|
Suppose that you have a glass of water. It's yours. Next to you is me. I am dehydrated and will die without water. Suppose that you decide to not give me your glass of water, as is your right. Is the wrong I then inflict on you by taking it and thereby save my life lesser or greater than the harm that I'd suffer from not having the water? EDIT: the dilemma for absolutism about property tights that follows is an exercise for the reader. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 23, 2014 |
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
It's worth noting that academic libertarians like Robert Nozick employ side constraints in their theories to prevent someone from monopolizing everything and watching the rest of us suffer; the Lockean Proviso (you aren't allowed to take everything; you have to leave enough, and as good, for others to use) explicitly says that you have other non-property-oriented duties towards others. Nozick also thinks that any good derived from an injustice, no matter how far-removed, is owned unjustly. He literally says this outright; his principle of justice in transfer has some of the same features as logical entailment.absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful 2. Chicken is good. 3. The Double Down contains only bacon and chicken. 4. Therefore the Double Down is good. It's an instance of the fallacy of composition (suppose that there are two chemicals that are both good when consumed separately, but when consumed together cause death...sorta like the Double Down...), but that doesn't mean that your proof is any better. I don't accept your a priori principles, partially because I'm not sure there is a category of knowledge called the a priori, but also because they aren't justified. Your 'argument' (it's a bad one) for voluntarism doesn't follow. I can say "sometimes violence is necessary for the resolution of conflict"; the 'argument' you presented in that pastebin (for gently caress's sake just post it in the thread) assumes that the answer to all conflict is either violence, or voluntarism is true. That's obviously a false dilemma. Now if you eliminated all other possibilities, it would at least have some strength, but you actually can't eliminate all the other possibilities (which is why I'm not going to bother talking about sober points of logical theory here). So no you haven't proven it. I haven't read the rest but I'm still not sure what property rights are, or why I'm supposed to think I own myself (because that's loving weird; I've read some of the academic libertarian literature and I still have no idea what self-ownership is...so I can own people so long as that people is me? It barely makes any sense to me). EDIT: Also the theory of logical argumentation you/Hoppe is using is a bad one, hope that helps. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it. Doesn't surprise me though.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
 What the gently caressA real person cannot believe this kind of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What do you even call this ideology? Fascist-Libertarianism?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
You're doing the Lord's work SedanChair. EDIT: Please answer my question about the water, abselom.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Oh man, for some reason all the mentions of Hoppe made me think people were just mistyping Hobbes for some reason I couldn't understand. The truth has led to a much more entertaining place.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head. Hoppe appears to be guy trying to be a philosopher and not understanding exactly what it is we do, arguing badly, and basically being a dumbass, but why he's wrong about logic (from the tiny bit I know of his work, he's so wrong that he should be ashamed) is actually rather complicated, so there's no simple thing to read to refute him. I'm also pretty sure most academic libertarians don't engage with Austrians. EDIT, since I'm bored: The basic error is that there's a difference between an argument (in the strict logical sense, being a set of premises and a conclusion) and an argument had between people. If I believe P and present not-P as a premise in an argument for Q, I can be accused of hypocrisy but that doesn't undermine my argument for Q. Essentially, Hoppe thinks that the exchange of reasons must obey Gricean maxims. I don't say things I don't believe, say things relevant, etc. And that is actually true. But Hoppe makes an error of thinking of inferring things from my acceptance of those Gricean maxims. He thinks that the denial of the principle of non-aggression pragmatically contradicts the rules of argument. First, it doesn't, since it doesn't entail anything that conflicts with the Gricean maxims. Second, if it did, it wouldn't say anything about the argument I give since it could still be valid; a pragmatic contradiction is one that conflicts with the Gricean maxims, but it doesn't say anything about the content of what I say. Hoppe doesn't think of it in terms of Grice, but apparently in terms of more robust Habermasian-style norms. But Habermas wouldn't think that a fundamental presupposition is the principle of non-aggression; it's just not supposed by our conversational practice. There's nothing in Habermas to indicate that validity in the Habermasian sense is undermined by a rejection of the principle of non-aggression. There's more going on, apparently, in Hoppe, but I can't be bothered to read his work. But really, it's a complex error that takes more time to refute than it takes to defend. A proper understanding of Gricean maxims would clear it up but that's just too much for libertarians, apparently. Also what about the water abselom. You never answered my water hypothetical. I want to know if you think it's okay that I steal your water or not. Lives hang in the balance. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 05:34 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Apparently homogeneity results in diversity! SCIENCE 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Also apparently he didn't learn anything from his intellectual training.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
If you think property rights are absolutely sacrosanct, that there can be no justifiable violations, and that it's the greatest wrong anyone can commit (they think that you own yourself, so murder, rape, etc. are all wrong because they violate your property rights), then you're going to think that in any moral dilemma where the option is death via inaction vs a violation of property rights, the death is the more morally acceptable. The pharmacist isn't killing you, he's just not taking any action to help prevent death, as is his right. If wrongness derives from a violation of property rights then literally any action other than violation of property rights is okay. Which leads me to the absurdity of it all... One thing that never made any sense to me is that if I own myself, and infringement on my rights includes doing anything to my body I don't approve of, why are libertarians not violating my property rights when I walk down the street and they yell RAND PAUL 2016! or whatever? They're without my approval vibrating my eardrums. What a violation of my property rights! How dare they!
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:05
|
|