I think we can agree that people do exist that aren’t adherents to that brand of morality, though.
Is this an argumentum ad populem? I’d say that they are few and far between in deed rather than word, though. When I occasionally talk to a layman in person about libertarianism, I use the example of A walking down the street and, out of the blue, punching B in the face as an example of initiation of aggression. Most assign wrongness or illegality to this action but fail to consistently apply the principle. When taken aback with some new and radical idea, plenty of smart people will obstinately defend bad ideas and bad science.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say.
I think you are confused. Go back to what I wrote about apriorism and logical deduction.
Besides the dogmatic adherence to the argumentation method
Method? It is a logical proof. Are the laws of thermodynamics dogmatic? When you lack a substantive argument, bring out “dogmatic”. Nice tactic.
I would argue that is a false dichotomy brought about by the limitations inheirant in being a mortal being.
You don’t seem to understand me at all. We can conceive of an ideally accurate boundary between greeenacre and blackacre (legal philosophy), then the law in action (jurisprudence) is limited by both human capability and willingness to take action.
Jackson (and other anti-libertarians), have you ever read Block and Kinsella on proportionality? I suspect most of you haven’t. The end of this post of mine is relevant and extremely important. Also, for some philosophical background, I’d read this by Sechrest first, then this chapter of Barry Smith’s book, especially the sources regarding Reinach. It gets really old arguing the same points, against the same people who don’t even want to learn about the subject, in new thread after new thread.