Jeremiah,
That’s a good point, but if you notice I haven’t said natural rights in all of my posts and in the posts I don’t say natural rights or law I still get attacked for saying I value my life, liberty, and private property.
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.
Well, I wouldn’t exactly expect you to value my life so it wouldn’t really be surprising to me.
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.
I don’t exactly see how this would be the claim you would be making by saying that my life is basically worth nothing. All that statement claims is that you don’t value my life and that is not mutually exclusive with me valuing my life.
Its similar to the anger you might feel if someone denounces that truth can be known.
The only reason to be angry about this claim is that it claims validity. It’s self-contradictory. I don’t see how that statement correlates.
I’m not saying you would be surprised that I could be sociopathic, I wanna know how it makes you feel to be confronted with someone who doesn’t value your life taking the time to argue with you about why your life is worthless. That truth can be know and that our life is valuable is an innate truth in us, so arguments against it is an attempt to subvert what a human being has come to be, and should if you haven’t been sufficiently abused by family members and other human beings, make you mad.
I posted on my blog about Natural Law and Natural Rights.
“Let’s clarify what real ‘natural law’ and ‘natural rights’ are: Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is as good as any other,” No.
The only one I would even read is this “The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error.” because its succinct. It is however false, because of this aprior true statement “A man must choose how to act.” Since it is apriori true I’m sure you would agree that its “natural.” If you don’t think succinctness is indicative of meaning go argue with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity.
That’s right twisted. Teach some of these people praxeologic.
‘I posted on my blog about Natural Law and Natural Rights.’
'Let’s clarify what real ‘natural law’ and ‘natural rights’ are:
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is as good as any other, if we consider ‘preserving his life’ to be a more subjective value, i.e. satisfaction in general.’
Wow. A more misleading statement I never knew. You appeal to Hobbes as to the definition of what natural rights are? Someone who doesn’t know Hobbes wouldn’t pick up on this blatant trash. Hobbes thought that rights included the ability to do anything. I have the right to kill you and you have the right to defend yourself. That is who you appeal to in order to define natural rights theorists? By your posts, I guess you aren’t unintelligent so I think you are committing a more devious act then just simple ignorance. If we are all at war with one another then what pray tell commands us to drop our swords? Or to pool our swords into one sovereign? How do you propose civilization develops? How do you propose law develops? Do you think it conceivable before morality like Rousseau? If preference is merely a matter of subjectivity then again I ask how would one opposes the state? What is your argument? Is it a mere matter of preference? Well what does your preference matter if it is subjective? What claim do you have over any sense of universal justice if it is all subjective? None, I say. In the end the argument resorts to nothing more then the slogan ‘Well that’s what you think’ An implicit environment for force and coercion to validate the claims of others. And that is the major flaw in this utilitarian sort of system. It is the most unstable foundation for any sort of justice.
Hobbes thought that rights included the ability to do anything. I have the right to kill you and you have the right to defend yourself. That is who you appeal to in order to define natural rights theorists?
I am saying that is the only kind of ‘natural rights’ and ‘natural law’ that make any sense.
If we are all at war with one another then what pray tell commands us to drop our swords?
For many people, the pen is more powerful than the sword. But it is all power, and nothing but power.
How do you propose civilization develops?
Some semblence of propertarian jurisprudential practices arise among various parties, allowing economic calculation and incetive alignment. The material effect of this allows them to rapidly overwhelm barbarized people.
How do you propose law develops?
People find it in their own interest to arbitrate and develop norms that suit these interests. They enforce these through their power.
If preference is merely a matter of subjectivity then again I ask how would one opposes the state? What is your argument?
I don’t ‘oppose the state’, at least in any normative sense. I am not ‘against’ the state, except wherein the state is ‘against’ me. I find most political theories and pro-state arguments to be absurd, but there is nothing ‘wrong’ with the state in some absolute sense.
Well what does your preference matter if it is subjective?
It matters to me. I’m not concerned about other people’s preferences.
And that is the major flaw in this utilitarian sort of system.
I’m not a ‘utilitarian’. Social philosophy is a parlor game, and I don’t make any normative claims about what social order ‘ought’ to be at all. What’s more, you seem to be confusing utilitarianism and consequentialism.
It is the most unstable foundation for any sort of justice.
No, morality would be the most unstable foundation for justice. Actual justice (that is to say, jurisprudence) is founded upon the self-perceived interests of the parties involved in it. It is not (and never could be) anything else.
Like I said, talking to you people is pointless. It’s like you’ve never read ANY philosophy outside of the raving crankery on Mises.org or Rand novels.
Like I said, talking to you people is pointless. It’s like you’ve never read ANY philosophy outside of the raving crankery on Mises.org or Rand novels.
Well this hits the nail on the head for me. What readings would you recommend?
“I don’t ‘oppose the state’, at least in any normative sense. I am not ‘against’ the state, except wherein the state is ‘against’ me. I find most political theories and pro-state arguments to be absurd, but there is nothing ‘wrong’ with the state in some absolute sense.”
Sure there is something absolutely wrong with the state. How do you know when the state is against you?
Sure there is something absolutely wrong with the state. How do you know when the state is against you?
The same way I know when a bee is against me. When I dislike its behavior. What is ‘right’ is what is ‘right for me’, and it is I who decide this, and I am not constrained by any mystical doctrine of ‘highest good’ or ‘intrinsic value’. What is pleases me is ‘correct’, what does not please me is ‘incorrect’; nothing else has any ‘value’ at all.
Ok, and how does robbery at gun point sit with you? Good or bad.
Ok, and how does robbery at gun point sit with you? Good or bad.
It depends on my alternatives. I prefer being robbed to being shot. But there is nothing inconsistent to having reverse preferences. Nor is there anything inconsistent to preferring the risk of death by engaging in robbery to the costs of engaging in contractual exchange.
^I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding you. It seems like the majority of time is spent misunderstanding/repeating one’s position. I don’t even know why I’m still following this train wreck. ><
Right I understand that there are reasons for you to choose one vs the other. I just want to know which one you choose, if you feel someone robbing you is good or bad.
You’ve heard a compelling argument? What is it, maybe you can help us all out.
This
Heck. Lilburne’s even quoting me for truth now. The world is upside down now. <->|<->
Ahh if I said I thought anyone’s arguments were compelling I’d be dragged into the fray. I’m simply saying that I can understand what people post, regardless of whether I agree with them.
I won’t show my colours untill I feel like I could learn something from doing so.
I quoted you to demonstrate that this…
…is incorrect, because of this…