What is the Libertarian stance on slavery as a punishment for murder? In other words, if the officer tossed one of the survivors, could the arbiter rightly decide that the officer himself then become the property of the victim’s family?
The problem, wilderness, is that it’s a far leap for anyone to claim that they have discovered or proven an objective source for rights. Conza may as well be a Islamic fundamentalist who is telling me that what’s written in the Koran is proven to him and that it’s up to me to disprove it. My primary objection to a concept of “natural” rights is the same objection that I have to most religions: First of all, man cannot accurately determine man’s nature (if we could, then why don’t our economic models work? Why don’t our behavioral models work? Heck, why don’t most models we create about man’s nature work?). Second of all, how can you make objective claims about what is “right or wrong” in the universe or even what is “right or wrong” relative to man when you cannot even accurately determine man’s nature?
The starting point is simply that we don’t know, and anyone who claims otherwise has the burden of proof on themselves to show that there is an objective proof on what objective rights should be, uncolored by human observation.
Another point is that he is disparaging subjective preference as a “disgusting” basis for morality; he sounds exactly like a Christian fundamentalist when he says this. I’m sorry if I offend all of the religious people out there with these comments, but I despise fundamentalism in any and all of its forms, religious or not, atheist or not. I’m with Mises and the Austrian school when they say that “humans act”, and that we cannot predict the outcome or basis of these actions. Why does this suddenly change when it comes to morality and ethics which only exist within the human sphere?
Humans can “pretend” that it comes from God, or from natural rights or whatever else they want to believe, but it is still their belief and thus there is absolutely no distinction between it being their subjective preferences or if they believe it comes from an objective source. Conza thinks it’s disgusting, but I think it’s admirable when someone thinks that the Holocaust is wrong because they have reached that conclusion through their own analysis and beliefs and because they are appalled by such death and destruction as occurred in WW2, not because they think they “should” think it’s wrong. I guess that’s just my own subjective preference though!
The third fallacy that he makes (and he’s not the only one to do this) is that he confuses what is with what ought to be. When I describe what is, he confuses that or deliberately twists that into his interpretation of what I think things ought to be (and he has been wrong with most of his interpretations). This is also what, say, Christian fundamentalists do if you ever tried to discuss, say, legalizing marijuana with them, or for an even juicier topic, discussing abortion with them. It’s the exact same type of argumentative style that takes what you say then twists it around in their own deliberate misinterpretation. I tire of discussing anything with him because he takes what I say and then twists it around into saying I support genocide and rape. Isn’t there a specific term for people who do that?
My position, in case it hasn’t been clear by now: I actually agree with most of what natural rights has to say (in spite of Conza deliberately twisting my words around to the opposite), I just disagree with the statement that it is the one, objective statement for all of humanity because I don’t think that can be determined especially by a human observer. To make that statement means it needs to be objective in relation to a certain standard. I.e. it is the best system because it leads to the most freedom; it is the best system because it leads to the most economic growth; it is the best system because many people innately hold these core values. It doesn’t mean that what it has to say is any less valid, it just means that we should be a little less fundamentalist in espousing these ideals and come up with better reasons simply than it is right simply because it “is” and that’s that. How will you ever convince the other 95% of humanity with that kind of attitude?
first off, this is a very long post of yours and I will try to respond.
Unreasonable analogy. Religion and intellect do not always go hand and hand, and your example doesn’t go hand in hand. If he has discovered principles, then he has. It is up to you to refute it by deduction not assumption. If you try to rid something by assumption you are only left with various possible differing explanations, but none that are certain. It very well may be that you are using concepts incorrectly. If you don’t believe or want to take the effort to study what a principle is and try to refute it by deduction, then that’s your choice. But your mental exercise of simply not wanting to take the effort and closing your ears doesn’t rid it. Now that is like watching something happen and then closing ones eyes thinking it will go away. It doesn’t when it comes to principles which are certain. Only other principles or finding a flaw in the original premise in the current deduction will be a refutation.
You have so much in that paragraph that doesn’t match up coherently. First off your assumption is natural rights are a religion which is clearly false. Natural rights involve the intellect and premised deductions. Your lack of understanding, it seems, is what bogs you down. Secondly, who said human nature is fully known? Nobody that I know of. So that has nothing to do with the discussion.
Prove the starting point is “we don’t know”. Show me a deduction. If you can’t show me a deduction, then you are not certain of that and therefore are only assuming. I am able to give knowledge and have understanding. I don’t start with “I don’t know” on everything. I do know some things. And I do understand some things. If it is not a prior, which it isn’t for the whole understanding of a prior in economics and otherwise is there is prior knowledge about the world that we as humans have before we even begin to test an hypothesis.
Humans act isn’t “we don’t know”. You know and understand humans act. So which it? And I could care less about subjective and objective positions so you know. It’s a distortion of the real values being discussed.
You are confused. It should be wrong because a person through their own certain analysis (the deductive a prior aspect) and beliefs. A person comes to these conclusions by their own deductions. They think it through and can have certainity about their conclusions. It is an individual making the claim. It is an individual by their own liberty making such a claim.
That’s only a confusion. Either the holocaust is wrong or it isn’t. which is it?
What you personally feel about the discussion between yourself and Conza is your problem. But just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean the other person is automatically a “fundamentalist”. That’s shallow and doesn’t give me any knowledge.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. If I see a person steal something and I had the power, then I would seek justice. You haven’t provided any knowledge about your position at all. You are simply not liking that somebody claims they know and understand something intellectually. If you want to give knowledge and provide your own deductions to refute a premise feel free and go for it. Nobody is stopping you. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s ONLY your way and nobody elses way. You sound like the fundamentalist because you haven’t provided anything intellectual of true deductive substance. I have throughout this post only seen you say you don’t like it. Feeling based reactions are what fundamentalists do. They don’t use their intellect. It’s funny how the one claiming what the other is doing is really only a projection.
Secondly, why should I care about the rest of humanity. If they don’t want to learn and use their mind and remain beasts of the herd, then they will get what they deserve. It looks like you are the one that wants to change 95% of humanity. You are the one claiming that convincing them happens with a certain type of attitude - the attitude you have. So you want the rest of humanity to have your attitude and be just like you? I think if you feel this way about Conza don’t forget to look at yourself too and quit blaming others for some faults you have too.
I didn’t want to be in the middle of you and Conza as I said in my previous post so don’t special plead to me. That is a fallacy.
some things cannot be proven. there is no published proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Natural Law and natural rights cannot be proven to be valid outside our preferences. we can agree that we prefer the non-aggression principal and we can show how the non-aggression principle is best in a utilitarian way, but we cannot prove that it is a fundamental law of humanity.
any king can come along and declare with just as much authority that he has a divine right and he owns all of the people that live on the land that he claims. if he can enforce his claim then he succeeds in “proving” that he is right, at least in a practical sense, but he cannot “prove” with logic that he has a divine right.
I’m stayin’.
You’re goin’. [H]
Samarami
The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man’s reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.[4]
No. The burden of proof rests with you.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.2
Wow, what a giant pile of bs. I too think it is disgusting, except I have an objective and logically consistent justification for punishment, you do not. You have no legal or political ethical objections to the holocaust. I’ve asked for it from you extensively, and you’ve failed to deliver every time. That’s fine if you don’t, but at least admit it and not dance around the issue.
I suggest you re-read our discussions, I believe it is pretty clear the point I am trying to get across. However, you actually left the discussion mid way and are yet to address the numerous questions that strike directly at your world view. (1), (2), (3)
It’s not a fallacy.
I took your position to it’s logical conclusion.
"A women is attacked. Their normative rights have been violated. In this society, the legal and de-facto rights say it is ok and legal to do (for women to be raped for eg. [Here we can assume a religious fundamentalist society you so deplore] The “society” says so. You are fine with this, you have no legal / political ethical objection to it.
The woman can try defend herself, but she is beaten back by the law. Your response is in essence “take it or leave it”.
So, do you have a legal / political ethical objection to it? If you are to be and remain consistent with what you have posted earlier, you do not. That is what I am disgusted about.
Ultima, you keep forgetting:
Anything Rothbard believes to be objective / natural must be so.
"But in fact, to believe in Natural Law is simply to believe that there are moral standards that transcend the practices and customs of any given community…"
Stop thinking too hard and just submit to The Axiom. In return, you’ll gain the (objectively attained, of course) moral high ground, PLUS Rothbard’s automatic stamp approving your superior logical skills. One tempting bargain, you must admit.
Z.
I don’t know what you mean by “proven”. Preferences are uncertain. Principles are certain. The theory using principles may be flawed, but the principles not being flawed would thereby need a new theory. The axioms of life, liberty, and property are certain. How people may apply and what they know about such axioms can be flawed though. A fact is a fact. It’s the interpretations of certainties and facts that, if you desire, would be the appropiate approach in attempting to refute something. You are simply stating “some things cannot be proven”. That’s not a statement of certainity. It is a hypothetical possiblity. Support that statement of possibility with principles and some facts and your theory might expand into something, but at the moment you haven’t said anything of value. You haven’t given any knowledge. Show me something.
And yet who is talking about a king arbitarily defining what is right? You are. That is your arguement. You are arguing for a king? I don’t know. Arbitariness by it’s very definition isn’t certain, and therefore you simply talked about something you are not completely sure about. Again, you gave me no knowledge.
Funny… Rothbard disagrees with that:
“One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man’s reason. Man’s reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man’s nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out! It is as if one man were to assert that the nature of copper were open to rational investigation and a critic were to challenge him to “prove” this immediately by setting forth on the spot all the laws that have been discovered about copper.”
…
The fact of man’s reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such “hard” sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes.[23] No man is omniscient or infallible – a law, by the way, of man’s nature.
Your sarcasm is entirely misplaced.
From Wiki: “In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”
So, axioms by definition are not certain. That is my point. They must be taken for granted or agreed upon.
Am I arguing for a king? No, I am merely showing that the King might not agree that life, liberty and property are axioms. The King’s axiom might be that “God” has given him the right to own us all. And if “God” also has provided him with the tools to successfully enforce his claim, then he has no reason to agree with any contrary axiom.
The knowledge I am giving you, whether you accept it or not, is that the axioms upon which our beliefs are based are arbitrary.
Wiki is wrong. Axioms are negative proofs. You have to use life, liberty, and property in order to try to refute each one of those.
So what? The King can thereby kill him or her self right now or revert to the fallacy of special pleading.
You don’t know what an axiom is so you confuse the discussion.
And yet you use your life, liberty, and property in an effort to state they are arbitrary. That is a performative contradiction.
No. Wiki is right. You are wrong.
No. Wiki is wrong. Let me know when you have anything pertinent to say.
Nahh ahhh..
It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality).(5) In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.(6) Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.
(5)On the value of life not depending on whether it is perceived as one of happiness, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 41.
(6)Elsewhere, I have written: “if a man cannot affirm a proposition without employing its negation, he is not only caught in an inextricable self-contradiction; he is conceding to the negation the status of an axiom.” Rothbard, Individualism, p. 8. Also see R.P. Phillips, Modern Thomistic Philosophy (Westminster, Md.: Newman Bookshop, 1934-35), vol. 2, pp. 36-37.
If you don’t know what axiom means there is nothing else to say.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.
i.e. it is true… no ifs or buts.
in other words, axioms arent simply taken for granted to be pragmatic, or polite, or to form consensus with people. they must be taken for granted because of the impossibility of doing otherwise. they are true, and do not require proofs for their truthhood.
now of course, you can design an artifical system and say, “within my artificial system, we will have it as an axiom that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line”. By definitition of the artifice of your system; this will be true, and so long as you stay within your artifice, you will not falsify it, or else break your system.
please don’t break actual reality. i would not like that.
thank you Conza and nirgrahamUK
Thanks also Conza and NirgrahamUK for providing links and explanation.
Conza, don’t take this personally, but from my long experience on forums I have concluded that the quality of a contributor’s content is inversely proportional to the amount of quotes and links he refers to in his posts.
I thought it was nicely placed. But your feeling about it is justified, too. Anyone that recognizes himself as a target of sarcasm is fully justified in thinking that such sarcasm is misplaced. So it’s all good.
Z.
Z, don’t take this personally, but from my long experience on forums I have concluded that folks like you have pretty much nothing to offer. A prime example is this thread.
Your observation fails. See the above thanks. And notice you mostly get ignored. Now why should I waste time re-writing something I already agree with? Especially when the ‘opposition’ doesn’t even end up addressing questions that destroy their world view.
Z, have you got anything of substance to offer this thread? Like a refutation of some kind? Or is snide remarks the best I’ll get?