Lax semantic.
EDIT: Very little absolutes.
Now prove to me that there is infallible logic, that’s a better proposition.
Sorry, I don’t describe world view destroying contradictions as being just a matter of ‘semantics’.
Your relativism fails. And there is very little you can do about it, bar realise that saying “there are no absolutes”, is in fact an absolute.
As for your proposition, burden of proof lies with you. I don’t have to do anything.
Conza88,
I have read the first 16 pages of the Kinsella article and see nothing of real value in relation to my point. Maybe you can point out to me what it is I sould have noticed, or if you would like me to read the remaining 10 pages I can.
My point stands—using Kinsella terminology—Rothbard is estopped from claiming we have absolute property rights while also limiting property rights via the adoption of the proportionality of defense. It is simply the law of identity and Rothbard cannot have A and nonA
“What I mean is, what reason do you have for supporting the libertarian notion of property rights, as opposed to, say, the socialist notion? Within the Hoppe/Kinsella framework, the law of proportional punishment comes as an integral part of this reasoning.”
I follow their framework up to the point of inconsitancy but i suppose my reasoning for supporting property rights parallels theirs.
I will PM you about my reasoning aganist implicit contracts in order for me not to stray from the topic.
Your whole position is a strawman.
“via the adoption of the proportionality of defense”.
Rothbard has done no such thing. And so far you have completely failed to make the case that he has. You haven’t even come close. You still don’t get the defence / punishment divide?
You still seem to be making that elementary error Marko pointed out near the very beginning. (As far as I can tell your response didn’t even address that at all. Just red herrings).
Clayton,
I’m not really sure of the relevance of your post to mine. I was just questioning the need for “absolute” rights in property (or even oneself), near absolute sure. However, as with many of your posts, I have very little to disagree with, but I’ll try and throw out a few quibbles: Throughout much of human history women have been treated as objects so it does make sense as well religions have obviously had much influence in all aspects of law.
Ahem, if I may:
If there are factual absolutes (truths), then humans, being non-omniscient entities, would be unable to discern them from non-factual proposed absolutes (falsehoods).
Most individuals instead rely on intersubjective consensus to make sense of, or assign order to, percieved phenomena, and to determine which of these perceptions are true, and which are false.
Given this pattern of behavior, it is entirely likely that the logical extremes and paradoxes suggested in this argument would be mitigated by a consensus derived from intersubjective observation, and comparison against personally held normative notions. No necessity for rigid, impractical absolutes or rigid written laws. The spontaneous judgement based upon implicit guidelines of individual interaction ingrained upon the deciding party (the most powerful party) by the mores of the society in which they interact is sufficient to determine who is “right” and who is “wrong” in each specific case.
Remember the credo: “Central Planning Does Not Work!” The case is the same in ethics, as it is in economics.
if there are factual absolutes (truths), then humans, being non-omniscient entities, would be unable to discern them from non-factual proposed absolutes (falsehoods).
you prove too much… you prove nothing at all…
…same thing…
Not the same thing, but rather it is undescernable which I am “actually” doing. Individual A may read my post and determine I am “proving too much”, individual B may read the same post and determine that I am “proving nothing at all”.
If it was only Crusoe and Friday, both would be convinced that thier conclusion was the “right” one. How might they arrive at a consensus?
I don’t suppose that you think your argument can have any force. for you cannot reasonably use words like ‘then’ and ‘therefore’ and come to any conclusions from things that you first assume… logical deductions are barred from you.
you may need to reconsider ever posting anything other than comments about whether things appeal to you aesthetically or not. (leaving aside the issue that there would be no truth to that matter either)
I didn’t feel like articulating after Conza88 decked me, but if I had I would of written something similar. I don’t believe logical intersubjectivity requires deviation from a central framework of logic. If absolute logical truths could be derived from an established formula, we would have no need to generate discussion on logic at places like Mises, or at all. It would be part of natural law as observed by mankind.
And I was never saying that all facts are non-absolute. Just that in some instances, logical consistency breaks down.
Although sexism may be part of the reason, look at what Clayton wrote: A man finds his wife cheating and beats on the person cheating with his wife. Such an outcome is probably common. Sleeping with another man’s wife, then, can be seen as provoking violence, similar to how besmirching a man’s honor in front of him (but not behind his back) is all too likely to provoke a brawl. Both disturb the peace, and so customary law evolves to prohibit both of them.
David Hume makes a similar point, in explaining why we are less tolerant of a woman sleeping around than a man: if a woman sleeps around, it becomes tricky to determine paternity. As we expect the father to feel a natural inclination and a social duty to take care of his offspring, it is important that paternity be easy to determine so that men are inclined to provide for their children.
paternity be easy to determine so that men are inclined to provide for their children.
modern technology makes this part fairly easy.
“A man finds his wife cheating and beats on the person cheating with his wife. Such an outcome is probably common.”
Thats definitely in line with women as objects though. I see a stranger driving my car, I’m far more likely to beat the stranger than the car. However, my observation wasn’t intended to be a full explanation, so good points.
I agree with Mr. Rothbard. Property takes responsibility. In the case of a home invader, the property owner should make all possible actions to maintain the security of his property if he values keeping it and in tact. Employing security, external lighting, dual locks, security panes, etc, etc; are ways of maintaining property of value.Shooting another would probably be only justified, if the opponent was a shooter too. The normal persons view of how the law should compensate victims of trespass and loss would have to change. Maybe this system of law in a contractual society would better serve justice, than today’s retributive nightmare of recidivism.
I like diversity and think that all situations are uniquely done by unique actors, and must be adjudicated if necessary not on absolutes but the ideal compensation for that situation.
Rather than fight the argument, fight the man… tsk tsk.
I can deduce all I want, I just don’t hold out the hope that my deductions are “factual” or “true”, or that I am capable of perfect knowledge, which would be required for perfect reasoning, and perfect logic. All I rely on is intrasubjective consensus. If my conclusions seem reasonable to a good number of people, great. If not, then maybe I’ll have to reconsider.
well, you don’t have an argument to attack ,since your argument is that arguments can not convey knowledge.. but thats a claim to knowledge.. oh dear. and on it goes.
I’ve demonstrated you are in this regard ‘silly’ and don’t think I will be responding unless you say anything particularly outrageous or different from what I have read you write elsewhere…
Um.
"…which would be required for perfect reasoning, and perfect logic.
You seem to have countered your own “argument” again.
That is what I meant. And LaRose’s argument, most of it anyways. In a market exchange two people are simultaneously and respectively judges and therefore in some cases resort to intersubjective logic. Not polylogicism. Intersubjectivity doesn’t need to work outside of a basic framework of universal logic.
I am not a relativist, thanks.
I like that that last bit, reminds me of…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI
As for your point, it depends on what sense you mean “knowledge”. Knowledge of truth, it may be possible, but I don’t understand how we meortals would be able to tell. As for knowledge of the intersubjective variety, you can interpret observed phenomena a variety of ways. Consensus determines which theories are considered acceptable, and which aren’t.