How does one respond to a pure assertion, indeed? I’m going to ask for the last time, which NR authors have you read, if any? If you cannot name any, I’m going to just retort that those responses are perfectly valid. It’s what I’d tell someone who tried to criticize any topic but refused to do the reading on it…
For the last time? I don’t recall you asking before. Rothbard, Long, and Hoppe are the only ones I’ve read… but even if I hadn’t read a single page, lots of people have made some fairly specific points which have not been addressed. So yes, replying responding with “go read more,” doesn’t make make you the victor.
btw, while we’re on the topic of reading lists, which amoralist authors have you read?
Which works by Long? What do Rothbard or Hoppe have to do with NR? Rothbard did favour them but he never advanced real arguments for them, as opposed to specific arguments for self-ownership. He referred the reader to other works for in-depth arguments (precisely because they require lengthy treatment and not brief one-sentence proofs.) Hoppe is not pro-NR. He has stated as much. His argument is virtually immune to nearly every point raised against moral systems here because it’s not even prescribing an ought. It is ruling out any theories that advocate coercion. Hence I question whether anyone arguing against it has any clue of what they’re talking about. I’m dissatisfied with AE for the record. I just do not think the arguments here get to what is problematic with it, in the least.
I’ve done a course on metaethics, so I’m familiar with various arguments on morality pro and contra. None of which do much to touch upon the NR position promulgated by Rasmussen and den Uyl, and Long. No argument I’ve seen here shows an awareness of having dealt with these materials. And moreover, I am not the one veering into critiques of amoralism, so it’s not even relevant. If you’re going to criticize a moral system, be specific, otherwise do not be surprised when people simply find your critiques irrelevant and ignorant. If the points are tangential or strawmen, or simply assertions, why should anyone bother with them?
Well if nobody should bother with them why are you? Why not point out what exactly is a strawman and why? You simply saying it isn’t so convincing. Your reticence toward actually giving a semi detailed response to anything posted in this and a few other threads are frustrating. And I don’t personally care to spend my time reading hundreds of pages of something that might not even answer a specific point I disagree with.
I read some articles by Long a few months ago and don’t remember exactly what, as well as his refutation of LA Rollins “Myth of Natural Rights,” in his “the Nature of Law,” which I found unsatisfactory. I guess your right about Hoppe, except I would say AE would make more sense if the concept of right and wrong were dropped entirely though of course it doesn’t relate to NR but the concept of ethics in general.
Really? So you don’t own yourself?
No, he does not.
Neither is one’s simply saying “morality is nonsensical”.
Then don’t presume yourself in a position to critique it. Simply specify what it is you are critiquing; not every libertarian moral theory is NR, and most do not even come close. My point is that there is an awful lot of sloppiness here that would not be acceptable when dealing with any other discipline, philosophical or scientific. It’s like people who criticize rationalism by arguing against Cartesian or Leibnizian variants of the position without realizing that not all forms of rationalism are made equal.
Right = true, wrong = false. Or should he purge his theory of those terms too?
Meaning for instance “if you like ice-cream you should eat ice-cream” ?
Also, is it OK if I say that amoralism is simply “might makes right” ?
Just wondering, are you being sarcastic?
No, this is what Moore thinks. I do too.
In whatever manner seemed most likely to maximize my psychic profit, to give you a tautological response. Less tautologically, I’d probably use force if it were practicable. So what? I claim no ‘right’ in doing so, and demand none, either. All I am doing is exerting my power in order to achieve my ends. I don’t need ‘justification’. Justice of the tolerable sort, that of civil law and torts, is blind and amoral. Its moralism and sentiment that lead the masses to abandon tort and property, tort and property are fully supported by practical efficacy.
So you are a utilitarian after all ?
Utilitarianism is the belief that policy or ethical judgment ought to be shaped by extra-personal comparisons of utility, which is impossible. I stand unabashadly an aesthetic on the matter of civilization. I like computers, tools, clean water, laser beams and all that other good stuff. If someone doesn’t agree, I don’t care.
I’ve still got plenty of reading to do on NR so I’m not exactly knowledgable but from I can see, would it not be possible to integrate Hoppe’s AE with the natural rights approach? A least in as far as it could prove any other position to be untenable?
Yes, given that it’s a negative demonstration.