Rights, Property, and State

[nirgrahamUK]

if it turns out that the laws assigned by nature are laws regarding the use of scarce goods then you are agreeing.

just sayin’

[hashem]

They are, but I was pointing out that the task is not for humans to assign rules, but rather for humans to learn and describe pre-existing laws and their applications.

[Stephen_Forde]

@hashem

They are, but I was pointing out that the task is not for humans to assign rules, but rather for humans to learn and describe pre-existing laws and their applications.

K, sure. But I don’t see how it changes anything.

[Stephen_Forde]

@nirgrahamUK

@Stephen Forde

There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens

you are obviously not thinking of justice. are you confusing state law with natural law?

Maybe. Maybe not. All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.

[nirgrahamUK]

when asked by juan to state your own perspective earlier, you used Hoppes argumentation ethics, and you emphasised its universalizability. sure positive law is not inherently universalizable, but dont your other beliefs compel you to follow and assent that moral law is inherintly universalizable ?

[Stephen_Forde]

@wilderness

@Stephen Forde

@nirgrahamUK

just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy.

K, well I’m probably wrong than. But it seems to me that he means that I am presuming more than is warranted when he calls me arrogant. If my statement is correct however, and he doesn’t understand the universalizability principle, then I wasn’t really being arrogant. I know that’s a bit of a stretch. But I’m not sure I used it incorrectly.

Stephen,

I drew the line. What is the basis of your assertion that I don’t understand the universalizability principle? (That latter isn’t tautological unintentionally both in the rhetorical and thus denoting the propositional logic, too.) And don’t say because I didn’t answer your questions that came up later, after the fact. I drew the line right at when you made the initial assertion. Anarchist Cain answered your question and you apologized - why did you find the need to apologize?

I know what it means. I’m talking about what came up before and continued to come up in a mixture with more pertinent questioning.

It was just an educated guess based on the content of previous posts and your arguing style. I don’t know why you take it so personally.

[Stephen_Forde]

@nirgrahamUK

when asked by juan to state your own perspective earlier, you used Hoppes argumentation ethics, and you emphasised its universalizability. sure positive law is not inherently universalizable, but dont your other beliefs compel you to follow and assent that moral law is inherintly universalizable ?

Universalizability isn’t obvious. Its not self-evident. So unless some reason is given for the use of the principle, there is no reason to think its justified. And yes, moral law is inherently universalize.

[wilderness]

@Stephen Forde

It was just an educated guess based on the content of previous posts and your arguing style. I don’t know why you take it so personally.

And what in particular have I said before that lead you to this assertion?

[nirgrahamUK]

what are you saying?, that moral law is inherently universalizable but that it is not obviously so ?

[wilderness]

@Stephen Forde

Universalizability isn’t obvious. Its not self-evident. So unless some reason is given for the use of the principle, there is no reason to think its justified. And yes, moral law is inherently universalize.

Principles are truth. They exist. Principles are primarily intellectual and reasoning these principles is secondary. People can provide reasons for anything and counter the truth, but this lacking in reason countering their own inherent principle action is a misjudgment of their own free choosing as to what such a person understands.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Stephen Forde

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Did you read the page I linked?

Just the part you quoted. I understood an ad hominem to mean responding with a personal attack instead of a logical argument. I was wrong about that. I’m still not sure though that there was no ad hominem.

On second thought, I’m not even sure why I’m backpedaling. Whether or not there is an ad hominem fallacy, there is still an ad hominem, which simply means personal attack. And it’s still inappropriate in an intelligent, academic discussion.

[wilderness]

@Stephen Forde

Maybe. Maybe not. All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.

Not sure why you said it’s “not obvious”. Cell life isn’t obvious, so what do you mean?

[hashem]

@Stephen Forde

@hashem

@Stephen Forde

The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods.

This is your premise, and it’s wrong, so your entire argument, so long as it allegedly derives logically from this premise, is wrong.

The task of political philosophy is rather to describe the laws already assigned by nature, and their applications concerning humans.

K, sure. But I don’t see how it changes anything.

It changes everything. The task is not to assign man-made positive rules. The task is to learn and explain natural laws which were already assigned – pre-existing.

[Stephen_Forde]

@nirgrahamUK

what are you saying?, that moral law is inherently universalizable but that it is not obviously so ?

That’s right. It’s not a self-evident principle. It’s not something that can just be taken as a given without any proof.

[Laughing_Man]

@Stephen Forde

All I was doing was pointing out that universalizability is not obviously an inherent feature of law.

Perhaps with common law there is a sense of subjectivity, however, the nature of law and what is benefical to him/her is rather objective.

[Laughing_Man]

@Stephen Forde

That’s right. It’s not a self-evident principle. It’s not something that can just be taken as a given without any proof.

I think your not realizing the implications of what you are saying.The basic tenets of natural law are certainly close to axiomatic.

Case in point: Property is necessary for survive, the need for usage on goods found in nature. Given this, how are we to deduce what is and isn’t the best way to establish this property among humanity? Are we not passing into the realm of morality once we make a decision on how property is to be procured and distrubed?

[Stephen_Forde]

If the first sentence read “the task of political philosophy is to discover rules regarding the use of scarce goods”, Would you be satisfied?

[Charles_Anthony]

If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law™, why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering?

Just wondering.

[Juan]

@Stephen Forde

The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods.

Well, all political theories do that. None of them really denies scarcity.

The only truly objective criteria however, are those that must necessarily presuppose argumentation and its superset, action.

Now what this implies in the field of ethics is that all distinctions between justified and unjustified claims over scarce goods must be based on praxeological criteria.

I’m not not sure what that means. I don’t see why ethics should follow ‘praxeological criteria’ - it’s not even clear what ‘praxeological criteria’ are.

Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation.

False.

Both participants must allow full unhampered control over the other’s body during the course of the exchange.

False. You can be tied up and still be able to argue.

At the very least, both participants must have control over their own vocal chords, ears and brains and since there is no praxeological distinction between different parts of the body, it is impossible for anyone engaged in argumentation to deny the right of one’s opponent the uncoerced use of their entire body.

I don’t think that follows …

In addition, for one to engage in argumentation, they must also occupy some standing room, or land.

Yes, but, again, that doesn’t presuppose any ‘legal’ norm.

In a word, from “being physically able to argue” it doesn’t follow that “natural rights are justified”.

Anyway, my question was more along the lines of “why are natural rights morally good” ? Consider that the difference between fiat law/legal positivism and natural law is that natural law rules are morally good, whereas positive law is just whatever gets enforced at the point of a gun.

[Laughing_Man]

@Charles Anthony

If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law™, why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering?

Just wondering.

Mutations are apart of nature.