You’re correct, it may not be justice in the sense that is logically correct. But it is justice in the sense that many people may adhere to those ideas, they’re just false.
I get the feeling we’re talking past one another.
They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time.
No problem, I haven’t read your answer yet though. But I’ll get to it once I’m done with hypothesis testing.
Wow, I agree with Juan for once. Maybe he is right and you should all read ATSOC…
I don’t believe that, nor do I believe that merely thinking is enough for one to be a philosopher.
Could you elaborate?
In your view, what makes one a philosopher?
PDAs that defend the right to initiation of aggression are outlaws. There is nothing libertarian about them. They deserve as much scorn as the state.
Are you talking to me?
I wholeheartedly agree. The state is evil because of aggression - not vice versa.
From what I know of Wicca it seems to be culturally leftist. I think he’s refering to religiosity in aggregate with the other factors he mentioned, no?
The Wiccan Rede is very libertarian actually “An ye harm none, do as ye will.” He did also mention time preference. We agree on time preference but I was trying to draw him out the essence of his meaning.
I think the “all” implies I am not.
That’s what I was trying to get Giles to say. Thank you.
I think it pretty much goes without saying that the initiation of aggression could not take place without 100 PDAs ganging up on one agressor. If PDA A attacks PDA X, not only will it be prohibitively costly but the 24 other letters have an incentive to help X, no? Or something of that sort. Which is both why there would be no reason to defend the right to initiate aggression or the for the state to be reestablished.
If someone agreed with their employer or landlord or even PDA in Utah that they would not do drugs or engage in homosexual activity under some specified penalty I think that would be a libertarian contract, no?? But if said PDA were to attack homosexuals and druggies in San Francisco that wouldn’t be outcompeting another social preference, but rather that would be murdering them. Knowing Giles fandom of Hoppe he must be aware that such a position would be improbable and indefensible. I think Giles was defending the former not the later, but I haven’t read every post with the utmost diligence so I could be wrong. Whether I am wrong or he is is entirely up tog Giles.
My error, I was only basing that on the inaccurate description I got from a classmate who claims to be wiccan. Apologies.
No problem 
There are a lot of leftists in the movement but not exclusively. There are even a few “cultural conseravtives” I have met. It also depends on the tradition.
I was talking about revealed religions, not the existence of god. Religion A claims X (with no proof) and religion B claims Y (also no proof). I think I can safely assume they are both wrong. My point is, you, or Paul or Peter know as much about the supernatural as I do. I know nothing as so do you and them.
I know that the supernatural things that christianity or other religions talk about are fairy tales. On the other hand, Giles’ (or John Smith’s) views on sexuality or whatever else he likes or dislikes are his real preferences. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Well, if you believe that lying is the right thing to do, then there’s nothing wrong. The thing is, you believe in X but you’ve no proof that X is true, except ‘faith’. Since you have no proof that X is true, you should refrain from telling people, especially children, that X is true.
I don’t think the analogy is relevant.
Oh, but customers of PDA X paid for it to be enforced…if PDA X is to satisfy its customers it should at least try do a little stonning…
That’s a lot of assumptions. First, PDAs are not supposed to operate on a territorial basis, quite the opposite. PDAs are not owners of land either. Second, the idea that people will sign a contract allowing them to be executed for homosexual sex is ridiculous. Even if you signed such a contract, I’d argue that you can default any time you like.
Whether people can be stoned to death or not, is not a matter of ‘preferences’ or competing social ideas. It’s a matter of individual rights.
I don’t see why/don’t see what you mean.
Well, yes. But we are talking about the institutional framework so to speak. Even in an ideal society somebody might shoot you for some weird reason, but that’s different than a PDA that shoots redheads…
You just keep on repeating that ordinary respect for individual rights is ‘utopian’. I’ll just repeat that if you think libertarianism is utopian then maybe you should devote yourself to a different philosophy.
But rationalism, praxeology or any other belief cannot constrain the supernatural. For example, in my high school philosophy class, when discussing God we saw stories of people who had near death experiences and claimed to see God. According to the research my teacher had done no neurologist had proven that these stories were false and just in their heads. In fact, there appeared to be little-to-no writing on it by neurologists who tended to deal with the effects not the causes, their own religion not withstanding. Every person claimed to see the God of their religion. Now, is it not possible that there is an afterlife where whatever the good spirit wanted is true. Perhaps. Afterlives aren’t bound by reason, or reason as we know it. We cannot know until we go. Your guess is as good as mine. And Jesus of Nazareth’s experiences or Moses’ or Muhamed or Buddha or whoever’s religion could get it right. They may in fact point to nonfalsifiable proofs for the existance of God and miracles XYZ or historical example ABC. And then you would point to nonfalsifiable disproofs of God DEF and problems with the reliability of miracles XYZ. And so on. Back to square one. Religion is in this sense a voluntary belief or preference for the afterlife. Nonfalsifiable and impossible for the libertarian to oppose sine qua non.
You have a point about the stoning. That is an extreme example. but the voiding of the other half of the agreement is acceptable. Assuming that GS’ feudal estates are economically viable, and I’m not saying they are, if individual A agreed to live on his land under the condition of no homosexual acts or drugs and they catch him shooting heroin with his boyfriend the landlord would be in their rights to kick them out. Sure. And a PDA would be in their right to enforce this. I didn’t mean to say they were territorial let’s say mormons in Utah belong to pro-religous PDAS X Y and Z (to simplify). Now if these PDAs were to create religous contracts with these Utahan Mormons they could not enforce the same terms on San Franciscans who did not agree to them and are represented by PDAs A B and C. In addition, X Y and Z would not profit by attacking other PDAs. As has been pointed out a million times, PDAs profit by avoiding conflict not starting it, much unlike the state. Now I’m only using three PDAs apiece for simplicity’s sake. There could be a hundred. Theoretically one PDA could have some citizens agree to Catholic Canon Law, some to the Book of Mormon’s Law, some to Muslim Law, some to common law, some to basic libertarian coverage, some to whatever. Now a Catholic and a Mormon would be incentivized to deal with eachother on a libertarian basis. Now, I’m just using religous law as an example. There are a million and one examples one could come up with.
Not all men follow the same laws, all of the time, even if the laws are righteous and rational.
I’m not talking about PDAs. I rarely do.
Not at all. Without making a lot of value assertions, I have think respecting individual rights is desirable. But if you expect that there will be no conflict, then you are being utopian.
And if you think man is capable of forsaking violence, and greed, jealousy and anger, hatred and selfishness when the state is removed, then it is you who is the utopian, not I. The human condition is a struggle over what makes us imperfect not a cakewalk to sainthood when the state is removed.