Oh, I get it; thank you.
Again (1) you don’t know what deductions mean (2) don’t know what axioms mean
If so, then at least I’m in good company.
No. Lilburne philosophically has attacked nearly every one of my natural right/law positions, and many others in this forum. I even had to pull a quote of Mises out of his book “Liberalism” to Lilburne in another thread to point out to Lilburne that even Mises had said that ‘life, liberty, health, and private property are to be protected’ (John Locke’s natural rights).
My point of this thread was to show how Mises didn’t ever address the natural law of the A-T natural law theorists. I’ve provided countless references in support of this that are tacked throughout this forum in various threads. I have had to do the leg-work and explain to some people that quote Mises that that isn’t the natural law of Rothbard, Hoppe, etc… I’ve had to interpret the quotes using my knowledge as those posting the quotes didn’t have the knowledge. If LIlburne really is, then I’d rather him say it because his posts/actions show otherwise. You don’t need to speak for others. I know you are and Mises was in practice and words, but wasn’t a full fledged natural law theorist in name. Hence Lilburne and some others continual semantic quibbling.
If you know what sensory perception is, then you’re already part way there in knowing what common sense is (common sense=axiom).
Hoppe attempts to deduce that private property ethics can’t be argued against from the definition of argumentation. Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.
John Locke’s natural rights doctrine does not consist of the mere statement, “life, liberty, health, and private property are to be protected”. It is an attempt to derive that proposition from nature. Mises (and I) say that the protection of life, liberty, and private property are the most appropriate means to everybody’s ends (save ascetics and sadists). But we do NOT derive the notion that those things should be protected from nature.
You will always remain confused so long as you cling to your fuzzy synonyms. Practical advocacy of life, liberty, and property and philosophical advocacy of natural rights are not the same thing. In fact I’m trying to do the practical future reality of life, liberty, and property a favor by pointing out the incoherence of your philosophy so that perhaps some libertarians won’t take the vain detour of pursuing a philosophical chimera.
Lilburne,
No. Thomas Aquinas has shown that natural rights are discovered by reason. Locke had known this as well as other natural law theorist. Reason is of nature. Humankind is of nature. Or do you profess that humankind doesn’t live in this universe?
I’m not confused, please don’t make that unfounded assertion. I’m really tired of your emotional rhetoric that questions my intelligence.
- thank you.
wrong
Please read up on it, as this has been addressed enough already.
- thank you
Of course natural rights theorists claim to be able to derive law from nature with reason. Derivation necessarily implies reason. Although they fail to do so, because the notion makes no sense.
It makes no sense to you, let’s clarify who wrote the above.
Again, I had asked but once again you don’t answer and only make ad hoc responses. I had asked a question and normally that would entail a response by the person who the question was directed towards. Why is this so difficult?
From the article you linked to (emphasis added):
“Hoppe then shows that the libertarian conception of rights can be deduced from these presupposed norms and facts.”
Ok. Now ask yourself what are these “presupposed norms and facts”?
Until you figure this out you’ll not get to the “rights” part yet. We are not talking about “rights” yet. Well, I’m not, but you keep bringing that part up.
No, I do not profess that humankind doesn’t live in this universe.
So human’s actively reason in this universe/nature?
The premises outlined in ERO’s quote above. Premises from which Hoppe, as the very article you linked to says, tries to deduce libertarian ethics, which directly refutes your claim that Hoppe’s ArgEthics position is not deductive. Did you not realize the link you provided in support of your claim is in direct opposition to it?
Lilburne,
I know you didn’t read the article or you wouldn’t be saying the things you are.
I had asked you a question, once again, and you once again don’t answer it. It is usually normal in a discussion that in the pursuit of philosophy that when a question is asked that the person in reception of the question answer the question.
We are not talking about the rights that are deduced. This conversation can’t even get that far as long as you keep stalling. Now what are these “presupposed norms and facts”?
Yes humans actively reason in this universe. And no, despite your penchant for for identifying any notion with any other notion, so long as it supports your spurious arguments, universe does not mean nature in the sense that the Aristotelean tradition means it. Nature is not mere existence; it is a thing’s inner principle of change or rest (see Book II of the Physics).
We have been debating the question of whether Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics are deductive. I say they are. You said they are not. The article you linked to says that Hoppe deduces ethical rights. So according to the article you linked to, Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics are deductive.
Get to point instead of “penchant for identifying any notion with any other notion”.
Nature is this universe. Reason is of this universe/nature. Being is active and potential. Change and rest. I have already linked to you in the past that nature is synomous with reason in the Aristotelian tradition according to Rommen. Can we move on?
The “rights” are deducted, but that is NOT argumentation ethics. The argumentation ethics deals with what is ‘presupposed from the norms and facts’. Again, what are these ‘presupposed norms and facts’? Answer would be nice. Read the full article and then get back to me if you are unsure.