lol.. which ever mod tried to do the thread split - butchered it.
There are some real bad cherry pickings here.
My parts at the start don’t even have anything to do with this thread; they’re predominately about strategy… and were responding to other posts that were left out.
Furthermore, the responses that elaborated my position are also oddly left out.
… eh?
did mises anywhere write the he favored natual rights sytem? in the vein of locke, etc???
did mises write anything ?? anythign that was in agreement with earlier natural rights theorists…locke, i assume???
rahter than wrining about nautral rights did he write in favor of exising theories on natural rights???
Yes, because obviously everyone is out to get you & silence the truth.
Splitting the thread involved determining a cut off point with the discussion. No one else did it probably because the thread was a mess of semi-related posts that easily could’ve stayed in the OP.
Your parts had far more to do with the original thread concerning the free-market, than it did with the later tangential thread created that focused on human action, morality & ethics. Notice how your posts did not get deleted, moved to graveyard, etc.
There was no personal cherry picking involved, but if you can figure out a perfect way to spit a thread without resorting to at least a superficial level of cherry-picking regarding what is off and/or on-topic, by all means, let me know.
They simply remained in what I thought was the relevant thread. You could easily bump that thread or add on accordingly to get your prevous posts more regonition, if it bothers you that much.
I intend on going over it again to ensure relevant posts (no this doesn’t mean all posts are relevant, otherwise the split is pointless) were not ignored.
I guess this is the thanks I get for actually trying to be an active mod, for once.
Cret, on the off chance that you aren’t some sort of robot or spammer, please try to reduce multi-posting when you could easily have them in one or fewer posts.
Not really something you need to do, but it would be nice.
Justin,
Your mention of ceteris paribus is spot on. Newton’s first law of motion is maintained by ceteris paribus. When investigating human society it is sometimes misconceptualized that the logical deductions that follow from what ‘ought’ to be, such people confuse the issue. Human society is an open-ended system. What the law is, therefore, what is logically deducted from the law is maintained ceteris paribus.
So there are two ways of going about this.
1 - An ought is derived from an is. Read here. What is invalid are presupposed premises that are only ‘is statements’. In terms of obligations, promises, law, ethics, etc… the ought is within the ‘is statement’. It is not present because it is incomplete.
That article I linked mentions this as well. That is one way an ought is derived from an is. Again, it is because the law is in any one society, therefore, what is logically deducted from the law is maintained ceteris paribus. In other words, the axioms of life, liberty, and private property are and logically the ought in that they are maintained (the ought implied in the meaning of the term “law”) such an ought is logically derived ceteris paribus.
2 - Hoppe found the is/ought to be an invalid statement to begin with. He never even needed to bridge it. Because during an argument it is already presupposed by those in the discussion, meaning, in order to even have a discussion to begin with, then private property is used and the discussion thereby affirms by all parties in the discussion that they are demonstrating the existence of private property. His method is “is-ness”.
I have asked the same question. And I’m pretty much at the point to say two things: (1) No, I don’t think he ever argued about the natural rights of life, liberty, and private property and only argued against other forms of natural law/rights (Marxist, Hobbes). (2) My “No” is stipulated upon that nobody has provided and I can’t find it if it does exist anywhere.
Was just about to suggest that, really didn’t feel like splitting this thread again lol…
“Your parts had far more to do with the original thread concerning the free-market, than it did with the later tangential thread created that focused on human action, morality & ethics.”
You’re talking about my parts that were left there? They’re all about strategy too. Though I understand the link you’ve made with socialism / free market.
But the ones that were brought here - were about the same thing & within the same discussion. The transition seems to go - free market / socialism → digression about strategy, with socialism being part of the example → human action, morality, natural law
"because the point where the thread deviates from the OP is fairly seamless & probably would involve gutting the original thread down to less than a page :\ "
Yeah I’d agree with that. I understand it resembled a cluster truck, but it probably would have been more accurate to gut to less than a page.