It’s no fault of an argument trying to disprove another one logically that it can’t convince, though.
Abs, I take partial responsibility for derailing your thread and I apologize. I’ll try to wrap up the dangles gracefully.
Z.
Don’t worry about it, this is the internet after all.
AFAIK, Z and I were not purporting the same thing. So are these two distinct categories of wishy-washy or not?
Also, if my position is in fact wishy-washy, do you care to address it directly, or are you going to continue to make low value “HAHAHA” posts in an attempt to undermine their seriousness without actually engaging the ideas?
AFAIK, Z and I were not purporting the same thing. So are these two distinct categories of wishy-washy or one?
I’m not sure what you are up to. Z answered the question but you are still evading it. It’s a very simple yes or no question. I would expect there to be one or more scholars around who are familiar with Husserl and phenomenology who might be capable of a worthy response to my original post.
Germanicus , have you finished your ad-hominem? Can we continue now?
Maturity is accepting that your father was right? I though maturity was taking responsibility, not being guided and tutored, how will you learn if are never allow to fail?
It’s important to remember that no-one forces the parents to feed the kid, if they don’t want to they are thousands of willing parents who would give anything to take care of him. Are you aware of that fact? It’s usually forgotten.
If we want to succeed intellectually we need to be very clear, if not, someone will end saying things like that kids are parent’s property which is an aberration and absolutely anti-libertarian. Moreover we should explain why, in this case, the kids are free to leave any time and society and the law should protect them, but parents have a lot of time to gain and earn their trust and friendship, a “golden option”, if they don’t, they truly deserve to be left.
Just a couple of points.
Firstly, do you accept the concept of family law in a private law/quasi private law society? That is, family households as extraterritorial units?
Secondly, do you accept that maturity is indeed a biological process (thickening of the cerebral cortex, increase in myelination in the brain etc)?
First, I didn’t see that it was directed at me, second, I didn’t see its relevance, and third, I saw no need to supplement Angurse’s answer.
This is a roundabout way of still not addressing anything I wrote directly.
Can you at the least support your charge that I hold a “wishy-washy theory of justice”?
If we want to succeed intellectually we need to be very clear, if not, someone will end saying things like that kids are parent’s property which is an aberration and absolutely anti-libertarian.
If I have kids, they are my property.
“handwaving”
yes or no?
I’ve spent a lot of time on the problem of child abuse (see this thread). Eventually, I’ll publish something solidifying the case for potentiality within the praxeological framework of libertarian law, integrate theories on needs similar to those of Maslow and Max-Neef with a libertarian theory of jurisprudence, and show how it relates to the penal system (of all things).
Regarding a husband and wife, the case isn’t much different than any others of assault and battery. One noticeable difference between our solution and state approaches would be that there is no limit on punishment ex post facto, or after the fact. If the police have been called out to a beaten wife 10 times, but she only pursues punishment the 10th, and she can make a prima facie case for her feeling terrorized having been the reason for not pursuing punishment the last 9 times, the husband could be punished for all 10 instances of abuse, rather than just the last one.
The task of libertarian theory is to assign an allowable maximum punishment. It doesn’t tell a judge or security firm what it must do with it, or a victim that they must pursue it fully. A Tolstoyan pacifist victim could well totally forgive the aggressor. A big influence on this theory is the Apriorische Rechtslehre, or pure theory of right, of Adolf Reinach. What I have been looking into, though, is influences on Reinach, such as Ernst Beling and Rudolf von Jhering. These two are German legal philosophers whose concepts of delict-types (delict is similar to tort) closely resembles Reinach’s legal philosophy.
So, how this applies to the case of a battered wife is as follows. I’ll ignore the discussion of an underlying legal schema (Tatbestand or typus regens) and its praxeological basis for the sake of simplicity, but I’m sure that you are able to intuit it. If we can call a certain case “battery”, as a matter of necessity, the schema must be realized in certain actions on the part of the offender and certain consequences by the victim. Furthermore, the actions and results must go along with definite types of mental attitudes of both parties. The social act of forgiving or waiving a claim, has a certain type of psychic episode associated with it to be called such. So, we could anticipate a case where someone “forgives” another ostensibly, but the underlying mental state is not one of forgiveness but of fear. If a victim can make a case that such an attitude led to them representing forgiveness only out of fear, the whole case can be reevaluated.
This is the only post I really care about ITT.
Yes, I do believe you are engaging in hand waving. This is similar to your promises to deliver treatises and to debate people. As they say in Texas, your argumentation is “all hat and no cattle”.
If I have kids, they are my property.
So you are your parents property?
True, but:
-
(Real) free markets are not exclusively comprised of logically rigorous agents. Quite the opposite, from what I observe.
-
One can logically prove/disprove almost anything assuming a convenient premise. And premises are derived from convictions – not from logic. So in this light, convictions are a priori to any logical conclusion.
Z.
So you are your parents property?
In my early years, yes, but no longer.
- Adam subjectively values Betsy’s pint of blueberries more than his own shekel. Betsy subjectively values Adam’s shekel more than her own pint of blueberries. The two engage in a series of events which we would call mutually beneficial and voluntary trade.
- Adam subjectively values Betsy’s pint of blueberries more than his own shekel. Betsy does not subjectively value Adam’s shekel more than her own pint of blueberries. Nonetheless, Adam rips Betsy’s pint of blueberries out of her hand. Whether he tosses a shekel at her is irrelevant.
Are these distinct categories of action or not?
simple question for the moral relativists
Ah yes, name calling in lieu of an argument. Behold the great “libertarian theoretician”.
In my early years, yes, but no longer.
But you are still their kid, so they have either sold you to someone else or freed you for you to no longer be their property.
Yes or no?
This little game you are playing to avoid answering for your assertions fools absolutely no one. On the contrary, you are providing an excellent record of your lack of sincerity in debate, which ironically, you (at least until recently) considered grounds for a forum ban.
You’ve already been answered. Read the 12:25 PM post. If you have trouble understanding it, I have tutored English, and would be happy to aid you with comprehension for a nominal fee.
You have yet to answer succinctly. Yes or no?