The use of the word "legitimate."

Miscellaneous General
21

If you want to know about customary law, read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay. Also, I recommend reading about German tribal law and Scandinavian Thing Law.

‘Legal positivism’ in the sense of state generated law has some epistemic problems that customary law does not, but in a general sense all law is ‘positive’, that is it is generated by parties involved people to further their interests. There is no law ex oblivione.

I just want a simple definition of the term “customary law”. It is rather suspicious that the people who insist on its importance are unwilling to provide such.

Also, law ex oblivione doesn’t make sense to me. The translation I am getting is “from oblivion”. :confused:

I’ve been suggesting that people read Reinach, but only one person seems to have an opinion on it and has done such.

link link link

I also keep insisting it is necessary to separate legal theory, the result of purely mental exercises, from jurisprudence, where law is practiced. Follow?

22

@MaikU

Authority: H. L. A. Hart and the Problem with Legal Positivism by Candace Groudine

23

I absolutely agree with this too. They’re separate concepts.

24

Customary law is exactly what it sounds like, the law of custom, i.e. the method of resolving disputes developed by parties actually involved and based on traditional and procedural norms.

Justice is a profession, not a philosophical category.

25

I think sometimes when libertarians talk about justice they’re talking about moral justice not legal justice. But they don’t always clarify the distinction and so it gets confusing.

26

I think sometimes when libertarians talk about justice they’re talking about moral justice not legal justice. But they don’t always clarify the distinction and so it gets confusing.

Generally speaking, when libertarians talk on any subject other than economics or history, it is out of their ass.

27

LOL

28

E.R. Olovetto, thank you very much. Already downloading :slight_smile:

29

LOL

Seriously, it’s sad. Most of these people if you ask them their opinions on philosophy only have Hans Hoppe, Murray Rothbard and/or Ayn Rand to fall back on. People I wouldn’t even consider philosophers in any serious sense. And Rand didn’t even understand economics (just like most of the people on here). Practically everything they know about philosophy, jurisprudence and political theory is focused through this extremely narrow lense of extremely biased and not entirely brilliant minds and butchered to fit into their hilariously unidimensional view of reality.

What’s worse is how pretentious they are. They think they’re brilliant legal theorists, masters of logical distinction. Mises himself would laugh at these clowns.

30

If you’re interested in people with a more serious education and or/less serious case of Radical Genius Disease, try http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/forum.htm

31

I’ll have to check that out.

32

Liberte, I believe it is crucially important for Misesian wertfreiheit to be resuscitated in modern Austrianism, but it won’t happen through mockery.

Your ideas are a breath of fresh air around here Liberte, but your insulting manner is entirely unacceptable.

And please don’t generalize so sweepingly; we may not be as vocal, but there are quite a few wertfreiheit Misesians on the LvMI forum.

33

It’s quite addicting, actually. Once you have internalized the belief that any violation of your Lockean property privileges constitutes an evil, you can unleash your righteous indignation on almost anything - license plates, sidewalks and fire hydrants included.

Even today, I find myself slightly cringing whenever an alien culture in a sci-fi movie dares to defect from what I considered to be “the truth”™, courtesy of Murray Newton Rothbard. Force of habit I guess.

I don’t share your overly negative view of the Mises.org users, though. Many do possess an above-average understanding of economics and political theory. Most contributions tend to be imbued in ideology, all right, but that’s just what political animals do.

34

Liberte, I believe it is crucially important for Misesian wertfreiheit to be resuscitated in modern Austrianism, but it won’t happen through mockery.

You’re probably right, but unfortunately I find it difficult to care what most of these people think about anything. It seems to me that people so ridiculous to start with aren’t worth the trouble of trying to guide into some semblance of reasonability. They’d probably screw that up, too. The trouble is that these are Forum-Folk, and not serious scholars, so even if they adopt ‘correct’ positions, it is likely to be for fallacious reasons.

Your ideas are a breath of fresh air around here Liberte, but your insulting manner is entirely unacceptable.

Once again, the only people who’s opinions I care about would probably realise I’m not talking about them. And the rest of them - bleh, who cares?

And please don’t generalize so sweepingly; we may not be as vocal, but there are quite a few wertfreiheit Misesians on the LvMI forum.

Yes, there are exceptions. But the cranks are the rule around here.

It’s quite addicting, actually. Once you have internalized the belief that any violation of your Lockean property privileges constitutes an evil, you can unleash your righteous indignation on almost anything - license plates, sidewalks and fire hydrants included.

It’s funny, I mean, are they like that in real life? Probably not. I’m certainly not like this in real life. I’m skiddish as a bunny rabbit.

I don’t share your overly negative view of the Mises.org users, though. Many do possess an above-average understanding of economics and political theory.

Considering that the average is ‘nothing’ or ‘worse than nothing’ that’s not saying much. I’d say, for the most part, the majority of them are just parroting things that happen to be correct. Try debating the ontological and knowledge alternatives to calculation and see how far you get with them.

Most contributions tend to be imbued in ideology, all right, but that’s just what political animals do.

Which is why I hate political animals.

35

Is Chamberlainian a word? If it is, it describes the post above perfectly.

36

“Is Chamberlainian a word? If it is, it describes the post above perfectly.”

Is Liberte somehow analogous to Nazi Germany in this curious conception?

37

Is Liberte somehow analogous to Nazi Germany in this curious conception?

In their minds, anyone who isn’t a Rothbardian nachurul ritesist is a Nazi.

38

This thread is nothing more than a circle jerk.

How sad. What’s even sadder is you think you have something to congratulate yourselves over.

39

I suppose if you view it from the outset as being either a redundant prosecution or redundant (ha!) validation of one’s views, then yes, it just might be.

Otherwise it seems to be a thread that has just gotten off track as usual. It’s a good thing I’m not the only mod here who could split it appropriately to allow relevant thread discourse to occur in a more organized fashion.

40

which is why it seems that your use of legitimate seems to be absolutly incorrect.

a legitmate dollar bill…a genuine dollar bill.

is his hatred legitimate…the hatred is gunuine.