pro·por·tion·al
adj.
1. Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.
2. Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding: Punishment ought to be proportional to the crime.
3. Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio.
I guess this means we were both half-right, in that it means both appropriate/balanced and constant.
You brought up stoning adulterers when commenting about the supposed shortcomings of proportional justice, so I thought you meant that these topics were related.
I guess this means we were both half-right, in that it means both appropriate/balanced and constant.
Yes and what is appropriate, or just, simply cannot be determined by objective means. However, two eyes for an eye does fix the blindness issue, so its got that going for it.
Are these distinct categories of action or not?
Are these distinct categories of action or not?
I don’t know if this is directed towards me, but I’d say yes, especially from Betsy’s POV.
good call.
Just a chip in → The best and perhaps only way to serve justice is to prevent injustice. You can’t un-murder someone. You can’t even un-steal, since psychological blablabla.
I’m not sure we can prevent injustice, but what we can do is have a society where injustice is clearly defined (property rights violations).
What the frack has “convincing” got to do with anything?
Way to be deliberately obtuse.
Are these distinct categories of action or not?
It’s a simple theoretical question Z and “liberty student”.
“and an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind…”
No amount of tired leftist slogans removes proportionality from its firm grounding in Misesean praxeology.
I don’t think abskebabs was mocking proportionality principle. Maybe I just don’t know him and his philosphy, as I am just a newbie here.
It turns your stomach as a cultural leftist but it is effectively correct. Children are owned by their parents defacto - And that is as it should be. With a truly free market society the emphasis on personal and familial responsibility would be even greater, so kinship ties would likely strengthen and you’d see a drop in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy and so on.
It is comforting to think of the state as a maternal, motherly figure - And the more astute leftists are well aware that this reduces the power of traditional institutions like the family and church, which is exactly why they push it.
Are you asking someone a question?
Sorry? Could you explain to us how the parents came to own the children and if so, when do they cease to own them?
It´s the other way around, the state likes family, it´s a forced relation and trains obedience and servitude, it teaches the kids to accept things as they are, they can be kicked by their parents, why not the state police? why should they choose their police? They should stick with what they got as with their parents. Family is not voluntary, nor is the state. The good thing about family and what we should be defending is that you can run away, you can voluntarily leave. Libertarians should stress that, and parents would have to work hard and compete to keep their children happy, if not, they may loose them, just as business lose clients to someone who takes care of them better.
In a free society kids would start working much, much sooner and agencies would be everywhere ready to accept beaten children, those who run away, and protect them from their “former owners” as you call them.
And you should be more cautious before jumping to protect any institutions because, “the left hate it! It must be good then!”
It´s like that, the freer the society, the more dynamic it´s people, as the US labour market a century ago, it´s now, with unemployment, low wages and inflation that kids stay close to their parents out of fear, of losing their jobs and ending in the street, the stay together out of necessity, not of respect for traditional values!
Perhaps to imply ownership was too harsh. I agree with the Rothbardian position, that parents have a kind of trusteeship over the child until a certain age, because he or she subsists off of them and because it’s simply the practical thing to do.
Intergenerational kinship relations encompassing things like filial piety are perfectly natural and normal though and a key part of maturity is accepting that most of the time your father was right when he limited your freedoms. There is nothing wrong with obedience, and a revolt against authority is not justified based on the fact its a revolt against authority alone
Libertarianism is not some juvenile revolt against your own origins, when will people like you understand that? If you want that attitude, there are plenty of gathering places for leftists who smoke weed all day and contribute nothing to society except polemic.
On top of that, I’m a paleo so naturally I think traditionalism is something to be defended. Cultural leftism can only really subsist on a large scale with a huge state.
Are you asking someone a question?
Yes, the question was directed at you and Z, who are purporting this wishy-washy theory of justice.
I don’t think abskebabs was mocking proportionality principle. Maybe I just don’t know him and his philosphy, as I am just a newbie here.
I wasn’t, I guess it’s just a slightly frustrated recognition of the direction that this debate might take, and has taken. These ideas of justice and law, are probably the ones I am most ignorant of in the social sciences(I got interested and remain most interested in Economics), but the reason I made this thread was to discuss and hopefully be informed about solutions to these problems from a libertarian perspective, and hopefully the reasoning behind them too. If providing me with that makes me petulant in the eyes of fellow posters, I would welcome links and literature on this subject like ERO did originally provide.
Yes.
One would think quite a lot. Conviction affects (subjective) valuation and through it, action.
Abs, I take partial responsibility for derailing your thread and I apologize. I’ll try to wrap up the dangles gracefully.
Z.