Proportionality & Restitution

Economics Political Theory
81

“Expressions establish the commonly accepted course of action(the qualitative evaluation), or endorse a particular definition of proportionality (the quantitative evaluation inferred from qualitative data)”

That doesn’t refute my claim though, it just says that people assign values. It doesn’t have any effect on the process of drawing a conclusion itself.

“Although I believe One True logic exists, description of logic’s consistency is established through intersubjective speculation, therefore I cannot say whether or not the fact that human observations on phenomenon are absolutely factual. They’re just commonly and articulately upheld as being so.”

What difference does its consistency make, when the question is whether its necessarily at hand? There are other methods of argumentation besides logic and people seem to use them frequently.

“I’m playing devil’s advocate. You can’t prove the infallibility of logic, you can only prove that it most commonly occurs given a certain set of values and circumstances … and ultimately, appraisals through value judgement”

I’m not attempting to prove the infallibility of logic though so you are playing with the wrong fellow. However, your last line seems to make my point. “…appraisals through value judgement” yes, one can appraise logic, which would mean they could deem it to be useless. In which case what would they use to make judgements? (Answer: Something else)

“The only true logic can come from God itself.”

And how did you come to that conclusion?

82

Because the primary method of evaluating the soundness of logic is by examining its consistency.

Yes.

Ahaaaa! Of all the defense I could muster, value judgement would probably be the most consistent.

83

“Because the primary method of evaluating the soundness of logic is by examining its consistency.”

OK? I’m not questioning the soundness of logic at all though. As I already stated “I’m not attempting to prove the infallibility of logic.” You aren’t responding to my question as to whether logic is actually utilized.

Thankfully…

“Yes.”

Now were getting somewhere!

“Ahaaaa! Of all the defense I could muster, value judgement would probably be the most consistent.”

Which doesn’t necessarily involve the process at all.

84

And all of those factors that affect norms are ultimately interpreted utilizing intuition, no?

85

“And all of those factors that affect norms are ultimately interpreted utilizing intuition, no?”

Interpreted utilizing intuition? Re-word for non-native English speakers.

86

Be that as it may, one thing you don’t do is ask yourself, “How would a free market handle this?”

Here’s my take on it:

Although the two disputants may share no values whatsoever, they share at least one premise, which is that there is an answer to their dispute (the “axiom of argumentation”). If they did not accept this, then they wouldn’t be asking for an answer. Therefore, any valid argument of the form “There is an answer to the dispute… therefore the answer is X” is uniquely binding on both parties. Now, it’s a separate question whether any such valid arguments exist, but in our search for them we can begin by assuming the axiom of argumentation.

Again, they can rely on the axiom of argumentation, since the fact that the dispute is being “advanc[ed]… in an adjudicative setting” establishes that this is accepted by both sides.

87

If the dispute is a true dispute (i.e., not one that can be resolved simply by resolving any factual misunderstandings), then the losing party will always think that the resolution constitutes violence against them. Which brings me to my next point:

But the thing is, the leg-breakers will claim that you are the one who’s intimidating them. And without a preconceived notion of property rights, their claim is as valid as yours.

To someone steeped in libertarian norms, this claim might seem patently absurd. But try to erase all preexisting norms from yourself and see it from the other side. The leg-breaker’s reasoning might go like this:

“We follow the norm that all property belongs to the Great Leader. The Great Leader doesn’t want you doing what you’re doing. Therefore, we will defend the Great Leader’s property against your invasion of it. If you resist us, then you are just using force to drive us, the Great-Leader-obeying arbitration agency, out of business by preventing us from serving our customers without getting our property invaded.”

By contrast, you from the libertarian agency would argue:

“We follow the norm that all property belongs to the first-homesteader. The first-homesteader of these legs doesn’t want you coming in and breaking them. Therefore, we will defend the first-homesteader’s property against your invasion of it. If you resist us, then you are just using force to drive us, the libertarian arbitration agency, out of business by preventing us from serving our customers without getting our property invaded.”

Both arguments are identical in form, and you cannot distinguish between them unless you distinguish between their norms.

88

“Again, they can rely on the axiom of argumentation, since the fact that the dispute is being “advanc[ed]… in an adjudicative setting” establishes that this is accepted by both sides.”

The axiom applies equally to both parties, the judge can “rely” on it as much as he can rely on the fact that the parties haven’t killed one another. Perhaps the parties coming to the arbitrator can signify that they are more likely to respect his decision, but that definitely still falls short on what the judge actually uses to come to a verdict.

89

Sorry bud.

“And all if those factors affecting norms are ultimately understood using intuition, no?”

90

I think I understand, but even if it was mutually accepted between the parties involved that,

how would the judge arrive at answer X (given that he cannot rely on precedence, as in Conza’s example) other than (ultimately) intuitive methods?

91

Excuse me if this is off topic, and feel free to PM me a response, but if what you are proposing is the case, would an an-cap society have to exclusively consist of Rothbardians?

92

Excuse me if this is off topic, and feel free to PM me a response, but if what you are proposing is the case, would an an-cap society have to exclusively consist of Rothbardians?

What would that even mean? As much as people like to say libertarianism is some outrageous ideology, much of the theory is in line with current laws (murder is wrong and such). People already for the most part hold libertarian ideals. It’s the people who benefit from state largess, or various confused outliers, who focus on certain “problems” and ignore the parts readily acceptable to all.

As for intuition, its necessary to separate praxeological legal theory, a purely mental exercise, from jurisprudence. A judge, in considering his prescriptions, is always faced with limited knowledge of historical events. It seems like this is what you mean by intuition. If so, so what? How is that different than in any other legal system.

93

I wanted some clarification on this statement:

Which I think implies that without belief in property rights as absolute, an anarchic society would break down into chaos. If this is to be accepted as the case, than any individual that desires anarchy, yet does not believe in the concept of property rights as absolute, would have to be excluded from said society, or at least alienated.

I’m not sure that anyone is arguing that an ancap legal system is imperfect, while other legal systems are superior. I think the thread is more about wrangling with the incongruency between claiming an absolute law and attempting to apply that perfect law to an imperfect world.

By intuition, I simply mean “going with your gut”. My argument is that essentially, all the concepts discussed so far can be traced back to someone’s intuition, which set a precedent for others to consider.

As for who’s intuition is preferable to who, the only method I could conceive of arriving at that conclusion is subject the question to a market situation, and rely on the invisible hand to determine the most desirable verdicts.

94

“And all if those factors affecting norms are ultimately understood using intuition, no?”

Sorry, I still don’t know what you are asking “And all if those factors” what? However, I don’t really know whether something is really understood via intuition, its just a reaction, a conclusion is reached but I’m not sure if theres any conscious understanding.

95

Which I think implies that without belief in property rights as absolute, an anarchic society would break down into chaos. If this is to be accepted as the case, than any individual that desires anarchy, yet does not believe in the concept of property rights as absolute, would have to be excluded from said society, or at least alienated.

What would it mean for a person’s conception of property rights to not be absolute?

Anyhow, most people could care less about philosophizing over rights. It’s a task for entrepeneurs. The consumers just want a system that works. Congress has a horrible approval rating, yet it retains power because the majority’s conception of any alternative, if any, has a cloud of fear hanging over it. The only people who need punished or ostracized are those who actually commit crimes. You can argue however you want against libertarianism, but it doesn’t matter to me unless we’re in an actual trial setting, in a hypothetical future free society.

As for who’s intuition is preferable to who, the only method I could conceive of arriving at that conclusion is subject the question to a market situation, and rely on the invisible hand to determine the most desirable verdicts.

It’s true that what legal system is in place is a result of who has the guns and who has the money, but this is the (invalid) argument of legal positivists.

I’m not sure that anyone is arguing that an ancap legal system is imperfect, while other legal systems are superior. I think the thread is more about wrangling with the incongruency between claiming an absolute law and attempting to apply that perfect law to an imperfect world.

By intuition, I simply mean “going with your gut”. My argument is that essentially, all the concepts discussed so far can be traced back to someone’s intuition, which set a precedent for others to consider.

Proportionality is grounded in the same apriorism as Austrian economics. We know that man acts. From this axiom (or some may suppose with a few supporting axioms as well), can be deduced with apodeictic certainty not only economic theory, but also legal doctrine.

96

The factors you had listed prior as factors in a judge’s judgement:

“And all if those factors (listed above) affecting norms are ultimately understood or interpreted using intuition, no?”

97

For one, I don’t believe in a “right” to property once homesteaded or contractually aquired. Also, one might be a property relativist, or property utilitarian.

I would agree, but my understanding of the action axiom is that means can only be determined if there are defined ends (or vice versa). I suppose this is a moot point when Libertarians are dealing with other Libertarians, since the moral principles of Libertarianism (the “ends” the court attempts to achieve) are already agreed upon and considered “law”.

On the other hand, if there exists a “polymorality” in a society, strictly adhering to Libertarian doctrine may not be the most desireable end, and therefore, the means (the judge’s ruling) would also be affected in turn.

Since I think we can agree that not everyone we interact with in our society is a strict adherent to Libertarian principles, the question of what ends are most desireable, and what are the optimum means to achieve them, becomes more complex.

“A stitch in time saves nine”. Besides, it’s fun!

98

“And all if those factors (listed above) affecting norms are ultimately understood or interpreted using intuition, no?”

Again, what is the point of the “if”? Do you mean “And all of those factor affecting norms are ultimately understood or interpreted using intuition?”

If so then…

“I don’t really know whether something is really understood via intuition, its just a reaction, a conclusion is reached but I’m not sure if theres any conscious understanding” But no, we understand how those factors effect norms by heuristics and not by intuition. Further, I’d say many people definitely react according to their intuition but I don’t think cultural norms play a factor outside of one’s conscious mind.

99

Oops, it should read:

“And if all those factors…”

My bad.

Intuition is a heuristic method. Before a precedent had been established, how else would one apply heuristics, other than relying soley on intuition?

I don’t quite understand this passage.

100

For one, I don’t believe in a “right” to property once homesteaded or contractually aquired. Also, one might be a property relativist, or property utilitarian.

You can be those things, but what you say is unscientific and incoherent. By now, you have to be familiar with what is presupposed by argumentation. I don’t really want to get into this here. If you think you have a valid case against Hoppe, please make it in the appropriate thread. These objections have been dealt with long ago, and you are just placing yourself in a position of performative contradiction.

I would agree, but my understanding of the action axiom is that means can only be determined if there are defined ends (or vice versa). I suppose this is a moot point when Libertarians are dealing with other Libertarians, since the moral principles of Libertarianism (the “ends” the court attempts to achieve) are already agreed upon and considered “law”.

Economics doesn’t prescribe certain means and ends. It only evaluates the suitability of certain means in reaching given ends. Austrian legal philosophy divides categories of action into barbarism/criminality, from which came autistic exchange, followed by societal cooperation. You can say, “Murder is awesome! I think I am going to go murder some people.”, but if you go do such, you can’t coherently object to the same actions being done to you (within the framework of proportionality).

Really in the end, “libertarian” is meaningless. You are either pro-human rights or anti-human. Most people value the ends of the political ideology concomitant to praxeological legal philosophy, whether or not they realize it or are confused by statist mythology.

On the other hand, if there exists a “polymorality” in a society, strictly adhering to Libertarian doctrine may not be the most desireable end, and therefore, the means (the judge’s ruling) would also be affected in turn.

Since I think we can agree that not everyone we interact with in our society is a strict adherent to Libertarian principles, the question of what ends are most desireable, and what are the optimum means to achieve them, becomes more complex.

Your willing desires face boundaries with other people’s. Justice is only concerned when you cross these lines, not when you contemplate doing so. Terms like “polymorality” confuse the discussion. This is why I have mentioned the “ethical-aesthetical” vs. “moral-legal” dichotomy. Do the actions stemming from your valuations concern other people or just yourself and your property?