Its hard to understand someone who blatantly contradicts himself.
Again no sense:
Do you see where you say “no,” even though you are agreeing?
I never said suicide and murder occur regardless. This is where your comprehension fails. Death, non-existence, etc… is the end result of murder or suicide, yet it occurs regardless of whether one was murdered or committed suicide. Death can happen involuntarily or voluntarily, just like blinking, naturally it doesn’t change a thing how it happened. Dead is dead. A = A. This trial and judgment talk is unrelated and all you.
And it happens involuntarily as well, just like death. If you purposefully blink, call it suiblink, or if someone physically closes and opens you eyelids, call it homiblink, your eyes still become as moist as if you had naturally blinked, call it old-eye-age, involuntarily.
I’m merely pointing out your incessant gabbing about subjects you don’t entirely understand or have knowledge of, such as Aquinas, my originial question, or this. Perhaps its a pattern.
What you’ve said above, the same can be said right back at you. Since you now understand what I’ve been saying all along, then the discussion is over, and you can stop asking questions. If you have other questions, then feel free to ask others. I have important considerations to tend to.
I understand the subjects I ‘gab’ about and I am intellectually honest enough to honor truth and point it out when I am wrong. On the other hand, you’ve attempted to expand that into “perhaps its a pattern” without due warrant. Now if you will, I have more important events to tend to.
If supposedly some people own some others as slaves, does that given them a right to own others? Seems like you are deriving prescription from description.
I criticize the existence of ‘universality’.
The right to property is not universal because criminals must pay compensation for the victim. The criminal thus has his property violated. You purposefully define “property rights” as the right to own property unless pertaining to self-defense or restitution. That definition makes the right to property universal. If you define “property rights” differently, then it will not be universal anymore.
Everyone has a right to life. However, you also defend the right to kill criminals in self-defense. So the criminal does not have a right to life. If you instead define a “right to life” as the right to not be murdered (as opposed to the right to not be killed), then it makes it universal. Merely switching the terms from killing to murdering makes it universal.
So the existence of “universality” depends on the definition of terms. Seems like sophistry.
I give you another critique of the existence of “universality” below.
A right, by definition, means the ability to do an action without facing punative violence.
A rich person can pay for health care. Therefore, he has a right for health care. He does not suffer from punative violence by doing that.
A poor person, however, cannot pay for health care. He can only pay for health care by stealing money, which he has no right to do. If he steals to pay for health care, he will suffer punative violence. Therefore, he does not have a right for health care.
Therefore, all rights can behave non-universally in certain contexts.
No, because that right doesn’t exist. It is not, and cannot be universal. The only rights that exist are necessarily universal. It is in the nature of a right to be universal.
No they don’t. Everyone has the right to exercise their faculties free from aggression, which results in the ability to experience life.
Property rights are the only rights I’m aware of. The right has nothing to do with whether humans agree to punish criminals. “Criminals must pay compensation,” is a false premise. It is not a natural fact or law.
The right to own property is only one property right. The right to defend property against aggression is a necessary aspect of full-ownership.
These are not rights. Rights are natural and therefore universal. A right to something which all persons in all places at all times regardless of circumstance do not or cannot have is not a right.
Now I understand that you’ve been saying all along? You’ve been blatantly contradicted yourself, how could I possibly understand that?
I’m still waiting for a response to my original question, the one you (admittedly) missed. But again, please, do not try and answer it.
If you admit your wrong then it seems you don’t quite understand the subjects so well. And this pattern, this pattern of not reading, or not comprehending, or not something, has become more and more obvious as this dragged on.
I think the Proudhonian system is flawed. Why can we own personal possessions yet not land? Possessions are in fact made from the commons directly or indirectly. Land is a common.
Well, Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson defines ‘voluntary’ differently than you do. They simply define ‘voluntary’ as ‘non-violent’. They will classify hate speech, defamation, and boycotting as ‘voluntary’ even though the ‘victim’ did not consent to those acts.
The term ‘voluntary’ has too many definitions, and will cause confusion. I suggest using either ‘non-violent’ or ‘consensual’ in place of ‘voluntary’.
Using the derived words ‘voluntaryism’ and ‘voluntarism’ can also cause confusion.
Because hate speech, defamation and boycotts are voluntary actions because the individual who is enacting them did so through consentual acts. There is no right that says one cannot be told off or ridiculed.
Seems like you have conflated two different definitions of ‘voluntary’. Did the ‘victim’ of the boycott ‘consent’ to the boycott? Did the ‘victim’ of the defamation ‘consent’ to the defamation? Those acts do not fit into your previous definition of ‘voluntary’. You had defined it as ‘consensual’, but the ‘victims’ did not ‘consent’ to the boycott or the defamation.
If you define the term ‘voluntary’ as ‘non-violent’ instead of ‘consensual’, then those acts do fit under that definition of ‘voluntary’.
Did I ever imply that the vicitim consented to anything? Obviously a victim of defamation does not consent to being defamed unless they are some sort of masochist, however does the defamor not consent to his actions? If he did not consent and is not acting on his will then it ceases to be voluntary.
We were orignally discussing heroin being a voluntary action which can lead to death, while murder is an involuntary action and one in which I propose one party consents to the murder and another doesn’t. For how can there be murder withone one consenting to the action itself. It is on page 9 and I wanted to bring it up before we get off topic.
Do I need to get consent from the needle before I stick it in my arm? Or consent from the heroin in order to put it in my bloodstream? And for your knowledge I am defining voluntary…not consenual. In fact I said it just like this:
You: But that depends on your definition of ‘voluntary’. Usually, ancaps equate ‘voluntary’ with ‘non-aggressive’. Therefore, that depends on your definition of ‘aggression.’
Me: Deriving consent from a party or person. That is a loose definition of voluntary. I am not one of those libertarians who simply thinks that if there is no aggression in the world then there can be no dominance.
Therefore is murder an involuntary or voluntary action committed by the murder?
The literature is not on economic science, it is on epistemology. And though he focuses on the methodological foundation of economics, he also provides some of the foundation of a rational ethic and the natural sciences as well. It’s also short and concise.
If something is in the nature of man, it is necessarily universal.
Something that is in human nature cannot be the cause of the non-existence of the human race. Therefore something that, if applied universally, would lead to the non-existence of the human race is unnatural.
The something we are talking about are not actions, but tendencies? I’m sorta confused here.
We determine what is natural or unnatural empirically?
You said you understood Rothbard’s argument, and that you have read far more of him than I have, so how about let’s hear you explain what I’m trying to get across. Fair? I’m only trying to restate what he has already written.