I’m not too worried about whether or not you understand my points. You haven’t made a cogent arguement in quite some time.
I agree, I’m still puzzled as to how writing “liberty is… life is…” is somehow an argument. Was that ever explained?
I believe it is an argument he developed after reading a recent book on Natural Rights theory. I have not asked him in depth about his argument so he will need to provide that but I think it is productive that individuals come up with new arguments for libertarian positions. We do not want to devolve into a one pony show.
Hey zefreak did you manage to explain what sort of knowledge is ‘observable’ ? This is the 4th time I ask ?
Maybe that’s a piece of dogma that you as a member of the stirner church can’t reveal to the uninitiated ?
By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you don’t believe in universal, ‘natural’ human rights that can be logically justified.
Am I right about your position, that is, you don’t believe in ‘objective’ individual rights ?
lol… and of course you haven’t either so you can continue saying nothing of intellectual value or rise above this…
“I know you are but what am I.”…lol… fun, fun, fun
well I started a thread on it, no comments, no questions, so you’ll remain puzzled no point in me trying too hard
I guess I could start it off and ask this:
Do you think life, liberty, and property is? Do they exist? Are they being? All the same questions…
Forgive me, but the trailing dots are uselessly annoying. It doesn’t add the effect that you are saying anything profound, imo, but whatever, to each their own.
What do you mean by “are they being”? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.
bad day? It’s not like I was trying to state anything profound, IMO - lol. Of course it’s my opinion. Of course you’re sharing you’re opinion. Don’t be so tedious, but that’s only my opinion. Way too start off on such a bad note. Must I really feel like going on? I don’t know now.
objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc… doesn’t need to be brought up now.
Question: if someone says “I believe it’s ok for me to initiate force against others, but it’s not ok for them to do it to me”, what fallacy is that called?
False. And I see that you, like many many others, whine like a little child when his blatant, unsupported assertions are met with curt dismissal. If you don’t like my method: support your claims. Don’t blame me for YOUR failures, child. I will not stand for it. Learn how to properly debate or leave.
The phrase “initiation of force” cannot be logically defined without circularity, unless you enumerate some specific cases belonging into the “initiation of force.” See the last posts from the thread “Rights, Property, and State” for additional details.
i love it when people who don’t understand concepts lecture people that do understand concepts about how the concepts are not understandable.
I do not believe that we can logically justify the non-aggression principle from either Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” or Molyneux’s “Universally Preferable Behavior.”
However, I do believe that we can logically justify the non-aggression principle from arguments such as how Austrian economics will maximize prosperity.
Indeed, Rothbard does justify the non-aggression principle from arguments such as how Austrian economics will maximize prosperity. Rothbard should set aside the “self-ownership” argument for property rights, while keeping the other ‘consequentialist-like’ argument how Lockean property will maximize prosperity for society as a whole.
Generally, we should justify the non-aggression principle from strictly ‘consequentialist-like’ arguments such as how free trade and ownership of capital goods will maximize prosperity, how the prohibition of drugs and prostitution will increase crime, how economic interventions allow rent-seeking, how the free market will solve the free rider problem and externalities, how the free market will provide better defense and roads than the state, etc.
Like most self-identified ‘consequentialists’, most self-identified ‘deontologists’ will also choose to infringe the property rights in lifeboat situations. For example, most self-identified ‘deontologists’ will justify that Klemm should break into Tom’s cabin. Someone who do believe in ‘universal human rights’ may indeed infringe his believe in lifeboat situations.
Let us look into the definition of the term ‘deontology’. According to online encyclopedias, they define ‘deontology’ as “an ethical approach which holds that acts are inherently ‘good’ or ‘evil’, regardless of the consequences.” We will show the problems of that definition below.
First, the phrase “regardless of the consequences” has multiple interpretations. Does the “consequences” refer to the justification of the ethical prescription itself or the application of the ethical prescription? To rephrase this, does it imply that we should not regard consequences when we justify an ethical prescription, or does it imply that we should not regard consequences when we apply the ethical prescription?
The former interpretation asserts that, for example, that theft is wrong regardless of the consequences of theft such as the general impoverishment of society. However, the latter interpretation asserts that, for example, that theft is always wrong regardless if you must steal to save you or another’s life. These two interpretation of the phrase “regardless of the consequences” are different. Various philosophers criticizing ‘deontology’ confuse the two interpretations.
Libertarians, for example, commonly conflate ‘deontology’ with ‘moral absolutism’. ‘Moral absolutism’, as we will define, prescribes that one must obey ethical prescriptions at all contexts regardless if it is a lifeboat situation. For example, ‘moral absolutists’ will push a person off their flagpole to kill him, or kill Klemm for breaking in Tom’s cabin even though Tom knew, for certain, that Klemm is not a threat to his life.
Libertarians, for example, will also conflate ‘deontology’ with the the belief that ethical prescriptions are inherent to the essence of a human. Ethical approaches which base off this belief include Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” and Molyneux’s “Universally Preferable Behavior.”
The two different interpretation of the phrase “regardless of consequences,” as we have shown above, stirred up intense controversy. (Bradford 1987; Murray et al., 2005; Wolff 2006). Indeed, please check out Jim Peron’s article (2001) concluding that the ‘deontology/consequentialist’ dichotomy between the schools of libertarianism is a matter of semantics. Check his article out right now!
Second, the phrase “acts are inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’” also has multiple interpretations. What does it mean to be “inherently good”? This has multiple interpretations.
First, an “inherently good” act can mean an act in which it is inherently “good” in the essence of a human. This interpretation is common in Rothbardian ‘natural law’ approaches which rejects ‘murder’ as a violation of the ‘essence’ of a human because, as they argue, that “life presupposes the aversion of murder.”
Second, an “inherently good” act can also mean an act is “good” regardless of the context (except maybe lifeboat situations). For example, in is “inherently good” to avoid murder in the sense that we must avoid murder in all times at all times.
Third, an “inherently good” act can also mean a “religious duty.” For example, some religionists will define an “inherently good” act as an act which confirms to the bible. Ayn Rand (1982) critiqued this interpretation of “deontology.”
All of the above example shows the problem of the terms ‘deontology’ and ‘consequentialism’. See my previous post for additional info.
References
- Bradford, R. W. (1987). “The Two Libertarianisms.”
- Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford (2005). “What’s Right vs. What Works.”
- Wolff, Jonathan (2006). “Libertarianism, Utility, and Economic Competition.”
- Peron, Jim (2001). “Are There Two Libertarianisms?”
- Rand, Ayn (1982). “Philosophy: Who Needs It.”
Apparently asking for clarification is grounds for irony & dismissal now. Oh well.
Nonsense. Do try to grasp that words have definitions.
How do you conclude that “nuclear weapon production constitutes the initiation of force” or that “violent retribution constitutes as the initiation of force” merely from Hoppe’s “self-ownership” argument? You can’t.
someone who doesnt understand the principle of explosion and insists on arguing things out with appeals to definitions and logic…
apparently you have yet to intellectually grasp AM’s M.O.
I understand the principle of explosion and I do not ‘reject’ the law of non-contradiction in the sense that I completely reject it.