So? What’s everybody else think about Lilburne philosophically attacking what I value in life, meaning, life, liberty, and private property? Anybody else have some thoughts on Lilburne philosophically attacking what I praxeologically value calling natural law and natural rights which are life, liberty, and private property? I value my life, liberty, and private property and Lilburne keeps on philosophically attacking these very values I hold.
So, anybody have any thoughts on him doing this to what I value?
Denying, as Mises does, the validity of natural law doctrine (which concerns life, liberty, and property) is not the same thing as attacking your life, liberty, and property, or your valuation of those things.
I read a bit of the thread where you two go at it and while I agree with you on the concept of natural rights and natural law, I have to say that “debating about a topic” does not equate attacking it. He may not agree with something you cherish a great deal in life and he may try to discredit it, but that’s part of life. It’s just something you have to get used to.
For example, I’m a Christian, but I’ve long since stopped getting angry when someone attacks my religion. It’s just their belief and I happen to disagree with them.
I just wanted to say: wilderness, we love you man, it’ll be okay. We all value freedom here, Lilburne just has different beliefs about the ontology of rights. Calm yourself.
wilderness, as well as most natural rights theorists, do not merely express personal preferences. They also make what I consider invalid/incoherent propositions. Moreover, I don’t think accepting a “noble lie” will ultimately help liberalism at all. It will only discredit us in the eyes of discerning scholars and distract us from mastering and disseminating the valid sciences of human action, upon which the future of freedom and prosperity truly relies.
No, but according to you and other subjectivists that is exactly what the natural rights adherents do, right? And since you reject the view that objectivity can be applied to ethics then how exactly can you prove any theory concerning it superior over any other?
No. A natural rights proponent may very well simply be using his philosophical doctrine as a vehicle for the promotion of his personal preferences. But the doctrine itself is not a mere expression of those preferences. A proposition merely expressing personal preference would be something like, “Taxation disgusts me.” The propositions of natural rights theorists are obviously more ambitious than that. As such they shouldn’t just get a free pass, even among libertarians, regarding their validity.
I am glad that you realise this. I often get subjectivists accussing me that in being a natural rights proponent I am merely attempting to lend special validity to my value judgements. But that it is not true. It is not a case of ‘preferences imperialism’. In reality natural law is more than a well to find reinforcement in a source of frustration. For example when it says it is wrong to punch people in the nose for saying something (evil or annoying or whatever). So the deal isn’t that I pretend it is there because I like what it says. The deal is that it is there wether I like it or not. And pretty often I don’t like it that it is there, but I can’t be lying to myself.
It is a personal preference. As I said it is a value judgement of mine. I have said this for over a year now. So yes, what is the point of arguing against my natural law doctrine that is my personal preference?
[Naevius, didn’t like the word “attacking”. In a philosophical debate between two sides one side is formally called ‘attack’ and the other side is called ‘maintain’ or ‘defend’. I am saying this in reference to Aristotle’s rendition in his book “APrior” translated by Robin Smith. Attack is the Greek word Aristotle used during argumentation called epicheirein. Maintain or defend is the Greek word hupechein. I’m simply using this formal debate language, nothing more, nothing less. AH. I have the book but found the section on line here.]
Really? I didn’t know that. My bad, I suppose. (I’m assuming that you’re referring to me when you mention a poster who didn’t like the word attack–if I’m wrong, let me know.)
Yes really. I have said this countless times for over a year now. Some people simply do not desire to understand praxeologic and know that it is of all human beings. Every single person makes value judgments. That’s simply the way it is. And I have been saying this is my preference, what I value, what I think, believe, and my theory, etc… for over a year now. And anybody that knows praxeology would have realized that each single individual only voices and acts their judgements of value in the first place. It is an axiom. It would be a given to acknowledge this fact if some people knew what praxeologic even meant, stopped being armchair philosophers, and actually applied what they know. How else did Mises know what he knew? He actually applied his knowledge instead of remaining detached from reality. I have been doing the same in this forum for over a year now. I have linked numerous papers that talk about methodological individualism, and human action based on the individual’s own choices and actions thereof, etc… For this to be anything new to some people it’s only because they fail to know praxeologic and to know me and what I’ve been saying here for a very long time. So I thought I would take these last few days and actually address this because some people in this forum have been philosophically attacking me and not applying praxeologic in their own posts at all.
Just in case you’re attempting to yoke all those different terms into one, let me be clear. The content of your theory and your preference for/valuation of your theory are two different things. I am disputing the validity of the content of your theory, not challenging your preference for/valuation of it.