Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

[liberty_student]

Awesome post. I’d like to see a credible challenge to it, because all that remains seems to be talking past one another.

Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people who will be willing to critique it in good faith. I’m going to message them.

Right now, I’m tempted to throw it up on NoT because it covers everything I have been trying to say or have left unsaid.

@nirgrahamUK

i put it to you that whilst the law that anarcho-capitalist firms would generate must define issues of proportionality, must codify this into their law; this is a definite and substantial step beyond the mere scribbling down of what ‘the natural law is’ .

Re-Emphasis

‘the natural law’ or ‘fundamental universal rational law’ is different from the Produced Law (whatever flavour, be it explicit, or even the ‘implicit law’ (*footnote), that agents might bind themseleves to)

One might characterise the first as being rawrer, as it does make less fine grained distinctions, and it looks much less like the law we are most familiar and intimate with, that law being the prevailing common law of our societies(which has suffered greatly by being squeezed and distroted by the state).

I suggest to all of you that have been following this thread that Proportionality Doctrine, is putting the cart before the horse.

It can have no rational place in a rational universal ethics. because the opinions of human-beings (merely a subset of logically possible rational beings) are widely divergent from individual on questions of proportionaly. None of us are non-human rational beings, so none of us are qualified to give the extra-human perspective on matters of preference, though we are well qualified to talk about core rational ethics.

Hence Proportionality is not a universal principle such as the AXIOM of private property and the AXIOM of non-aggression. (these axioms drop out simple and well formed, from analysis on what it is to be a moral agent, and so could be derived by all rational beings be they humans or otherwise; but perhaps more needs to be said of this)

[Juan]

@LS

Oh, so now you do understand my position?

Again, your position(s) can be easily inferred from your incoherent babbling - and I don’t really care what your position is anyway. I remember some months ago you said that you wouldn’t be spending so much time on this forum because there were better places, blah, blah, blah. Too bad you didn’t take your own advice.

[wombatron]

@liberty student

Awesome post. I’d like to see a credible challenge to it, because all that remains seems to be talking past one another.

Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people who will be willing to critique it in good faith. I’m going to message them.

Right now, I’m tempted to throw it up on NoT because it covers everything I have been trying to say or have left unsaid.

@nirgrahamUK

i put it to you that whilst the law that anarcho-capitalist firms would generate must define issues of proportionality, must codify this into their law; this is a definite and substantial step beyond the mere scribbling down of what ‘the natural law is’ .

Re-Emphasis

‘the natural law’ or ‘fundamental universal rational law’ is different from the Produced Law (whatever flavour, be it explicit, or even the ‘implicit law’ (*footnote), that agents might bind themseleves to)

One might characterise the first as being rawrer, as it does make less fine grained distinctions, and it looks much less like the law we are most familiar and intimate with, that law being the prevailing common law of our societies(which has suffered greatly by being squeezed and distroted by the state).

I suggest to all of you that have been following this thread that Proportionality Doctrine, is putting the cart before the horse.

It can have no rational place in a rational universal ethics. because the opinions of human-beings (merely a subset of logically possible rational beings) are widely divergent from individual on questions of proportionaly. None of us are non-human rational beings, so none of us are qualified to give the extra-human perspective on matters of preference, though we are well qualified to talk about core rational ethics.

Hence Proportionality is not a universal principle such as the AXIOM of private property and the AXIOM of non-aggression. (these axioms drop out simple and well formed, from analysis on what it is to be a moral agent, and so could be derived by all rational beings be they humans or otherwise; but perhaps more needs to be said of this)

I still have yet to see a consistent demonstration of the axiomatic status of self-ownership. Also, private property and non-aggression aren’t axioms, and they wouldn’t be even if self-ownership was; they would be corollaries of self-ownership.

[Juan]

Out of curiosity nirgrahamUK, do you happen to be a ‘law student’ ?

[angryrabbit]

@liberty student

Right now, I’m tempted to throw it up on NoT because it covers everything I have been trying to say or have left unsaid.

Agreed. NUK’s got an amazing ability to be clear and stay on topic. NUK, wanna help me write my college papers?

@liberty student

Awesome post. I’d like to see a credible challenge to it, because all that remains seems to be talking past one another.

Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people who will be willing to critique it in good faith. I’m going to message them.

I would love to hear some critique! Do find these people and urge them to read and share. What’s NoT?

[liberty_student]

@Daniel Waite

What’s NoT?

My blog. I’ll wait to see if others reply.

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

‘the natural law’ or ‘fundamental universal rational law’ is different from the Produced Law

Either there are ’ natural laws’ that can be described as ‘libertarian’ and are in line with no aggression or there are no such laws. The idea that ‘natural law’ can be different from produced LIBERTARIAN law is NONSENSE.

So, you’ve royally failed to show that from “X committing trespassing” it follows that “murder of X is justified.”

Among others, you’ve not dealt with the argument that shows that from your premise (non-proportionality) all sort of absurd consequences follow. I’m sure you know pretty well that such reductio-ad-absurdum proves your reasoning is fallacious.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Juan

Either there are ’ natural laws’ that can be described as ‘libertarian’ and are in line with no aggression or there are no such laws.

yes, very good. if we are playing the morality language game, then in that context there is the ‘natural law’ that i specified, which is at root libertarian emphasising as it does private property and non-initiation of aggression.

Being that there are these laws, the produced libertarian laws codified by human beings in the marketplace must necessarily deviate, else they wouldnt be needed. Yet, they remain compatible with natural law since the agents thhat they concern will have volunteered to be governed by them. These Produced laws do not contradict Natural law, they co-exists or take precedence depending on your favoured terminology. This concept of overlaying a more particular law over a general law should be familiar to everyone who has experience law in the real world. given the defacto rules about ‘not hitting people’ boxing in our culture would not exist. It does exist because the participants voluntary agree to abide by a explicit law that supercedes the common law. think on it.

and juan my silly friend!.The consequences of natural law are not absurd they are just not to your liking. a reductio is a powerful argument where you show that various premises are incompatible. the consequences arising from my analysis dont appeal to your taste. i did note this in my text! yet, they do not contradict any of the premises. (or at least have not been shown to). and therefore there is no absurdity under a logical analysis, which here is all that counts.

I want to thank all the guys with kind words about my postings, it means a lot to me, and i’d be happy to collaborate on projects and learn things along the way. I have kind of thrown myself headlong into mises forum debates to meet likeminded people., so its all good. I want to say I have great respect and love for Juan and Giles and BrainPolice for their commitments to liberty and capitalism to the extent they honour and appreciate these things.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

I want to thank all the guys with kind words about my postings, it means a lot to me, and i’d be happy to collaborate on projects and learn things along the way. I have kind of thrown myself headlong into mises forum debates to meet likeminded people., so its all good. I want to say I have great respect and love for Juan and Giles and BrainPolice for their commitments to liberty and capitalism to the extent they honour and appreciate these things.

Where do I come into this?

[Brainpolice]

@Ultima

@liberty student

As gauche as it is to quote oneself;

@liberty student

What has been presented here continually, is a positive right to aggressors against property. That right coming at the expense of the property holder.

This is important. If you follow through the logical implications of proportionality, one is incapable of sellf defence. And if you follow through the logical implications of no permissible use of physical force in the defense of property you cannot defend your holdings.

Again, the aggressor may come onto your property, and you can only try to remove him, as much as he resists. If he ultimately attacks you, you can only attack back. He is allowed to initiate violence, and to dictate at what level it will occur.

And my earlier question, similar to the 5th storey example, of how one man can repel 50 peaceful squatters from his yard, or garden or home, remained unanswered. Because it is physically impossible, for an individual, under the constraints of proportionality, to adequately defend his individual holdings against a communal attack.

The answers won’t be found in this discussion. They will be found in the minds of the readers, who take the consequences of different positions and strategies to their logical ends. Then the wheat and chaff will separate amongst themselves.

If we take your argument to its natural conclusion, then basically what you are proposing is basically the law of “what a man can do; what a man can’t do”, and you’re arguing that if they’re on YOUR property without your consent, you basically have the right to exterminate them, which is what pushing YOUR strategy to its logical end implies.

The concept of proportionality would not prevent you from removing 50 squatters… indeed, it grants you the right to use sufficient force necessary to remove them from your property, but no more. I don’t think you’re required to grab an AK 47 and mow down 50 people. Also, this is why we would live in a society where there are still laws and defence agencies capable of coming to your aid in situations such as this. Are you really suggesting to live in a completely anarchic society where there are no hierarchies, no agencies with superior force capable of aiding you in such situations?

If that’s what suits you, go find a time travelling machine and travel back about 5000 - 10000 years, before there were states, city-states, or societies to speak of beyond the hunter-gatherer tribe. The “natural property rights” of the time might suit you better than today’s world. Alternatively, you could go a couple thousand miles up the Amazon river and live among the tribes, there.

That’s what I’ve been saying throughoutthis entire thread: “If we take your argument to its natural conclusion, then basically what you are proposing is basically the law of “what a man can do; what a man can’t do”, and you’re arguing that if they’re on YOUR property without your consent, you basically have the right to exterminate them, which is what pushing YOUR strategy to its logical end implies.”

[hayekianxyz]

Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach | Mises Institute

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

yes, very good. if we are playing the morality language game,

Sorry, I’m not playing any language game. Rather you are engaging in sophism.

and juan my silly friend!.The consequences of natural law are not absurd they are just not to your liking.

No, you’ve just declared that ‘natural law’ is lines on the ground and the killing in cold blood of any trespasser. Now, try to understand. That’s not a FIRST PRINCIPLE. That’s just a particular MISUSE of a first principle, the NAP. I do find your ideas beyond distasteful, but regardless, your logic is FLAWED.

a reductio is a powerful argument where you show that various premises are incompatible.

Sorry my not-so-well-versed-in-logic friend. A reductio-ad-absurdum is not concerned with the incompatibility of various premises. A reduction starts from ONE premise and shows that the premise leads to absurd conclusions, which means the premise is false. Your case.

[Brainpolice]

There’s been a strange inability to comprehend reductios here. “Straw man!”. No, it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

Sorry my not-so-well-versed-in-logic friend. A reductio-ad-absurdum is not concerned with the incompatibility of various premises. A reduction starts from ONE premise and shows that the premise leads to absurd conclusions, which means the premise is false. Your case.

Actually, he’s correct. Although, so are you, you just presented a weaker reduction ad absurdum since the absurd conclusion can merely be accepted.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

There’s been a strange inability to comprehend reductios here. “Straw man!”. No, it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

Not necessarily, often attempts to post a reductio ad absurdum devolve into a strawman, irrespective of whether they mean to or not.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY: THE ESTOPPEL APPROACH - Kinsella

I just skimmed it and got this

Suppose A uninvitedly slaps B lightly on the cheek for a rude remark. Is B entitled to execute A in return? A, it is true, has initiated force, so how can he complain if force is to be used against him? But A is not estopped from objecting to being killed. A may perfectly consistently object to being killed, since he may maintain that it is wrong to kill. This in itself is not inconsistent with A’s implicit view that it is legitimate to lightly slap others. By sanctioning slapping, A does not necessarily claim that killing is proper, because usually (and in this example) there is nothing about slapping that rises to the level of killing.

Were you making any specific point by referencing the article ? Well, interestingly enough it seems that estoppel, which nirgraham invoked actually is to be used against his case…

[Brainpolice]

Neither Stephan Kinsella’s “estoppel” argument, Hans Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, Rand’s survivalism or Stefan Molyneux’s UPB provides a comprehensive proof of individual liberty as an ethical norm.

That being said, Juan brings up a good point: in the quote, Kinsella’s argument only bolsters the proportionality perspective.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

Were you making any specific point by referencing the article ? Well, interestingly enough it seems that estoppel, which nirgraham invoked actually is to be used against his case…

No, seeing as I’m undecided on this myself. I was just posting it to provide some material on the subject.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

Actually, he’s correct. Although, so are you, you just presented a weaker reduction ad absurdum since the absurd conclusion can merely be accepted.

His definition of reductio-ad… is incorrect. I’m not sure what you mean in your second sentence.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

I was just posting it to provide some material on the subject.

Ah, thanks then.