Natural Rights: What's Wrong With My Analysis?

[wilderness]

So I don’t exist? I am not real?

I don’t know what you are talking about.

[I_Ryan]

@wilderness

So I don’t exist? I am not real?

When did I say that?

@wilderness

I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is pretty odd to throw that back at me.

[wilderness]

It’s not odd at all. I have no idea what you are talking about. You’re not making sense.

You said my preferences can’t be proved. Yet, I am. My preferences are me. By your logic I don’t exist.

This is what you, Lilburne, and some others say to people in this forum all the time. It’s absurd.

[I_Ryan]

@wilderness

You said my preferences can’t be proved. Yet, I am. My preferences are me. By your logic I don’t exist.

I substantiated that here. From Theory and History, also,

@Ludwig von Mises

Propositions asserting existence (affirmative existential propositions) or nonexistence (negative existential propositions) are descriptive. They assert something about the state of the whole universe or of parts of the universe. With regard to them questions of truth and falsity are significant. They must not be confounded with judgments of value.

Judgments of value are voluntaristic. They express feelings, tastes, or preferences of the individual who utters them. With regard to them there cannot be any question of truth and falsity. They are ultimate and not subject to any proof or evidence.

[…]Every judgment of value is in itself also a fact of the actual state of the universe and as such may be the topic of existential propositions. The sentence “I prefer Beethoven to Lehar” refers to a judgment of value. If looked upon as an existential proposition, it is true if I really prefer Beethoven and act accordingly and false if I in fact prefer Lehar and for some reasons lie about my real feelings, taste, or preferences. In an analogous way the existential proposition “Paul prefers Beethoven to Lehar” may be true or false. In declaring that with regard to a judgment of value there cannot be any question of truth or falsity, we refer to the judgment as such and not to the sentences communicating the content of such a judgment of value to other people.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

I suggest people drop the objective/subjective false dichotomy.

You keep saying that, but you haven’t shown that the dichotomy is false. It seems you just want people to stop thinking about a distinction that reveals the errors in your theory.

[wilderness]

Could you please put that into your own words? I don’t know what that has to do with our current discussion.

• thank you

[wilderness]

Lilburne,

The dichotomy is false. Because it seems that the error in your theory is that you think ‘everything is just subjective’ so no matter what anybody says it will not matter what they say because ‘everything is just subjective’. According to your theory since ‘everything is subjective’ then if I say a tree is right here nobody will know if that’s true or not because everything in the universe is subjective. There is no truth or false in your theory.

[I_Ryan]

@wilderness

Could you please put that into your own words?

What about the link that I sent you?

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

I mean Lilburne is just now asking me what certain words mean after 100 posts later. Words that he could have looked up in the dictionary himself

Only two posts ago, you were criticizing my use of a dictionary definition, and now you’re criticizing my not utilizing dictionary definitions.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

Because it seems that the error in your theory is that you think ‘everything is just subjective’

I do not say that “everything is just subjective”. I say that value judgments are necessarily subjective.

[wilderness]

I didn’t say that dictionary definition was wrong. I said it wasn’t full enough. And yes, plenty of literature has been offered to you and the definition of natural law meaning think for yourself has been quoted to you 10’s of times. But then again, now I understand ‘everything is subjective’ to your theory so you theory only acknowledges what it wants to acknowledge. That’s the error in your theory. It has blind spots. It’s not a very comprehensive, explanatory theory in my opinion.

[E_R_Olovetto]

I say that value judgments are necessarily subjective.

Libertarianism has exactly zero to say about value judgements.

[wilderness]

I. Ryan,

That was a discussion between you and me. I don’t know what you are asking because in that thread you linked I responded to it.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

They had to prove by insistent questioning over and over on purpose to make it appear they couldn’t understand the other person to metaphorically cook the books.

If I make statements regarding your theory you complain that I’m making assumptions about what you really mean. If I ask questions about what you mean, you complain that I’m just trying to make it appear that that I don’t understand you. Am I not to speak with regard to your theory at all?

[I_Ryan]

@E. R. Olovetto

Libertarianism has exactly zero to say about value judgements.

Except when my “value judgement” is to kill you. Then it has a lot to say.

[quote=“I. Ryan, [here]
(Three liberal rights that matter, and three that don't - #7 by I_Ryan)”]

@Stephen

Rights necessary for civilization: The pursuit of happiness.

Unless what makes them happy is killing people. Then we take away that “right”.

[/quote]

[wilderness]

Lilburne,

I seriously have no idea what you’re asking of me.

[Lilburne]

@E. R. Olovetto

I say that value judgments are necessarily subjective.

Libertarianism has exactly zero to say about value judgements.

Tell that to Rothbard:

in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective – determined by the natural law of man’s being

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

You said my preferences can’t be proved. Yet, I am. My preferences are me. By your logic I don’t exist.

The existence of your preferences can be proved, but whether they are “correct” or “incorrect” can not. The existence of you can be proved, but whether your being is “correct” or “incorrect” cannot be.

[E_R_Olovetto]

Except when my “value judgement” is to kill you. Then it has a lot to say.

Libertarianism, at least the aspect I’m concerned with is just a system of punishment. Killing someone is an action, so of course it has a value judgment attached to it. Libertarianism doesn’t tell you to not kill. It tells you what is the maximum allowable punishment in response to killing.

[wilderness]

@Lilburne

The existence of you can be proved

Being means existence. Being is comparative to is (the copula in a proposition).

That’s the error in your theory. You have been trying to prove my being as either correct or incorrect, when you yourself say right here my existence can be proved. You only refute yourself.

Let the laundry hang out to dry.