Tab Content
  • Conza88's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:40 AM
    Lmao. What a woefully ignorant strawman / red herring... no, actually it is a claim. Whether Bob does or not involves a variety of individual specifics to the case. See: Action-based legal theory provides tools to take into each case. It supplies some of the underlying questions to which case-specific details shape answers. Legal principles guide inquiry into specifics while emerging details suggest the most relevant set of legal principles to apply. Justice may be found at the meeting theory and practice—of deduction, institutions, and the details of specific cases. Sound theory functions as a service to legal practitioners, enabling them do their jobs more easily and reliably. Legal practice should always be on trial in the court of legal theory, while legal theory should be recognized as insufficient to do justice in any real case. Legal theory and legal practice must therefore persist in a challenging but necessary marriage between distinctive partners if they are to produce the offspring of justice. Used properly, praxeological legal concepts not only boost the clarity of legal theorizing from “the armchair,” they also enhance the ability of practitioners to parse specific cases from “the bench.”
    77 replies | 2961 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    02-12-2018, 02:38 AM
    Wrong. They have everything to do with each other. Praxeology and Epistemology: “…It is not difficult to detect that both a priori axioms—of action and argumentation—are intimately related. On the one hand, actions are more fundamental than argumentations with whose existence the idea of validity emerges, as argumentation is only a subclass of action. On the other hand, to recognize what has just been recognized regarding action and argumentation and their relation to each other requires argumentation, and so, in this sense, argumentation must be considered more fundamental than action: without argumentation nothing could be said to be-known about action. But then, as it is in argumentation that the insight is revealed that—while it might not be known to be so prior to any argumentation—in fact the possibility of argumentation presupposes action in that validity claims can only be explicitly discussed in the course of an argumentation if the individuals doing so already know what it means to act and to have knowledge implied in action—both the meaning of action in general and argumentation in particular must be thought of as logically necessary interwoven strands of a priori knowledge. What this insight into the interrelation between the a priori of action and the a priori of argumentation suggests is the following: Traditionally, the task of epistemology has been conceived of as that of formulating what can be known to be true a priori and also what can be known a priori not to be the subject of a priori knowledge. Recognizing, as we have just done, that knowledge claims are raised and decided upon in the course of argumentation and that this is undeniably so, one can now reconstruct the task of epistemology more precisely as that of formulating those propositions which are argumentatively indisputable in that their truth is already implied in the very fact of making one’s argument and so cannot be denied argumentatively; and to delineate the range of such a priori knowledge from the realm of propositions whose validity cannot be established in this way but require additional, contingent in formation for their validation, or that cannot be validated at all and so are mere metaphysical statements in the pejorative sense of the term metaphysical.
    77 replies | 2961 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    02-08-2018, 02:55 AM
    Pettifogging isn't addressing it. It's not merely an assertion when your actions confirm it to be true. That is why it is an axiom. You're just utterly blind to it; “In order to do so, Mises notices in accordance with the strictures traditionally formulated by rationalist philosophers, economic propositions must fulfill two requirements: First, it must be possible to demonstrate that they are not derived from observational evidence, for observational evidence can only reveal things as they happen to be; there is no thing in it that would indicate why things must be the way they are. Instead, economic propositions must be shown to be grounded in reflective cognition, in our understanding of ourselves as knowing subjects.
    77 replies | 2961 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    02-05-2018, 02:28 AM
    Conflating Use with Ownership In spite of the fact that this critique seems definitive, a closer look will reveal to us its flaws. Contrary to the claim of Callahan and Murphy, the argument by performative contradiction does not conflate use with ownership. The illusion of this conflation comes from the fact that when they are applied to the body of an intentional agent, “use” and “ownership” simply overlap. However, “use” and “ownership” can be distinguished on logical grounds. Clearly, from the very fact that one sits on a chair it is impossible to infer that she is its owner. To determine the ownership, one has to find out who decides upon its use. This distinction between “use” and “ownership” is commonly illustrated by the difference in a firm between manager and owner. The function accomplished by a manager who takes all the current decisions concerning the use of resources in a firm is different from the function of an owner who decides as a last resort. The last resort decision is epitomized by the fact that the owner can decide to fire the manager. In fact, the owner decides who should make the current decisions in a firm. Besides this distinction, the crucial question in ethics is: “Who has the legitimate ownership?” A different formulation may be: “Who has the right to own a specific resource?” Of course, from an ethical point of view an owner, i.e., a person who effectively control as a last resort a specific good, is not necessarily its legitimate owner. Here it is an obvious question to ask: am I the legitimate owner of the chair on which I am sitting right now? Let us now apply this idea to self-ownership. If one can lose the ultimate control of a firm by selling it, she can never lose control of her body. The difference consists on the fact that contrary to the ownership on land, the ownership on the body cannot be denied or abandoned. It is conceivable that a person does not own a piece of land. But it is inconceivable that a person does not own herself. By definition, self-ownership can be withdrawn only by cancelling the agent’s intentionality (free-will and conscience), i.e., by transforming her into a zombie or robot. For most of the scholars, this is the common way to understand self-ownership. “Man can neither be inherited, nor sold, nor given; he can be no one’s property” (Fichte, 1996, 124). Now it appears clearly why the “use of the body” and the “self-ownership” (even though they are logically distinct) have the same extension. While it is possible to sit on a chair without being its owner, it is impossible to use a body and not being its owner. This is the case because, one cannot not use her own body and one cannot not decide as a last resort of the action of her own body. While the ownership in her own body cannot be alienated, one can be nonetheless coerced to act otherwise than she would have wished. This is the case of slaves, prisoners, victims of occasional robberies, etc. The master does not own a slave as one may own a piece of land. An owner of slaves does not own bodies but can coerce the self-owners to use their own bodies according to her wishes. Since land can be acquired, sold or stalled, the question to ask from an ethical standpoint is: am I the legitimate owner of the land? Obviously, the body cannot be acquired, sold or stalled but it can be aggressed.
    77 replies | 2961 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-31-2018, 05:35 AM
    Yes, there bloody well is. Own = exclusive right to control. WHO has a better claim to your body, than yourself? FFS. You are demonstrating it right now. :rolleyes: Nope. Lmao. You still don't get it. You literally have it ass backwards. Here it is. Real simple: Self-ownership and Original Appropriation
    77 replies | 2961 view(s)
No More Results


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
03-10-2015 12:12 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:40 AM
Join Date
Home Page
View Conza88's Blog

Recent Entries

The Kony Kollection

by Conza88 on 03-08-2012 at 11:03 AM

At the beginning of the documentary we see Jason Russell tell a crowd of young people that they must STAND AGAINST WAR. By the end of the documentary, he advocates MILITARY INTERVENTION*. Perhaps we should think about this a little more deeply.

Read More


Ron Paul and Self-Government

by Conza88 on 02-24-2012 at 02:56 AM
Quote Originally Posted by BrittanySligar View Post
That video didn't convince you? Watch this clip from a few days ago, at 40:00. He "slipped up" in his seattle speech

"If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed back to the individual, it would be self-government".

Not sure where a state comes into play in a society of "self-government". Self-government is synonymous with voluntaryism / anarcho-capitalism.

Read More

No results to display...