are you wrapped up in paradox because you are trying to find a political system compatible with a value-neutral stance?
Moderate, plumbline libertarianism qua ideology differs from all other political philosophies in that it is concomitant to libertarianism qua legal philosophy. With all others, the reverse is true. For example, whatever legislators of a dictatorship or democratic republic deem to be lawful is respected by wards of these ideologies based on the political philosophy, and not because of the contents of the legal code, which is indeterminately guiding them. It’s very important to recognize the difference between libertarianism qua ideology and libertarianism qua legal philosophy. The former is necessarily guided, in its procedure of codification and practical application, by its adherents valuing libertarian ends, while the latter is a wertfrei subdiscipline of praxeology alongside Austrian economics.
Didnt read the whole thing but the large font paragraphs used a concept of a “right” which is not value free and he seemed to point at argumentation ethics in his other quote and we know about the fallacy of that.. Also no mention of proportionality was in the article.. im curious as to how such a concept is tied to praxeology when even Rothbard in his ethics books struggled to find a “just” basis of proportional punishment within the ethics concept and only hinted at different possibilities
Also no mention of proportionality was in the article.. im curious as to how such a concept is tied to praxeology when even Rothbard in his ethics books struggled to find a “just” basis of proportional punishment within the ethics concept and only hinted at different possibilities
Rothbard said something like, “The theory of punishment is woefully underdeveloped.” Of course, this was before Hoppe’s time. After AE, people have bothered with attacks from every angle rather than attempt to extend the work. All that is needed is a basic understanding of praxeology and proportionality to see the situation in the right way, rather than as a math equation. Also, you are still equivocating on ethics/morality.
That’s like you hiring me to cater your wedding, and me saying, “Surely you didn’t expect me to do more than put these Bagel Bites in the toaster and buy some donuts from 7-11.”
I deleted the pages because I accidentally cited a work which isn’t available online. I’d recommend you also tackle DuBois’ Judgment and Sachverhalt, which certainly requires a dose of philosophical training. Still, if you want to stick with the basics, you have read Human Action right? Can you state the basic “equation” of proportionality? The (one or) two teeth aspect is from the idea that certain categories of actions are representative of social cooperation and others aren’t. Where they are not, coercive action is justified within the greater theme of societal cooperation, whether the criminal subjectively, personally sees this as just or not.
The coercive action used as punishment would itself be breaking the same rules of “social cooperation” as the original aggression. The system would be inconsistent in applying its rules.
The coercive action used as punishment would itself be breaking the same rules of “social cooperation” as the original aggression. The system would be inconsistent in applying its rules.
Aggression is the initiation of violence, not the use of violence per se. Yours is such an obviously invalid argument that if I have to spell it out, it isn’t worth my time to continue the discussion.
But then you give up the value free context. It changes from an attempt to create a praxeological category for it, to an arbitrary theory, as the concept of initiation involves a value judgement over the comparison of extent of use of violence of one side and possible previous violence by the other side.
No, you are confused about what wertfreiheit means. Can I tell if a train is either approaching or passed the station without it being a “personal, subjective value judgment” (valuation)? Does the being here or there of the train obtain independent of my experience or not?
It changes from an attempt to create a praxeological category for it,
What are you even referring to by this? I don’t think you understand what a “praxeological categeory” is, and are just throwing out the term to put on an air of credibility.
to an arbitrary theory, as the concept of initiation involves a value judgement over the comparison of extent of use of violence of one side and possible previous violence by the other side.
This type of argument is so tired. You’re abusing what a value judgment is. You’re ignoring the objective external actions that comprise the rest of the picture as well as the intersubjective agreement from which meaning arises. There are actions which remain self-directed, then there are those which acquire a social context, when your willing runs up alongside another person’s.
Suppose that you and I exist in the Garden of Eden, or an imaginary place of endless material abundance. There would be no need for a concept of property in external things, viz. the concept would never develop and manifest itself in our mode of actions or language. There would be no concept of my tree or my apple, because when you pick an apple to eat, one will immediately reappear in its place. Still in this form of life for it to be intelligible at all as “a human experience”, my body and your body must be scarce things. The concept of violence and the initiation of such would appear in cases where you want to occupy the same spot as me and shove me out of the way.
Economics doesn’t justify anything, just like particle physics neither justifies nor condemns the bombing of Hiroshima. Austrian Economics does not support or oppose externalities, it merely seeks to understand and explain them.
The train passing can be described as a set of physical events, the judgement over whether retaliatory violence is proportionally just or not, cannot.
That is simple enough, but then the question of punishment arises, that is the problem, that is where the consistency of the system breaks apart. That is where the arbitrary weighing and impressions come in, just like the arbitrary social “justice” of the state. And that is not even starting to consider the implicit nature of property and exchange in the real world and the lack of rigid rules they imply.
The train passing can be described as a set of physical events, the judgement over whether retaliatory violence is proportionally just or not, cannot.
You didn’t answer the question. You also didn’t answer the previous question about if you could state the basic equation of proportionality. All I can take from this is that you both don’t know and don’t want to learn. I gave you the resources but you continue the fallacious arguments from ignorance. I’m not going to dissect your poor arguments more. If I ignore your points from here on out, assume that I think they are both invalid and uninteresting.
Easy there buddy. I am certainly eager to exchange ideas
Yeah train is there independent of experience.. I assume you mean that the theory of just punishment too exists independently, as a sort of implication of the concepts of property that are the premise of economics and my point is, no it doesnt! While the concepts of property that are presupposed by AE tell us what to do to apply it to our life, they dont tell about the punishment part