Define religious values. These mean different things to different people.
I don’t care if you question my libertarian credentials for understanding the reality of the situation. I’m not saying this situation is ideal, I’m saying it’s the way things are. Insurance companies have the intention of making money, they won’t care about The Nicomachean Ethics, notice, I’m not saying that what the The Nicomachean Ethics says isn’t true, or that various things are just, merely that once we’ve abolished the state the most you can do is appeal to people to follow the word of natural rights and to not lynch blacks or gays.
(That post is rather convoluted, so sorry, it’s get the message across nonetheless though).
I’m guessing that you’re asking me if I just mean Christianity, the answer is no.
You guessed wrong. What do you mean by religious values?
You’re amazing. YOU twist the meaning of words and then complain about semantics. Justice is what it is, not what the market may demand. YOU are trying to redefine ‘justice’ as ‘whatever the market demands’.
Pure subjectivism. Just the thing Liberty Student loves…or hates ?
And? People reason all the time, it doesn’t mean they’re being philosophers.
People can defer to the courts, only in a stateless society there will be more than one provider of them. Unless you’re saying that the courts will be guided by philophy and therefore those that buy their services will be inspired by this philosophy. But that begs the question, since courts will provide the “justice” that their potential customers desire.
Yes, you’re correct, but you also avoided the issue: the effect that the subsidies have on the number of philosophers, I don’t think I need to tell you the answer.
People who adhere to the teachings of a religion, what isn’t there to understand?
Again, I think it goes without saying that there will never be a perfectly free society unless the robots take over. Man isn’t a creature who is always rational, always diligent, and always in control.
So semantically, you are correct. Absolutely. But within the context of what libertarian societies will look like, well, they won’t always have positive outcomes, or the outcomes you and I desire. But that is the nature of freedom. It makes no provision for the general welfare. The only way to do that, is tyranny.
Thank you.
No, I’m not. You’re misrepresenting me. I’ve said all along that Aristotle, or libertarianism or whatever else you or I think is just, may well be correct. What I’ve said is that the “justice” (or other people’s conception of it) that matter is that that is supplied in the market place, not what may be logically correct.
You’re twisting my words and being a pedant.
Pure illiteracy.
Yes I kinda see your point. So let me just parrot my libertarian catechism : a free society is by definition a society where aggression is minimized and the rights to life liberty and property are as secure as possible. However, what you describe sounds like gang warfare.
Libertarians advocate the abolition of the state because they (we) believe that doing so is the best mean to secure the rights to life, liberty and property. However, if competitive PDAs will act as private states, not as guarantors of individual rights then there’s not point in advocating PDAs.
You can’t be a libertarian and at the same time advocate a system (PDAs) which you believe won’t protect individual rights. Well you can, but it makes no sense.
It does not mean they become professional philosophers at some institute or other but they are using philosophy. Using philosophy does not necessarily mean you work for a university or institute or think tank.
The fact that there will be more than one provider of them means that people much choose which provider. They will have to use their brains rather than have this decided for them.
When I said at the beginning of this debate that philosophy would be more important this was not an indication that I thought that there would be more “professional philosophers”. (There may be in fact but that was not my point.) My point is that people will be forced to ask themselves more questions about morality and the nature of the universe because they will not have a single arbitrary authority on high making judgments with a gavel.
Sorry, you’re defining ‘freedom’ as ‘whatever happens’. I’m defining freedom as in ‘being free from force and fraud’.
Know or believe? This is one of those occassions where a value/fact gap can’t be crossed with the longest bridge. Can you prove it deductively? No one can, because praxeology only applies to human action not theology or the action of the divine. Can you falsify it empiricly? Not unless you’ve returned from the afterlife and knew that it was nonexistant or empty of a deity or whatnot. And people who claim to come back from the dead are usually unreliable witnesses.
You can falsify the Christian, for example, story of creation to some extent, perhaps but that a) assumes a fundementalist reading of Christian text b) still doesn’t disprove the existence of God. So if you can’t prove its false, your view of it as lies is as much a subjective preference as GilesStratton’s unmainstream views on sexuality. Furthermore, assuming Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion was a lie that’s not proof of any wrong doing on the parent’s part from a libertarian standpoint. Assume someone sells you a good for $500. You pass this good on that you were told was valuable to your son or daughter. Then, you are informed by this Argentinian fellow that the good was a fraud or a lie or a counterfeit. Would you have commited any wrong against your child? Of Course not.
I can’t answer for GS, but I can answer for myself. Hoppe Himself and many others have written on why the law between PDAs would be in general a libertarian law. If the PDA Y was protecting a homosexual, for example, PDA X would have no right to enforce this law. But if all the people who believe in laws like that signed a contract that as a condition of leasing their land or providing for the PDA that as a member of the GilesStratton PDA or GS Land that they would not participate in homosexual acts under the condition of exile, higher rates or even stoning, that would just be the conditions of the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. Would GilesStratton’s PDA have the right to march down to SanFran and stone the Gay Pride Parade or whatever? No!
If GilesStratton believes his social ideas, agreed to by freely contracting parties are more competitive than Juan’s social ideas agreed to by freely contracting parties that can be determined by the actual functions of the market and consumer’s preferences. However, I think it’s safe to assume that two PDA’s/contractual land-usage societies/other form of voluntary societal organization could compete without one “winning”, just as Coke and Pepsi compete without one winning, no? I see no reason why Giles will “defeat you economically” or vice versa. But until there’s a market or some more convinving evidence than eachother’s subjective preferences, your argument will be like Days of our Lives. No one “wins” and the action doesn’t really change from thread to thread.
In addition, to return to something more closely related with Hoppe, what’s everyone’s thoughts on his Argumentation Ethics? Has anyone come up with extensions to other areas based on it besides Kinsella’s estoppel. I tried to apply it to abortion, but that was an epic fail.
Well, I’m not misinterpreting you on purpose. If what is supplied by the PDAs is not defense but aggression then it makes no sense to call that “justice”.
Now, whether that will happen or not, we don’t know. And if that DOES happen, then we won’t have justice but private aggression. Calling it otherwise is semantics.
The only way to absolutely insulate yourself from the force and fraud of others is tyranny. Man does not always act rationally or morally. Even if your intentions are the best, you cannot control or predict if someone will choose to steal rather than work. Sure, a libertarian society might incentivize better or even great behaviour, but the human experience is not without it’s randomness, it’s wild elements. Life is a series of leaps of faith, in love, in collaboration, in cooperation. Inputs do not always equal outputs.
Which is why the perfectly moral and righteous society you keep referring to might be best confined to robots and computers, which Asimov considered to be perfectly truthful to their programming.
This:
Which means that you mean people with contradictory systems are favored. Everything from Wicca to Buddhism to Christianity to Islam to traditional African faiths and Zoroastrianism.
I would disagree. But it seems that this is going off on a tangent, and a pointless one at that, so I don’t see any point continuing with this.
And? It doesn’t mean that the provider of courts and “justice” that they choose will be the one that is in line with what philosophy would dictate to be just. Like I said, people won’t begin becoming philosophers (in the sense I was using it) once we abolish the state, if you want to make that case that it will be so, prove it.
They most definately won’t become good philosophers.
Perhaps, but it doesn’t mean they’ll make what philosophy would dictate to be the right decision. More than likely they’ll choose the provider of security that is most in line with the cultural preferences that he’s developed as he matures.
I still don’t get what the problem is.
To clarify the point, if in San Francisco there were homosexuals who consented to the rules set up by the San Francisco PDAs and you lived in Utah where the Mormons are anti-homosexual(just an analogy) would it be exceptable for the Mormons to “demand justice” vis a vis their PDA’s elimination of the San Francisco homosexuals? Of course we are assuming at this point that these PDAs/communities have not outcompeted eachother. Or are you simply stating that those who contractually agree to Mormon law would be able to be punished by any method they agreed to under Mormon law and that they would be estopped from saying otherwise? Do you think there is a right for said homosexual who may not have realized their previous homosexuality to flee to San Francisco?
I’m sorry if you’ve addressed these before, but if your answer is what I think it will be these could be deemed friendly inquiries. If not, well then I’d be helping Juan’s argument.
GilesStratton, it seems we are simply using philsophy and phillosopher is different ways. Phillosophy to me does not imply you work for some university or institute.