oh… lol… I think I’m too used to seeing this → [:P] when somebody is joking. Over the internet satire without that icon seems like very dry humor. I comedian without a flinch as they give their performance. I get it now…lol
I don’t know if you saw, but the first time I saw an “Onion” article was in this forum. I watched the video on how society needed a new bubble. I thought it was serious and couldn’t believe that politicians were actually being blunt about it. I was thinking how they don’t even hide it anymore. I think it was Byzantine that told me it was a satire. lol
As always, it depends on context. If you are standing on my property and your free speech interferes with my enjoyment of that property, I certainly have the right to demand you to stop speaking or speak on someone else’s property. This applies to my lawn and my movie theater. Just to be clear, I am certainly within my rights to demand your silence in exchange for the use of my property. You are fully within your rights to refuse, in which case you will not be silent somewhere other than on my property.
No. I wouldn’t dream of setting foot on some people’s houses. I only want to make clear where they stand, when philosophically considered from a libertarian point of view.
I hope you realize that your conventional title to land gives you ZERO rights to control what your guests say.
Yes, but if you say anything on somebody’s property they don’t like or for whatever reason, that person can ask you to leave and if you don’t then you have violate property rights. The cause “they don’t like what you say” turns into a property violation by an aggressor. Property owner trumps free speech advocate on property owners property.
But I can ask them to leave or else they violate property rights. If somebody is on my property and I don’t like their clothes, then I can ask them to leave, too. This problem actually comes up in the U.S. culture. A court case not too long ago, my uncle was telling me about this, in which an airliner asked a women who was wearing a very short skirt to leave their plane and they reimbursed her money. They didn’t like her short skirt. She took them to court and won. I’m thinking it’s the airliners property and they can ask anybody to leave or deny anybody entry onto their plane. It’s their property. Of course it may not be cost effective if this happened too much or they offend the wrong person (somebody goes off starts their own airline and out competes them sparked by their actions, and so forth), but that’s the risk any business would have. That’s the risk of any person’s reputation.
oh, forget it. You’re for natural rights, you’re not for natural rights. You’re ill-principled behavior makes it difficult to predict your responses, in other words, you’re seemingly erratic.
I think I made my overall point a few times. Yes, you can try to control what people say by invoking conventional property rights in land - it’s formally correct. Is it in line with the mindset of people who value freedom ? I doubt it.
As to kicking people out of a plane because you don’t like their clothes, doesn’t seem to be very sensible. You do realize that “short skirt” has nothing to do with the NAP no ? What sort of damage did a short skirt cause ?
So property rights have nothing to do with liberty now according to you?
It’s their property. They were offended. No questions need to be asked beyond that if no natural rights are violated. Law need not be involved. If you want to do something else outside the law that doesn’t violate natural rights cause you don’t like how an airliner operates, then that’s you’re choice.
Read chapter 6 too. I do some important preliminary work in it. Actually, before long I’ll be submitting both chapters as one article to Libertarian Papers. In particular, look for the section discussing Hannah Arendt.
I’ll check it out when I get a chance.
I don’t agree, but I also don’t think it really matters. We’re not bound by what Aristotle really thought. If it turns out he really didn’t hold the ideas that have been attributed to him, that does not by itself invalidate the ideas.
I meant that Aristotle was wrong to identify the two because they are ultimately in tension with one another, the state is incompatible with the essential characteristics of the political (discourse, deliberation, joint pursuit of well-being; voluntarily exhibiting courage, initiative, responsibility and the other virtues in pursuit of shared ends). Yes, the polis is a city-state but that involves both koinônia and the state, and I think Aristotle was also wrong to conflate the state with civil society (or equivocate between the two using the same term). The proper locus of politics is civil society, i.e. voluntary associations and organizations.
The State and Community in Aristotle’s Politics – Fred D. Miller, Jr.
Have you read this? I also recommend his Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics.
Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. Aristotle’s rejection of infinite regress and vicious circles in scientific knowledge, justifications and one’s ends made me doubtful of your doubts.
I’ll check it out when I get a chance. I’ve got a number of things on my plate at the moment, including the impending arrival of my wife and I’s firstborn in a month or so. I second Wombatron’s recommendation: Roderick has some good stuff on the classical eudaimonists and praxeology in his book (draft). His argument against ethical emotivism there is also generally applicable to anyone who accepts the strict fact-value dichotomy. I’ve argued elsewhere that accepting a strict fact-value dichotomy even undermines Hoppe’s argumentation ethics despite Hoppe’s paradoxical attempt to devise a value-free ethics that prescribes no oughts. If facts and values are truly separate, if norms have no factual, ontological basis, then values/norms can have no truth value and thus will not be able to trigger a performative contradiction.
