The content of my theory is life, liberty, and private property, so, just to be clear on this, this IS what you dispute the validity of. You dispute the validity of my life, my liberty, and my private property because those ARE the content of MY theory. As I’ve repeated to you for over a year now. Learn praxeologic.
[I suggest you watch the youtube again if you have already.]
A theory cannot consist of nothing but nouns. I do not challenge your nouns. I dispute the invalid propositions into which you’ve inserted those nouns.
I am valuing my life, liberty, and private property. That is MY theory. There. I put a verb in it. Stop attacking my life, liberty, and private property. Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don’t like MY theory. I don’t know if this post was intended for me or not. I know it has my name in it. I don’t know though. I mean as long as Liberte can say it, I wonder if it applies elsewhere, what do you think?
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.
Distinctions between the general and particular, the ontological and the normative, seem to be hard to get across around here.
Do you have an argument or do you just blow hot air, If you have an argument state it, otherwise stop wasting time and space.
My theory is my norm. I live my theory. I don’t armchair philosophy. I act.
Prove it or stfu.
Excellent. Yes. I want to see proofs around here. I need to see some praxeologic actually applied in this forum.
Am I not to dispute any theory whatsover, or is only your natural law theory sacrosanct?
Disprove MY theory. Disprove MY life, liberty, and private property. Demonstrate praxeologic.
You know what really helped me clarify some things, having a blog, do you have one wilderness? Even if you don’t let anyone else read it its good for exploring what you believe and its consequences.
I do. It’s not anything special though. PM me and I could talk more about it.
I am valuing my life, liberty, and private property. That is MY theory. There. I put a verb in it. Stop attacking my life, liberty, and private property. Stop attacking MY natural law. This is MINE. You don’t like MY theory.
So, your claim that your valuation of your life, liberty, and private property are your natural law theory implies that there can be an opposing natural law theory. Can you not “attack” that theory based on its subjective nature? Even if it opposes your natural law theory?
Prove it or stfu.
Lilburne has sufficiently ‘proven’ it, as did Mises, as did Max Stirner. It’s not our fault if you can’t/won’t comprehend value subjectivism and ontological individualism.
In fact, I am done even talking to your kind. You don’t even say anything interesting.
In my belief, there are as many natural law theories as there ever have been, are, and will be people on this earth. It is only natural that people freely think. It’s praxeologic. Some natural law theories oppose each other. As Mises said theory is thought. Some theories are more complicated than others, some don’t ignore common sense. Mine can get complicated but I definitely don’t ignore common sense. I don’t know if this directly answered all of your questions. Let me know if there is something I didn’t communicate effectively.
Liberte,
You have yet to show that you know and comprehend value judgements. Because you keep arguing with them.
edit: Yes, “your kind”. The kind that hold value judgments of life, liberty, and private property. You’ve said it before that you will stop talking to ‘our kind’ before. Practice what you preach sist’er
So Josh, If i were to give you an argument face to face about why I feel your life is basically worth nothing, how would that make you feel. Since you are alive and breathing we know you put life above death on your value scale, so clearly I’m saying you are either wrong or stupid. Its similar to the anger you might feel if someone denounces that truth can be known. Thats my take on it, but I think what wilderness is saying is that you can’t argue against an opinion.
Maybe it would be healthier for discussion if we placed natural rights on pause and explored some other substitute theories (at least this would switch the offensive)
exactly, twisted.
The so-called preachers of praxeology around here need a fire lit under their metaphorical arse because they preach praxeologic but don’t practice praxeologic. It is an opinion. And they are arguing against it. It MY scientific opinion that I possess a life, liberty, and private property.
It would probably help, It feels like people are arguing about epistomology, but in really complicated terms.