That is your problem.
Yeah, but this is obvious. Is an-cap a part of the libertarian political party platform?
Have you bothered to learn yet what praxeology is?
How can praxeology be absolute but values be relative?
Praxeology isn’t a value.
- Values are relative
- Praxeology is not a value
- Therefore, praxeology is not necessarily relative
Because praxeology is about human action in general, whereas each specific person has his/her own values (which is subjective, and I suppose you could call it relative to the individual, but that’s not precise).
It implies placing a value on human action right?
“Yes, and there is also a third category of writers: those who accept both praxeological and ethical absolutism, and recognize that both are vitally necessary for a complete philosophical view, as well as for the achievement of liberty.”
If ethics are absolute and praxeology is absolute, why aren’t values absolute?
No, it is the science of human action. We can’t not act, and praxeology is the study of our actions.
So basically, the values each person has and the choices they make are relative to the individual but praxeology and ethics are absolute and knowable and enforceable and thus to believe praxeology is false is irrational as well as to believe ethics are relative is irrational but to assign absolute values to human action is irrational?
So…all actions are relative, but the ethics of those actions are absolute?
This is exactly the point I made in my first paragraph. The point of the second was that the question might not be “am I better off with a state, or without one?” The question could also mean “given that the world is as it is, am I better off supporting the state (perhaps nominally as a minarchist) or being an anarchist?” If one does not have the choice of “state goes away today as long as I oppose it” then one may, in fact, benefit from being a statist, relative to living in the same world being an anarchist. Anarchists have a higher liklihood of winding up on the wrong side of the redistribution and of state violence, and get less girls in college, and have trouble getting jobs if they write online, and so on.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I’ve never been able to pull a girl by telling her I was a minarchist. [:P]
He talks about the political strategy of the libertarian party at one point in here and he even asks something to the effect of “Why is it that someone can read our pamphlet and disagree with one thing and then decide to go somewhere else?”
I think it’s because you kinda have to accept all of it to accept any of it with an-cap. Now, admittedly, he doesn’t really talk too much about an-cap, but as the mastermind behind so much of the ideological movement, how can I not infer that he’s trying to figure out a way to get an-cap implemented?
By the way, this video makes me like Rothbard more because it seems like he was a cool guy. He was also very Jewish, which I find comforting.
Praxeology isn’t “enforceable”; it simply describes human action.
You really have no clue as to what you’re talking about.
All actions are individual.
Then shouldn’t the ethics of those actions be individual too?
no
Well, who determines ethics? If you can’t centralize judgement of human action to be able to say that certain economic decisions are irrational why can we centralize judgement on ethics to say that certain actions are unethical?
these concepts don’t stand in the same relation to each other, so i fail to understand this analogy you are trying to draw.
How can you objectively judge the ethics of people’s actions but not the rationality?