1 - Right. It’s a historical semantics quibble that Lilburne hasn’t been able to actually avoid in order to “expand on” what is “right there before us”. I affirm this. There’s so much literature available that I know you and some others have delved into that is very interesting, ie. Barry Smith’s work, Franz Brentano, Carl Menger, Uskali Maki, etc… Lilburne hasn’t been able to demonstrate by the acts of his posts that he is referring to substance. He is stuck on semantics.
I don’t throw around natural law or natural rights all the time either because it’s easier in discussions to clear up past semantic hang-ups that others may hold and discuss subjects in other ways. It is philosophic, ie. truth-finding, by any person to think about the substance and not the semantics. That’s a general generic notion. I have yet to see a Mises refutation of the A-T natural law. And I haven’t seen Lilburne demonstrate it either other than Lilburne using a Mises quote for unevidential rhetoric, ie. wishful thinking, non-sense. He’s lastest post in suggesting it is “lazy” of others to not post on a subject are simply additional unfounded assertions. To clear things up, it is useful to know that Lilburne is conflating his beliefs with Mises philosophy as no posts of Lilburne during this discussion point otherwise.
Lastly on this point, I know Lilburne mentions something akin to ‘luckily nobody thinks what I’m saying’, yet, that’s not true, not even if the reference point was solely the forum. I’m learning about this by numerous philosophers and economists that are alive today who focus on this subject. There’s also some that have died that provide insight. I’ve given numerous links to these economist-philosophers that have ties to the Mises Institute, as well as, others that discuss this subject directly from universities in various countries, though, they may not discuss Mises directly. Some do, but some don’t. And further, it’s not solely about particular individuals who focus on this subject, but the general idea that is abundantly available: axiom. My original post/thread linked below that I made today gets into this more, but a lot of my large original posts/threads within the last couple months have disseminated this knowledge in the forum in addition.
2 - Secondly on another particular subject, I’m wondering how Lilburne suspects to have any economic action the way Mises defines it without the founding act of private property. Since Lilburne says ‘by any means necessary’ is this self-refuting when economic action itself is initialized by and maintained by the founding act of private property and the natural evolution, ie. prosperity, that stems from this that Mises had wrote about in depth?
P.S. By the way E.O., Lilburne did post back to you, so, the picture was spot on. If anybody knows what argumentation ethics is, then they’ll understand. filc had a great post if anybody is looking for more details. I’d like to see Lilburne write a proposition concerning human action. I completely acknowledge human action so I wonder if anybody else can see what’s missing in asking for a proposition concerning human action.
P.S.S. E.O I made another post referring to some things that includes phenomenology. Here’s the link. I included a very interesting book with link direct to free pdf by a Josef Seifert. Post link here.