to perform about 100 robberies netting me about 10oz of gold each for a total “cash flow” of 1000oz/yr. Let’s assume my “caught rate” is CR(%), and my “proven guilty when caught rate” is PG(%). My total “fail rate” would be FR = CR x PG. For instance, if I got caught 30% of the time (CR=30%) and I got found guilty 50% of the times I appeared in court (PG=50%), my fail rate would be FR = 0.3 x 0.5 = 15%.
At a fail rate of 15% and under “two teeth for one” penalty system, my “cost” of doing business would be 15 x (2 x 10oz) = 300oz/yr, yielding me a healthy profit margin of 70% or 700oz/year profit.
To conclude, as long as my fail rate (FR) remains below 50%, I make money with my “venture”. Want to invest?
Z.
ERO, I just thought of a business model that could perform splendidly under your “two teeth for one” legal theory. Let me know if you see a glitch.
Thats actually my legal theory.
To conclude, as long as my fail rate (FR) remains below 50%, I make money with my “venture”. Want to invest?
I’m going to need to hear some concrete ideas on how you will actually maintain such a low FR. I see a good hedge opportunity though.
Irrelevant.
I disagree. Is “anarchy as law” part of your legal theory, or is all you can do is say “let the market sort it out”?
I suggest that everyone explain their own analogies. Works better that way.
Well, I don’t see anyone making substantive responses to what I write, like in the above link about Tatbestand. So, I am trying to ask you what you understand or don’t. Consider this passage from Adolf Reinach:
Together with pure mathematics and pure natural science there is also a pure science of right, which also consists in strictly apriori and synthetic propositions and which serves as the foundation for disciplines which are not apriori. . . . If one formulates the essential laws of right in such a way that the possibility of their being suspended is taken into account, then they hold unconditionally. Otherwise their validity depends on those possibilities not being realized. But in either case it remains true that the validity of these laws, considered in themselves, is free from any exception. . . . There can be no question of a “contradiction” between the apriori theory of right and the positive law, there are only deviations of ought-enactments from the laws governing what is. These deviations, however, can never be used as an argument against the validity of the apriori laws of being. . . . The idea—posing as so scientific whereas it is ultimately quite simple-minded—that the relations which are grounded in the essence of social acts and are available to our direct insight could be refuted by the study of historical facts, proves
to be thoroughly untenable and even absurd.
…
So did/do Stalin, Bin Laden, the ayatollahs, and Kim Jong Il. What’s “better” than the market?
…
A cry for socialism?
Do you really think that is what I am saying Angurse?
Z, how about this business plan, send off a proposal to LvMI to publish your magnum opus, “Let the market decide: a treaty on economics”. Being less than a page long should really cut down on publishing costs and you are sure to profit from this revolutionary idea.
ERO, I just thought of a business model that could perform splendidly under your “two teeth for one” legal theory. Let me know if you see a glitch.
I plan to perform about 100 robberies netting me about 10oz of gold each for a total “cash flow” of 1000oz/yr. Let’s assume my “caught rate” is CR(%), and my “proven guilty when caught rate” is PG(%). My total “fail rate” would be FR = CR x PG. For instance, if I got caught 30% of the time (CR=30%) and I got found guilty 50% of the times I appeared in court (PG=50%), my fail rate would be FR = 0.3 x 0.5 = 15%.
At a fail rate of 15% and under “two teeth for one” penalty system, my “cost” of doing business would be 15 x (2 x 10oz) = 300oz/yr, yielding me a healthy profit margin of 70% or 700oz/year profit.
You likely won’t have good information that each “job” is going to net you exactly 10 oz. of gold.
You aren’t accounting for the chance that you stand to get shot in the act of robbing people. You need to balance how much you value your life in all this.
I’ll run with your numbers though…
It’s ludicrous that you would have time to perform 100 robberies in a year if you are getting captured and found guilty (“fail rate” = 15%) 15/100 times.
Ignoring that humans are running this system and they may not be utterly “libertarian” and you might just get beaten to death in jail while awaiting trial, you will need to keep cash on hand to cover the repayment of what you stole, thus reducing your utility of being a thief. Even if we assume a fluid system, there is more to your required costs than just the “two teeth”.
You are actually making an effort to escape police right and this is why you are only caught 30% of the time? This will lead to further expenses accrued satisfying the “costs of (re)capture” aspect of proportional punishment. Legal philosophy can’t quantify these costs.
You are paying some (very skilled) lawyers to get you off 50% of the time right?
To conclude, as long as my fail rate (FR) remains below 50%, I make money with my “venture”. Want to invest?
Z.
Your error is echoed in this article on “compensation ratio”.
There are several further counterarguments to it. How can anyone establish a reliable “detection percent” for unsolvable crimes? It introduces an arbitrary valuation which is logically inferior to the “two teeth” objective analysis of “what was done”. As a reducio ad absurdum, wouldn’t a criminal “owe less” if they sought to rob a heavily guarded museum? We might say that your chances of running off with the Mona Lisa are a bit under 50%.
The “compensation ratio” is not a consideration of “what was done”, but rather the last aspect of proportionality theory to be addressed, the “premium for scaring”. Historically, the theft of a horse could be punishable with death because it might have left a cowboy stranded in the desert. If there is some crime which is “easy to get away with”, it poses a greater threat to the life, or continued peaceful existence of the victim, and introoduces a necessary measure of accounting for risks posed to another’s life. On this, see the heuristic device of the “revolver with 1,000 chambers” in Walter Block’s piece on proportionality (from page 12). You can’t ignore that people are going to try to punish you for menacing them.
ERO, thx for the elaborate risk/cost analysis. You’re a worthy partner. Of course, there are uncertainties in business. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. But apart from these risks, are there any legal theoretical obstacles to actually establishing this as an “honest” business in a society that has fully accepted your proportionality legal theory? The risk examples you are listing – getting shot, or beaten to death – would provide me with a justifiable claim of aggression against me under your system, wouldn’t they?
How is Block’s “1000 chamber revolver” any less arbitrary (or more a priori objective) than the three recourse possibilities (hand chop off, dowry-less marriage, or public doorstep urination) I listed previously?
No, it is YOU that can not ignore this. People (each allocating their own resources according to their own convictions) hit you like a brick wall the moment you lift your nose up from between the covers of your books. Good luck making them all embrace YOUR premise for your (“fluid”) a priori objective legal “system”.
ERO, thx for the elaborate risk/cost analysis. You’re a worthy partner. Of course, there are uncertainties in business. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. But apart from these risks, are there any legal theoretical obstacles to actually establishing this as an “honest” business in a society that has fully accepted your proportionality legal theory? The risk examples you are listing – getting shot, or beaten to death – would provide me with a justifiable claim of aggression against me under your system, wouldn’t they?
There exists continuum problems, but when we speak of “you invading my property and holding a gun to my head demanding my 10 oz. of gold”, you have no right to your own life.
How is Block’s “1000 chamber revolver” any less arbitrary (or more a priori objective) than the three recourse possibilities (hand chop off, dowry-less marriage, or public doorstep urination) I listed previously?
We could discuss an ideal situation where you fill 3/6 chambers and force me to play Russian Roulette 1 or more times and take the calculus from there. “Arbitration” involves the arbitrary decisions of human participants. We can, nonetheless, separate the imperfect flow of human history from a scientific understanding of human action, cf. Mises.
No, it is YOU that can not ignore this. People (each allocating their own resources according to their own convictions) hit you like a brick wall the moment you lift your nose up from between the covers of your books. Good luck making them all embrace YOUR premise for your (“fluid”) a priori objective legal “system”.
Well, you might just get hit yourself with some rather “unlibertarian” stonings when you get caught stealing the second or third time.
Are you an anarchist? Please address my questions so we can move forward.
Says who? The God of A Priori Legal Rights? The Ultimate Rights Allocator? What if it was an empty gun? Or a very menacing looking water gun? As for our venture, don’t worry, we’ll make sure no one is home when we grab the 10oz. Viable and “honest”, now?
Yes, we can also separate it from the scientific understanding of how many angels can dance at the top of a needle. Mises’ theory is valid even in an “imperfect” world. It is also value-free. Your legal theory is neither, so the analogy is kaputt.
Stop making my case, already. Takes all the fun out of this.
Show me how the messenger’s convictions are relevant to the content of his message? Focus on the latter and stop derailing with the former.
Z.
Yes, we can also separate it from the scientific understanding of how many angels can dance at the top of a needle. Mises’ theory is valid even in an “imperfect” world. It is also value-free. Your legal theory is neither, so the analogy is kaputt.
Please state “my legal theory” and explain why it is not wertfrei. (not the topic of this thread, so make a new one)
I thought there was some hope for you, but you are just a very deceptive statist AFAIK.
ERO, my cost/benefit equation on this is deteriorating rapidly so I’m about done with you, as well. Glad we finally agree.
Z.