Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:That being said, the Robin Hood philosophy of "take from the rich and give to the poor" which Obama is clearly so fond of just doesn't work. Has nothing to do with morality. Yes the MYTH... Not the REALITY.... The reality is, Ragnar, in AS, was the equivalent of Robin Hood in earnest, he wanted the false myth of Robin Hood to die.... MYTH : Robin Hood "Stole from the Rich and gave to the Poor" REALITY : Robin Hood "Confiscated the Taxes taken by the Government and returned them to the Victims of Taxation"
Jacob Bloom:That being said, the Robin Hood philosophy of "take from the rich and give to the poor" which Obama is clearly so fond of just doesn't work. Has nothing to do with morality.
Yes the MYTH... Not the REALITY....
The reality is, Ragnar, in AS, was the equivalent of Robin Hood in earnest, he wanted the false myth of Robin Hood to die....
MYTH : Robin Hood "Stole from the Rich and gave to the Poor"
REALITY : Robin Hood "Confiscated the Taxes taken by the Government and returned them to the Victims of Taxation"
Do you realize that Robin Hood is a myth?
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Thanks for the article Jon, I will spend my day reading it. Roderick Long has become my new favorite author but not just because of this.
'the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it.' - Albert J Nock
laminustacitus:Do you realize that Robin Hood is a myth?
Do you realize I am talking about the moral of the story in earnest not the socialist justifying recreation of the story....
Yes I do realize there is no "Robin Hood" as described in the stories....
Maybe I should have tailored the reply to Jacob to note such, but I thought that maybe since he brought up the subject of RH he would already know this fact....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
laminustacitus:Blah, blah, blah, boo hoo hoo. Some of us are more worried about correct theories than submitting to the tide of history and "fulfilling anarcho-capitalism".
This, seriously.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hashem: Precisely. Thank you for supporting me. It's not "The natural law, then, is..." It is "The natural law, then, elucidates..." (reveals). Saying that natural law IS ethics is like saying that a tree is dirt because the tree grows out of the dirt, and because the tree needs dirt. Yes, the tree needs dirt to exist, but the dirt doesn't need the tree to exist. Likewise, ethics need natural laws to exist, but natural laws don't need ethics to exist.
Precisely. Thank you for supporting me. It's not "The natural law, then, is..." It is "The natural law, then, elucidates..." (reveals).
Saying that natural law IS ethics is like saying that a tree is dirt because the tree grows out of the dirt, and because the tree needs dirt. Yes, the tree needs dirt to exist, but the dirt doesn't need the tree to exist. Likewise, ethics need natural laws to exist, but natural laws don't need ethics to exist.
Ok, you're getting confused.
I haven't said anything of natural law being ethics or one forming from another, simply that praxeology contrasts natural law and ole' Rothbard agrees.
If I were the only "anarchist," I would be very happy to wear the title. What embarrasses me about it is the few other "anarchists" - many of them are crazy - and I don't feel like being identified with them.
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:Do you realize that Robin Hood is a myth? Do you realize I am talking about the moral of the story in earnest not the socialist justifying recreation of the story.... Yes I do realize there is no "Robin Hood" as described in the stories....
Being a myth, Robin Hood, esspecially since it is about a feudal society, can be interpreted anyway that the audience desires, its a fact of art, esspecially literature. Anybody can spin it anyway that they so desire, yes even the socialists, and capitalists. The author of Robin Hood never designed the myth for our modern ideologies so arguing whose analysis is correct is a waste of breath.
laminustacitus: How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy.
How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy.
Nothing fulfills itself if it is not enacted upon.
laminustacitus:Unlike natural law philosophers, utiitarians do not assert that their philosophy is as true, and binding as the laws of nature, they only humbly declare that their philosophy is the best means to attain desired ends.
And which natural rights theorist says that everyone at everytime follows natural law with or against their will?
laminustacitus:They are against it because while the utilitarians just declare property to be the best mode towards prospering, what is wrong with that, or do I need to declare it "natural" in order to stroke my pride?
Semantics. You call it 'social pleasure', natural law theorists call it a state of nature.
laminustacitus:While utilitarianism is humble, and stays within the bounds of our comprehension, natural law decides to declare man the final arbiter on what is, and what is not natural. There is a far gulf between them.
What wonderful self-victimization. Man is the final arbiter. We are the apex of evolution. What beyond humanity can ascertain rights and metaphysical truths?
It is not a question of 'correct theory.' You have no morality beyond the arbitrary whims of strangers. That is perhaps the apex of idiocy. The natural rights theorist eagerly await the secession of your ill logic and the realization of our theory. Frett not, you have rights even though you cannot realize them.
laminustacitus:Being a myth, Robin Hood, esspecially since it is about a feudal society, can be interpreted anyway that the audience desires, its a fact of art, esspecially literature. Anybody can spin it anyway that they so desire, yes even the socialists, and capitalists. The author of Robin Hood never designed the myth for our modern ideologies so arguing whose analysis is correct is a waste of breath.
Go complain to the person who brought it up...
While utilitarianism is humble, and stays within the bounds of our comprehension, natural law decides to declare man the final arbiter on what is, and what is not natural. There is a far gulf between them.
LOL Where do you get this garbage? Utilitarianism can be one of the most arrogant, presumptuous, scientistic of all ethical systems. "Humble"? Rubbish. A felicific calculus is anything but "humble". I am often astounded by how many people think it isn't even an ethical theory, just "value-free, scientific" analysis. Actually, it is premised on the fact that "utility" matters morally to begin with.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Angurse:simply that praxeology contrasts natural law
Praxeology IS natural law. It rests on absolute laws of nature. I.E. "humans act" is a law of nature, and the first law of praxeology.
Challenge the premise.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus: How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy. Nothing fulfills itself if it is not enacted upon.
How about we get the full quote to show how you've just contradicted yourself in your argument against utilitarianism:
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain:How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ] How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy. Nothing fulfills itself if it is not enacted upon.
laminustacitus: Anarchist Cain:How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ] How can you fulfill the goals of any philosophy other than through concensus; natural law philosophy does not fulfill its own goals unless inviduals subscribe to natural law philosophy.
Anarchist Cain:How else will you fulfill the goals of utilitarianism without some mass consensus? [ Voting ]
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Unlike natural law philosophers, utiitarians do not assert that their philosophy is as true, and binding as the laws of nature, they only humbly declare that their philosophy is the best means to attain desired ends. And which natural rights theorist says that everyone at everytime follows natural law with or against their will?
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:They are against it because while the utilitarians just declare property to be the best mode towards prospering, what is wrong with that, or do I need to declare it "natural" in order to stroke my pride? Semantics. You call it 'social pleasure', natural law theorists call it a state of nature.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:While utilitarianism is humble, and stays within the bounds of our comprehension, natural law decides to declare man the final arbiter on what is, and what is not natural. There is a far gulf between them. What wonderful self-victimization. Man is the final arbiter. We are the apex of evolution. What beyond humanity can ascertain rights and metaphysical truths?
Anarchist Cain:It is not a question of 'correct theory.' You have no morality beyond the arbitrary whims of strangers. That is perhaps the apex of idiocy.
Anarchist Cain:The natural rights theorist eagerly await the secession of your ill logic and the realization of our theory.
Jon Irenicus:LOL Where do you get this garbage? Utilitarianism can be one of the most arrogant, presumptuous, scientistic of all ethical systems. "Humble"? Rubbish. A felicific calculus is anything but "humble". I am often astounded by how many people think it isn't even an ethical theory, just "value-free, scientific" analysis. Actually, it is premised on the fact that "utility" matters morally to begin with.
So, let us place a ethical theory that merely says: this means is the optimal way to achieve your ends, and an ethical theory that declares: this is a unchaning law of nature, and see which one scores higher on the hubris-meter.
No, I think you misconceive of what natural law and utilitarianism both are. Natural law ethics merely takes utilitarian claims and sharpens them by making reference to the being in question's nature. Utiltarianism (if you want to refer to the ideology in general) often evokes interpersonal comparisons of utility, and relies on the notion of a felicific calculus to the extent that it is not merely a form of consequentialism (which natural law is), so hubristic it very much is. If you are in doubt, read Norms of Liberty and Liberty and Nature by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl, then return to discuss natural law and utilitarianism, having disabused yourself of the simplistic conception you have of both. I actually take as far more hubristic an ethical theory that merely takes its dictates as self-evident, versus one that actually attempts to justify them (i.e. natural law.)
hashem: Praxeology IS natural law. It rests on absolute laws of nature. I.E. "humans act" is a law of nature, and the first law of praxeology.
Only if you define "natural law" as something other than the natural law of Rothbard and Mises, as both Rothbard (In TEOL) and Mises (in HA) make it explicitly clear that it isn't.
Jon Irenicus: While utilitarianism is humble, and stays within the bounds of our comprehension, natural law decides to declare man the final arbiter on what is, and what is not natural. There is a far gulf between them. LOL Where do you get this garbage? Utilitarianism can be one of the most arrogant, presumptuous, scientistic of all ethical systems. "Humble"? Rubbish. A felicific calculus is anything but "humble". I am often astounded by how many people think it isn't even an ethical theory, just "value-free, scientific" analysis. Actually, it is premised on the fact that "utility" matters morally to begin with.
Well, that really isn't where I come from. I don't attribute any morality to utility. I say that universal morality doesn't exist and that the only thing we attribute value to is aesthetics in the false screen of ethics. Take that for what you want.
existence is elsewhere
Angurse:Only if you define "natural law" as something other than the natural law of Rothbard and Mises, as both Rothbard (In TEOL) and Mises (in HA) make it explicitly clear that it isn't.
Aaaaaaaaaand.........you're wrong again. From The Ethics of Liberty:
"[Grotius's] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason..."
What's so complicated about the fact that NATURAL LAW means the LAWS of NATURE? I mean... come on now. The definition is held in the phrase itself. A four-year-old could grasp this simple concept. Natural law = laws of nature.
Jon Irenicus:No, I think you misconceive of what natural law and utilitarianism both are. Natural law ethics merely takes utilitarian claims and sharpens them by making reference to the being in question's nature. Utiltarianism (if you want to refer to the ideology in general) often evokes interpersonal comparisons of utility, and relies on the notion of a felicific calculus to the extent that it is not merely a form of consequentialism (which natural law is), so hubristic it very much is. If you are in doubt, read Norms of Liberty and Liberty and Nature by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl, then return to discuss natural law and utilitarianism, having disabused yourself of the simplistic conception you have of both. )
Ever read Human Action, or Theory, and History? No? Oh well then.
In both Mises states quite clearly the philosophy of utilitarianism, and its advantages over natural law.
And yet even utilitarianism is an ethical system. It rests on the value judgment "I value the fulfillment of the desires of the majority".
hashem: And yet even utilitarianism is an ethical system. It rests on the value judgment "I value the fulfillment of the desires of the majority".
It, nevertheless, does not create an objective judgment of value, rather it remains in the realm of the subjective.
laminustacitus:In both Mises states quite clearly the philosophy of utilitarianism, and its advantages over natural law.
That's not true. Mises was perhaps the strongest advocate of natural law ever. Ever heard of praxeology?
laminustacitus: hashem: And yet even utilitarianism is an ethical system. It rests on the value judgment "I value the fulfillment of the desires of the majority". It, nevertheless, does not create an objective judgment of value, rather it remains in the realm of the subjective.
Precisely.
hashem: laminustacitus:In both Mises states quite clearly the philosophy of utilitarianism, and its advantages over natural law. That's not true. Mises was perhaps the strongest advocate of natural law ever. Ever heard of praxeology?
Brainpolice already exploded your current use of "natural law", in fact he did speak of traditional natural law philosophyin Theory, and History, including both its advantages, and disadvantages, though he never once sided with natural law, though he did write it did have its beneficial qualities. So, do you mind actually knowing about what you are talking about before you recruit others into your ranks?
laminustacitus:Brainpolice already exploded your current use of "natural law", in fact he did speak of traditional natural law philosophyin Theory, and History, including both its advantages, and disadvantages, though he never once sided with natural law, though he did write it did have its beneficial qualities. So, do you mind actually knowing about what you are talking about before you recruit others into your ranks?
Brainpolice was wrong and easily refuted. Consider this easy concept: natural law = laws of nature. Simple, huh?
From The Ethics of Liberty:
So maybe it is you who should learn what he is talking about. Exploded? Please.
Further, the entirety of praxeology rests on a critical natural law: humans act. Neither you nor Brainpolice show the most basic signs of having a clue what you are talking about.
hashem:Brainpolice was wrong and easily refuted. Consider this easy concept: natural law = laws of nature. Simple, huh?
Sigh, reread Brainpolice, and realize you are speaking of "natural law" outside of its traditional context. Plus, referring to the laws of nature as natural law is sooo 18th century.
hashem: From The Ethics of Liberty: "[Grotius's] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason..." So maybe it is you who should learn what he is talking about. Exploded? Please.
Feel free to quote Rothbard to your heart's desire, natural law has a very specific connotation is philosophy, and you cannot redefine it according to your whims.
hashem:Further, the entirety of praxeology rests on a critical natural law: humans act. Neither you nor Brainpolice show the most basic signs of having a clue what you are talking about.
"Man acts" is a synthetic a priori judgement not a law of nature, in fact, you equivocate between the two by holding such a broad definition of "natural law". While the synthetic a priori is the underpinning of man's very experience of the world, the laws of nature are properties of the universe, not just our experience.
Too bad for not having a clue of what I'm talking out.
hashem: Aaaaaaaaaand.........you're wrong again. From The Ethics of Liberty: "[Grotius's] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason..." What's so complicated about the fact that NATURAL LAW means the LAWS of NATURE? I mean... come on now. The definition is held in the phrase itself. A four-year-old could grasp this simple concept. Natural law = laws of nature.
So, apparently, in the Ethics of Liberty when Rothbard explicitly states that praxeology contrasts natural law he actually means that it supports it.
The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man – what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen – for whatever reason – to place high on their scales of value.
So, either Rothbard is both correct and incorrect about natural law in his own book...on natural law or you are mistaken. Hmmm.
And Mises who was extremely bitter towards natural law and frequently disregarded it actually supported it?
I believe a professor (his name alludes me at the moment) once tried to make this claim and it was Rothbard again who defended Mises' utilitarain hostility towards natural law. I'll look for the JLS paper.
laminustacitus: hashem:Further, the entirety of praxeology rests on a critical natural law: humans act. Neither you nor Brainpolice show the most basic signs of having a clue what you are talking about. "Man acts" is a synthetic a priori judgement not a law of nature, in fact, you equivocate between the two by holding such a broad definition of "natural law". While the synthetic a priori is the underpinning of man's very experience of the world, the laws of nature are properties of the universe, not just our experience. Too bad for not having a clue of what I'm talking out.
The physical universe would exist with or without man's ability to sense it, and that seems to be true since it has been proven to have existed for billions of billions of years before the existence of man.Nah, that makes far too much sense.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
lam:Sigh, reread Brainpolice, and realize you are speaking of "natural law" outside of its traditional context. Plus, referring to the laws of nature as natural law is sooo 18th century.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: lam:Sigh, reread Brainpolice, and realize you are speaking of "natural law" outside of its traditional context. Plus, referring to the laws of nature as natural law is sooo 18th century. It is correct nevertheless.
It is a terrible metaphor since our understanding of the laws of nature are at best hypothetical, there is absolutely no reason, or sense in declaring either the law of universal gravitation, or general relativity "natural laws" since it is kind of embarassing when it is found nature does not obey the law man declared she did.
Angurse: So, apparently, in the Ethics of Liberty when Rothbard explicitly states that praxeology contrasts natural law he actually means that it supports it. The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man – what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen – for whatever reason – to place high on their scales of value.
Your quote proves what I'm saying.
1. That natural law ELUCIDATES ethics. ETHICS ARE MADE VISIBLE THROUGH the laws of nature. "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man"
2. His reference to praxeology is contrasting VALUE. He in no way maintains that natural law is opposed to praxeology or vice versa. In praxeology, value is subjective, because we are speaking of value judgments of individuals. In ethics derived from natural law, value is objective, because we are stating what NATURE ELUCIDATES.
Try reading the whole chapter genius.
That's not what I take from utilitarianism. I take it as one defines what the objective is and then finds the best rule to achieve that objective.
If we decide that the objective is to terminate all human life, then utilitarianism is about finding the best way to do that.
laminustacitus: Juan: lam:Sigh, reread Brainpolice, and realize you are speaking of "natural law" outside of its traditional context. Plus, referring to the laws of nature as natural law is sooo 18th century. It is correct nevertheless. It is a terrible metaphor since our understanding of the laws of nature are at best hypothetical, there is absolutely no reason, or sense in declaring either the law of universal gravitation, or general relativity "natural laws" since it is kind of embarassing when it is found nature does not obey the law man declared she did.
More specifically, man is constantly making revisions to describe nature, which is why we are not stuck with the nonsensical view that the Earth is the center of the universe, & why general relativity may very well end up being replaced, or revised, by other theories. At best, man's assumption of knowing natural law is an incremental process of furthering understanding what actually occurs. Compare the first conception of "atoms" being used philosphers to describe nature, versus now, & guess as to what our understanding will be in the future, & the prospect of humans totally knowing natural laws does not seem likley, especially if civilizations fall & information is "lost" (buried) in the process.
Jon Irenicus: *Sigh* Rollins and Wilson, again...
*Sigh* Rollins and Wilson, again...
Long has thoroughly eviscerated him.
Objection One: Natural Law Serves No Useful Purpose
Natural Law: ineffective protection?
One objection one sometimes comes across in libertarian circles is that Natural Law, and in particular natural rights (the rights we have under Natural Law), are useless. A Natural Law against murder or theft will not protect us from murderers and thieves; a natural right to life will not turn a mugger's knifeblade or repel an assassin's bullet; a natural right to property is not as useful as high walls and sturdy locks.
One version of this criticism is put forward by L. A. Rollins in his pamphlet The Myth of Natural Rights (Port Townsend: Loompanics, 1983). Rollins asks:
(Rollins, pp. 40-41.)
"Another natural rights mythologizer is Eric Mack who says, 'Lockean rights alone provide the moral philosophical barrier against the State's encroachment upon Society.' But a 'moral philosophical barrier' is merely a metaphorical barrier, and it will no more prevent the State's encroachment upon 'Society' than a moral philosophical shield will stop a physical arrow from piercing your body.
But if natural rights are merely fake or metaphorical rights, what then are real rights? Real rights are those rights actually conferred and enforced by the laws of a State or the customs of a social group."
(Rollins, p. 2.)
What are we to make of this criticism? Well, let's draw some distinctions.
Natural Law's function: guidance, not protection
In ordinary speech we often switch without noticing it between different senses of "rights." For example, we might say in one breath that citizens in China have no right to free speech — and then say in another breath that Chinese citizens' right to free speech is being violated. Logically, this seems to make no sense; you can't violate a right your victims don't even have. (No one would say, for example, that my right to rule North America is being violated, because nobody thinks I have such a right in the first place.) But our ordinary speech makes more sense once we realize that the term "rights" is being used in more than one sense, so that the kind of right that's being violated in China is a different sort form the kind of right the Chinese don't have.
First, we can distinguish between "rights" in the normative sense and "rights" in the descriptive sense. Normative facts are facts about what people ought to do; descriptive facts are facts about what people actually do.
In turn, we can distinguish two subvarieties of descriptive rights: legal rights and de facto rights.
This gives us a three-way distinction:
• Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.
• De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.
Going back to my China example, when someone switches between saying that the Chinese have no right to free speech and saying that their right to free speech is being violated, he probably means one of the following things:
b) The Chinese have a legal right to free speech, but no de facto right.
c) The Chinese have a normative right to free speech, but no de facto right.
(I don't know enough about Chinese law to know whether (a) or (b) is closer to the truth, though (c) would be true in either case.)
Now we can see where Rollins' critique has gone wrong. Rollins is thinking of natural rights as if they were a special kind of legal right — a right legislated by God or Nature rather than by the state. Given that assumption, what he says makes sense: legal rights are of little value unless they are also de facto rights. (When Rollins refers to "real rights" as "those rights actually conferred and enforced by the laws of a State or the customs of a social group," he clearly has in mind de facto rights.) Just as it does me no good to have a legal right on paper that the state pays lip service to in theory but systematically ignores in practice, so it does me no good to have a natural right inscribed in the Law of Nature if no one is willing or able to enforce that right.
But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3
Peace
Angurse: So, apparently, in the Ethics of Liberty when Rothbard explicitly states that praxeology contrasts natural law he actually means that it supports it. The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man – what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen – for whatever reason – to place high on their scales of value. So, either Rothbard is both correct and incorrect about natural law in his own book...on natural law or you are mistaken. Hmmm.
Actually, its you're interpretation that is flawed.
Rothbard was talking about the separate functions of the two fields. Economics need not worry about whether people's wants are good or bad, its enough to know they possess those wants.
Nitroadict: laminustacitus: hashem:Further, the entirety of praxeology rests on a critical natural law: humans act. Neither you nor Brainpolice show the most basic signs of having a clue what you are talking about. "Man acts" is a synthetic a priori judgement not a law of nature, in fact, you equivocate between the two by holding such a broad definition of "natural law". While the synthetic a priori is the underpinning of man's very experience of the world, the laws of nature are properties of the universe, not just our experience. Too bad for not having a clue of what I'm talking out. The physical universe would exist with or without man's ability to sense it, and that seems to be true since it has been proven to have existed for billions of billions of years before the existence of man.Nah, that makes far too much sense.
Yes, Rothbard was a reflectionist. And Mises a Kantian.
Apriorism and Positivism in the Social Sciences by Roderick Long Mises University 2005.
Believe that's correct.
And for the utilitarians:
Utilitarian Free-Market Economics
JonBostwick: Long: But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3
Long: But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3
I honestly have no idea why people wouldn't know what Long is talking about in the first place. Why does a "Long" need to come along and explain this? Two answers. One logical positivists (and utilitarianism following in the positivists footsteps it appears as well as Keynesianism) have tried to rewrite history by throwing out value and individuality, thus, it's easy how they are baffled by natural rights and why they end up if taken to the extremes of policy making in the government or in the streets it's easy to see how natural rights are thereby ignored and eroded away by such people. Cause they don't see them so they walk all over them. Taken to the further extreme it's why some can't figure out why protecting somebody's natural rights is in each individuals best interest. It's why somebody comes along and states, they "don't give a damn about liberty"... it's sickening. And why they can't understand murder, rape, and theft is not helpful. Secondly, cause of somebody like Rollins who is really confused. I mean it's really simple. I didn't need to read Long to be able to reason this out. It's not that challenging. But I will most definitely read Long for the joy of it.
Thanks JonBostwick for posting this. This paragraph here is so straightforward.
No free market with blind headbutting as thine and mine goes unseen, you know, current events. But if there's an increased implementation of property rights so economics justly happens with this scarcity.. then yes.
hashem: 1. That natural law ELUCIDATES ethics. ETHICS ARE MADE VISIBLE THROUGH the laws of nature. "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man" 2. His reference to praxeology is contrasting VALUE. He in no way maintains that natural law is opposed to praxeology or vice versa. In praxeology, value is subjective, because we are speaking of value judgments of individuals. In ethics derived from natural law, value is objective, because we are stating what NATURE ELUCIDATES.
And Aristotle discusses good, action, ethics, and happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics. It's a good read thus far. I read the first book today. I'm enjoying it. Good post hashem.
Conza88: Yes, Rothbard was a reflectionist. And Mises a Kantian. Apriorism and Positivism in the Social Sciences by Roderick Long Mises University 2005. Believe that's correct. And for the utilitarians: Utilitarian Free-Market Economics Introduction: Utilitarian Social Philosophy The Unanimity and Compensation Principles Ludwig von Mises and "Value-Free" Laissez Faire
Honestly, Conza it is like we read the same stuff on the same day. I just finished Long's Apriorism lecture like two days ago.
JonBostwick: Actually, its you're interpretation that is flawed. Rothbard was talking about the separate functions of the two fields. Economics need not worry about whether people's wants are good or bad, its enough to know they possess those wants.
Fair enough,
Rothbard still went into detail explaining Mises' praxeological hostility toward natural rights elsewhere.
Juan:The point remains. Despite our limited knowledge of the laws of nature, nature works regularly, not randomly. It's too bad that the term "natural law(s)" seems to upset laminustacitus, tho.
The problem is, no matter how far we manage to advance in our understanding of the physical world we will always have to reduce it to something we simply do not, and cannot, understand. Which is exactly why I advocate instrumentalism in the natural sciences.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap