Wilderness, by his logic, must believe they exist then. You should charge him for rides.
Unicorns don’t exist. Just fyi.
Lilburne,
I hate to break this to you, but unicorns don’t exist.
Right, regardless of anyone valuing them. By the same token, natural law doesn’t exist, regardless of you valuing it.
Never mind. I think I’m getting what you’re trying to say.
Oh, so my value judgments don’t exist according to you. But they do. Natural law does exist. I think it would be wise of you to stop philosophically attacking my life, liberty, and private property. I mean I can’t stop you. It is a suggestion none-the-less.
How can your own value judgments, in your head, exist outside of your mind?
Do you know how to tie fishing knots?
First of all, I don’t believe that objective ethics depends on government decree. Neither does it depend merely on any statements of fact, be they about human nature or otherwise.
I think our disagreement is over what we mean by ‘natural law’. If by ‘natural law’ you are referring to a private legal structure that “naturally” arises, then I agree, this obviously exists. However, this is not the ‘Natural Law’ of the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition. What they meant by ‘Natural Law’ was a normative code that automatically applied to human beings, universally, by the mere virtue of the fact of their humanity. (Adding additional facts, such as scarcity, isn’t a departure from this tradition)
Nope, actually. But if I knew how to build a Warp Core from the Enterprise (the how being comprised of materials that may or may not exist, most likley not), I’d have trouble making such a thing functionally exist in reality (since it operates in a fictional world with different physics).
It works perfectly in my head, though. I’m already setting a course to the nearest bed for the night.
Oh. Fishing is grand. When I go out and find a good spot on a lake I go to and think about where I’m going to throw the line. Sometimes I get the bait to fall right where I want it to go. Sometimes I don’t. It’s so fun. Have you ever fished?
edit: yeah. don’t answer that… I’m tired too. Time for bed. Good chattin’
Yeah, I misunderstood you. I edited my original comment twice. I haven’t reached a conclusion yet; I have to think it over.
If natural law is simply free market common law, then I agree with “natural law”. The problem is that I don’t think Rothbard (let alone Aristotle or Aquinas) would agree with that definition (and thus the point of this thread would be moot).
I didn’t say that your value judgments don’t exist. I said the object of your value judgment (natural law) doesn’t exist.
See, you don’t have any distinctly delineated boundaries around your concepts, so they all just merge together however you please. You don’t understand the difference between a value judgment and that-which-is-valued.
Well, the problem is you don’t know that Solid. As you said. I’d find out before claiming something like that without really knowing.
I’ll give you a hint. He does. And so does Hoppe. They wrote it in one of their books at least. I read it.
I value natural law. My value of judgment does exist. I don’t know why you argue with value judgments Lilburne. I don’t know why you say my life, liberty, and private property do not exist.
Have you ever gone fishing?
I’m not arguing with your value judgment. I’m arguing with your proposition that your value judgment has any bearing on the existence of natural law.
I’ll keep correcting you so long as you keep making the same mistake. “Natural rights to LLP” and “LLP” themselves are two different things.
Your concepts are dreadfully in need of delineation.
I value my life, liberty, and private property. I don’t know why you philosophically attack these values of mine. I value natural law and you continue to attack what I value. You could use a little praxeologic. So you take the line and pull it tight and sometimes I use my teeth to cut the line…
Poor Wilderness. I think we may have driven him crazy.
Wilderness, I have never read Hoppe, but I have read Rothbard. I don’t mean you any offense and I share you values of life, liberty, and property. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn’t harm you or damage your property even if we met on a desert island and I would greatly increase my well-being by doing so.
Life is pretty awesome, and a degree of liberty is needed for me to live a fulfilling life, and secure property is a requisite of modern civilization and wealth creation. Having said that, I don’t know these things because I have observed the tablet of Natural Law that resides in some kind of Platonic heaven or because I am a master at applying Pure Reason. I know these things because of economic theory, psychology, and history.
Again, if natural law is simply the common law that results from an evolutionary process of dispute resolution and that the “respect for property emerges as a superior equilibrium solution of an indefinitely repeated non-cooperative coordination game”, then I am an advocate of natural law. If not, I am not. Rothbard didn’t think of natural law this way, so if we agree on this point you disagree with Rothbard (I don’t know enough about Hoppe to know if this would be true of him). It isn’t the end of the world to disagree with Rothbard, but I understand the level of pain that can result from challenging ideas that are central to your web of belief. Believe me, I do.