I disagree. In a marketplace of law, the loser is accepting the court’s resolution of the dispute because he believes - however chafed he may be about losing the case - that it is better to accept the court’s resolution than to start a war (feud) with the other party.
I agree. But even a preconceived notion of property rights does nothing to solve your problem (the leg-breakers)… without sufficient security for your property, you will be unable to bring your claim to a court or give the leg-breakers any reason to do anything other than laugh at your theories of property and law. I have come to the conclusion that law presupposes both a theory of property and a security situation that is not overwhelmingly one-sided*.
Clayton -
*To be more exact, I believe that both parties must believe they might be better off arbitrating their dispute than pressing it directly through violent means. If either party chooses to fight instead of arbitrate, arbitration is not possible (in a natural order society). If you fully work out the consequences of not arbitrating, I don’t think this leads to the situation where warlords hold all the power or where the wealthy always win legal disputes against those who are poor (typical justifications given for modern socialist, territorial law monopolies).
“And if all those factors (listed above) affecting norms are ultimately understood or interpreted using intuition, no?”
Ok? New question, whats the point of the “if all”? If one uses an “if” then there should be a corresponding “then.” Your question reads as unfinished.
“Intuition is a heuristic method. Before a precedent had been established, how else would one apply heuristics, other than relying soley on intuition?”
Intuition isn’t a method at all, its instinctive, a gut-reaction, it can, however, be used in a method. On the other hand, heuristics require some experience. So, trial and error.
You’re right, the “if” should be dropped, but since I think I have an idea of your answer, I guess the whole question can be dropped at this point!
If what you type is the case, then heuristics would be irrelevant without experience, or a precedent. If there is no precedent in a situation, then intuition is the only option left if one desires to interpret and evaluate a percieved phenomena.
“If what you type is the case, then heuristics would be irrelevant without experience, or a precedent. If there is no precedent in a situation, then intuition is the only option left if one desires to interpret and evaluate a percieved phenomena.”
Yes. Intuition would be all you have when experiencing a completely new phenomena that is unlike any other that, however as you age and become more knowledgeable that becomes increasingly rare. That doesn’t stop people from going with their intuition anyways though.
I’m not saying which is the “right” way, I was merely answering your question. Don’t worry, I’m in no mood to re-hash that debate on this thread, since I can safely say there was more movement on the western front in 1916 than there would be if were to discuss Hoppe’s (strange) position on morality and ethics.
I think we can agree that people do exist that aren’t adherents to that brand of morality, though.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say.
Besides the dogmatic adherence to the argumentation method (without which the method itself is rather impotent), it seems rather likely to me (as it apparently does you) that most humans find murder undesireable, and would naturally, via market action, dissuade not only murderers, but also arbitrators who consider murder acceptable practice.
In addition, since most consider intrasubjective consensus an acceptable method of determining what is “real”, it seems likely that a consensus on morality expressed through the market would be equally as acceptable.
I would argue that is a false dichotomy brought about by the limitations inheirant in being a mortal being. Since every action has an effect on the universe, it is impossible to discern (without omniscience) what consequences our action may eventually have on a scale (whichever it may be) we usually don’t consider, or can’t comprehend.
Which would mean that intuition is the essential and fundamental basis for all interpretation of phenomena. This is the point I was attempting to make a few posts ago.
“Which would mean that intuition is the essential and fundamental basis for all interpretation of phenomena. This is the point I was attempting to make a few posts ago.”
What an odd point to make. However, it isn’t really the basis for all interpretation of phenomena, it may be at a point or in certain situations, but there are obviously better methods, making it less of an essential and more of a hindrance that one must overcome. Sort of a “this blessing, this curse.”
This seems to be a contradiction of your earlier statement:
Initially, when the first human became self aware, wouldn’t intuition be the only method of interpreting phenomena it would have available to it? Wouldn’t that remain the case until the advent of language or science? Doesn’t this also mean that all interpretation is based upon either intuition, or a precedent (ultimately) set by another’s intuition?
How would one determine which methods are superior? Intrasubjective consensus? This would again, ultimately return to intuition. It seems that an “intuitive majority” (analagous to a market?) determines prefered methods.
Perhaps the question we should now ask is “how does intuition take shape?”, a “meta-intuition” philosophy, if you will.
“This seems to be a contradiction of your earlier statement:”
I thought the qualifier “when experiencing a new phenomena…” would have made it clear.
“Initially, when the first human became self aware, wouldn’t intuition be the only method of interpreting phenomena it would have available to it? Wouldn’t that remain the case until the advent of language? Doesn’t this also mean that all interpretation is based upon either intuition, or a precedent (ultimately) set by another’s intuition?”
I’m not really sure about that, however, we aren’t the first human(s) so it isn’t really relevant, thousands of years of knowledge have been passed down, so very little is completely new at this point (particularly in the field of law). I was speaking on a primarily individual level, not evolutionary. To answer your question though, I don’t know whether all interpretation is based ultimately on intuition, at least following ones intuition, it seems some things people do are counter-intuitive, I really can’t imagine one intuitively playing with fire.
“How would one determine which methods are superior? Intrasubjective consensus? This would again, ultimately return to intuition. It seems that an “intuitive majority” (analagous to a market?) determines prefered methods.”
By results. Good ones don’t necessarily follow intuition at all.
“Perhaps the question we should now ask is “how does intuition take shape?”, a “meta-intuition” philosophy, if you will.”
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.
“Pro-humanity” or “humanity” is nothing to be intrinsically valued , much less rights. To categorize myself as “human” is as meaningful to me as to categorize myself as ambidextrous, male, carbon based, mammal, hungry, etc; it is of varying conveniences, at varying times, with varying consistencies, with a varying degree of sense of self and environmental conditions.
Where did I say anything about intrinsic value? I’m opposed to that notion for anything. I don’t see what you think you are proving by extracting this one sentence from what I wrote.
I wish I had a ready answer – this is something I’ve been struggling with for quite a while. The idea is that argumentation actually implies substantive norms: e.g., it is claimed that argumentation implies that the legal rules be “universalizable,” and so any asymmetrical rule (“I can hit you but you can’t hit me”) must be rejected. Hoppe and Kinsella come close to this, but I think their arguments still have some flaws.
This was more directed against the idea that we shouldn’t engage in legal theorizing because it’s a form of “central planning” and there’s no way we can know what kind of law a free market would “produce.”
As for “exclusively consist[ing] of Rothbardians,” I don’t think we’d need to be quite that extreme. (More in PM.)
Let’s say you don’t pay your taxes and you go to court to defend yourself. The court rules in favor of the state. You accept this decision because you would rather pay the taxes than fight what is sure to be a losing battle against an overwhelmingly better-armed opponent. Do you deny that this constitutes violence against you?
The “problem” I was referring to was the intellectual problem of figuring out what the correct law should be. But yes, of course solving this intellectual problem does not by itself emit a magic force-field that defends your rights against aggressors. To do that you need to live in a society where the correct law is, by and large, accepted.