Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 79

Thread: The reception of Molyneaux's Art of the Argument

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Meritocrat View Post
    I find UPB compelling though not entirely original.
    Can you summarize in your own words what you understand the argument of UPB to be?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Can you summarize in your own words what you understand the argument of UPB to be?
    I've achieved more than SM as a writer why would I take time to reproduce his theory in my own words? I already wrote that I found it in line with Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality. I will use a line from that book which I have often quoted. "The attitude and actions that best promote the happiness and well being of the individual in the long run tend to coincide with the actions and attitudes that best promote the happiness and well being of society as a whole."



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Well, the entire project ("proving" ethics) is impossible in principle. Categorical imperatives ("you should do x") cannot be true or false; there is no fact from which any categorical imperative could conceivably be deduced. Only hypothetical imperatives ("if you want to achieve Y, you should do X") can be true or false; they can be deduced from facts. In other words, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is."
    Classic. This showcases you don't know what Hoppe's A priori of argumentation (APoA) actually is.

    “Second, there is the logical gap between “is-” and “ought-statements” which natural rights proponents have failed to bridge successfully—except for advancing some general critical remarks regarding the ultimate validity of the fact-value dichotomy. Here the praxeological proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering a completely value-free justification of private property. It remains entirely in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought” from an “is.”

    The structure of the argument is this:

    (a) justification is propositional justification—a priori true is-statement;
    (b) argumentation presupposes property in one’s body and the homesteading principle—a priori true is-statement; and
    (c) then, no deviation from this ethic can be argumentatively justified—a priori true is-statement.

    The proof also offers a key to an understanding of the nature of the fact-value dichotomy: Ought-statements cannot be derived from is-statements. They belong to different logical realms. It is also clear, however, that one cannot even state that there are facts and values if no propositional exchanges exist, and that this practice of propositional exchanges in turn presupposes the acceptance of the private property ethic as valid. In other words, cognition and truth-seeking as such have a normative foundation, and the normative foundation on which cognition and truth rest is the recognition of private property rights.”

    — Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economics and Ethics of Private Property


    Pro tip:

    “One of the ways that the APoA [a priori of argumentation] approach “transcends” the is/ought gap, as Rothbard put it, is that “norms” are being addressed using “is” rather than “ought” statements. This makes it possible for norms to be established as justifiable—and possibly, though more controversially, also justified—regardless of whether any particular actor chooses to acknowledge this or to follow such norms. Hoppe uses the example of a simple math problem to draw out this distinction between logical proof and practical action:

    “Why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3” (2006, 407). With this distinction in mind, how does the APoA establish the justifiability and possibly also the justification of the NAP? Hoppe begins to summarize this as follows with the requirement of the right to control one’s own body, which is often described as self-ownership:



    • …it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. (2006, 342)


    Hoppe next presents further logical links from self-ownership to the first-appropriation principle and therefore property in things and locations (343–44). The commonality between self-ownership and ownership of objects and locations is the question, in each case, as to who has the better claim in a given case. The status of self-ownership claims is more obvious due to the unique, inimitable, and non-transferrable capability of direct self-control. There is little question as to who has the better claim to oneself—oneself or some other person? However, this better claim criterion also logically applies in the same way to other objects and locations, which, unlike ones own body, must be acquired or homesteaded…”

    Konrad Graf

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For a specific example, he tries to Hoppe's argumentation ethics to prove some categorical imperative (don't recall what it is). The problem is that Hoppe's argumentation ethics doesn't work, at all. The basic idea is the performative contradiction: i.e. a statement which must be false in virtue of being made. "I am dead" is the classic performative contradiction; it must be false in virtue of being spoken (dead men can't speak). Hoppe (and Molyneux, in some fashion) try to apply this perfectly sensible concept to ethical statements, and that doesn't work. There is no ethical statement that would have to be false in virtue of being stated. In other words, an ethical statement's truth cannot be a necessary condition for a physical event (someone speaking) to occur.
    Completely miss the boat here. See:

    "Since considerations such as these are irrelevant in order to judge the validity of a mathematical proof, for instance, so are they beside the point here. In the same way as the validity of a mathematical proof is not restricted to the moment of proving it, so is the validity of the libertarian property theory not limited to instances of argumentation. If correct, the argument demonstrates its universal justification. (Of all utilitarian critics only Steele takes up the challenge that I had posed for them: that the assignment of property rights cannot be dependent on any later outcome because in this case no one could ever know before the outcome what he was or was not justified to do; and that in advocating a consequentialist position utilitarianism is [strictly speaking] no ethic at all if it fails to answer the all decisive question “what am I justified to do now?” Steele solves this problem in the same way as he proceeds throughout his comment: by misunderstanding what it is.

    He misconceives my argument as subject to empirical testing and misrepresents it as claiming to show that “I favor a libertarian ethic” follows from “I am saying something,” while in fact it claims that entirely independent of whatever people happen to favor or utter “the libertarian ethic can be given an ultimate propositional justification” follows from “I claim such and such to be valid, i.e., capable of propositional justification.” His response to the consequentialist problem is yet another stroke of genius: No, says Steele, consequentialism must not involve a praxeologically absurd waiting-for-the-outcome ethic. His example: Certain rules are advocated first, then implemented, and later adjusted depending on outcomes. While this is indeed an example of consequentialism, I fail to see how it should provide an answer to “what are we justified in doing now?” and so escape the absurdities of a waiting- for-the-outcome ethic.

    The starting point is unjustified [Which rules? Not only the outcome depends on this!]; and the consequentialist procedure is unjustified, too. [Why not adopt rules and stick to them regardless of the outcome?] Steele’s answer to the question “what am I justified in doing?” is “that depends on whatever rules you start out with, then on the outcome of whatever this leads to, and finally on whether or not you care about such an outcome.” Whatever this is, it is no ethic.)
    — Hoppe, EEPP, pg 406-407
    Further:

    "Arguing is an activity and requires a person’s exclusive control over scarce resources (one’s brain, vocal cords, etc.). More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources. It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. (Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs. Whatever [the law of contradiction, for instance] must be presupposed insofar as one argues cannot be meaningfully disputed because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt; hence, it must be regarded as indisputable or a priori valid. In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must be a self-owner. It is a self-contradictory absurdity to ask for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.
    — Hoppe, EEPP, Appendix: Four Critical Replies

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For instance, Hoppe tried to show that a statement such as "I don't own my body" is a performative contradiction, by claiming that one cannot make the statement if one doesn't own one's body; but this is plainly wrong. One cannot make the statement "I don't own my body" unless one controls one's body (or at least one's mouth, etc), but control is not ownership. As soon you try to use performative contradiction to prove an ethical statement, whatever it is, you fail.
    Piss poor paraphrasing isn't valid. Hoppe didn't try to do any such thing. What he did do:

    Argumentation Ethics: Summarised

    “Argumentation Ethics states that no moral (or I argue more specifically legal; it is about property rights and the justifiability of aggression, after all) argument against the NAP can be successfully justified in discourse without performative contradiction in the act of doing so. The above looks like just another typical failure to understand AE followed by a straw man attack on things that no one actually claims. Of course, a person is capable of running around shouting about how they cannot run and shout but in that case it is harder to find people to take them seriously. So in summary, AE shows certain minimal conditions under which claims about rights can or cannot possibly be successful as valid arguments according to the laws of logic (non-contradiction). It never claims that people are incapable of making invalid and internally contradictory arguments. They certainly are known to do so regularly.”
    Konrad Graf

    Further:

    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, [1793] 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.

    Therefore, the right to self-ownership means the right to be free from coercion. As we have seen since the beginning of this article, this is precisely the sense of the self-ownership axiom. From this point of view, slaves should be considered coerced self-owners. The slaves have as a last resort the ultimate choice to obey their master or to revolt against her.
    Marian Eabrasu
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Meritocrat View Post
    I've achieved more than SM as a writer why would I take time to reproduce his theory in my own words? I already wrote that I found it in line with Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality. I will use a line from that book which I have often quoted. "The attitude and actions that best promote the happiness and well being of the individual in the long run tend to coincide with the actions and attitudes that best promote the happiness and well being of society as a whole."
    I asked you to reproduce one of the arguments of this "modern day Socrates" in your own words because I find that Molyneux fans tend to respond to any criticism of The Master by accusing the critic of not understanding what He meant. To date, I don't think any Molyneux fan has ever taken me up on my offer, presumably because, when his arguments are plainly stated, sans rhetoric and platitudes (ala "reason is important" ), their absurdity becomes obvious. O well. Let me know if you change your mind.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza quoting Hoppe
    The structure of the argument is this:

    (a) justification is propositional justification—a priori true is-statement;
    (b) argumentation presupposes property in one’s body and the homesteading principle—a priori true is-statement; and
    (c) then, no deviation from this ethic can be argumentatively justified—a priori true is-statement.
    It doesn't. As I already explained, Hoppe is conflating control and ownership (is and ought).

    Arguing requires control over one's body: e.g. it is physically impossible for one to speak without controlling one's vocal cords.

    Ownership has nothing to do with it.

    “Argumentation Ethics states that no moral (or I argue more specifically legal; it is about property rights and the justifiability of aggression, after all) argument against the NAP can be successfully justified in discourse without performative contradiction in the act of doing so. The above looks like just another typical failure to understand AE followed by a straw man attack on things that no one actually claims. Of course, a person is capable of running around shouting about how they cannot run and shout but in that case it is harder to find people to take them seriously. So in summary, AE shows certain minimal conditions under which claims about rights can or cannot possibly be successful as valid arguments according to the laws of logic (non-contradiction). It never claims that people are incapable of making invalid and internally contradictory arguments. They certainly are known to do so regularly.”
    Once again, he is conflating control and ownership.There is a performative contradiction in saying "I do not control my vocal cords."

    There is no performative contradiction is saying "I do not own my vocal cords."

    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.
    That is not a fact but an ethical statement, and the very one he's is trying to prove.

    The argument is not only not objective (because it has an ethical statement as a premise), but circular (since the conclusion is a premise).

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There is a performative contradiction in saying "I do not control my vocal cords."

    There is no performative contradiction is saying "I do not own my vocal cords."
    Ok, so for argument's sake, I guess you wouldn't mind if somebody came and cut them out of your throat.

    Ironically, this gets into why you don't understand UPB.
    Last edited by dannno; 01-12-2018 at 11:38 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Ok, so for argument's sake, I guess you wouldn't mind if somebody came and cut them out of your throat.
    You seem not to understand the nature of the disagreement.

    It's not that Hoppe is saying "people own themselves," and I'm saying "no they don't."

    It's that Hoppe is saying "I've devised a proof that people own themselves," and I'm saying "no you haven't, that's impossible."

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You seem not to understand the nature of the disagreement.

    It's not that Hoppe is saying "people own themselves," and I'm saying "no they don't."

    It's that Hoppe is saying "I've devised a proof that people own themselves," and I'm saying "no you haven't, that's impossible."
    Ok, so for arguments sake, I guess you would be ok with someone kidnapping and raping you.

    Ironically, this is why you don't understand UPB.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Ok, so for arguments sake, I guess you would be ok with someone kidnapping and raping you.
    ...?

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You seem not to clearly don't understand the nature of the disagreement.

    It's not that Hoppe is saying "people own themselves," and I'm saying "no they don't."

    It's that Hoppe is saying "I've devised a proof that people own themselves," and I'm saying "no you haven't, that's impossible."

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...?
    If YOU don't own your body, then you have no say in what other people do to it. That is why you do, in fact, have ownership of your body.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    If YOU don't own your body, then you have no say in what other people do to it. That is why you do, in fact, have ownership of your body.
    If you mean that my ability to object to someone trying to murder me (for instance) demonstrates that I own my body, no, it doesn't.

    That's attempting to derive an ought from an is.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that my ability to object to someone trying to murder me (for instance) demonstrates that I own my body, no, it doesn't.

    That's attempting to derive an ought from an is.
    Well you couldn't object to someone trying to murder you from moral grounds if you don't own your body. Certainly you could perform the action to protect yourself, but there would be no reason to say you were right to do so.

    Do you own a car or a house or your computer or something? Why, because you paid for it? Well, ya, that payment transferred the ownership rights to you, but also because you have made an attempt to maintain ownership over your property. But the point is, unlike property, you own you, you don't need to pay for yourself, nobody can transfer ownership of you to anybody else or you could be enslaved from a moral standpoint.

    Again, the fact you don't understand these basic concepts through some sort of anti-logical training you have been put through, well, that makes it kinda difficult for you to understand rational arguments like UPB.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    you couldn't object to someone trying to murder you from moral grounds if you don't own your body
    No, you couldn't object to someone trying to murder you on moral grounds if you didn't control your own body.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, you couldn't object to someone trying to murder you on moral grounds if you didn't control your own body.
    Lol, dude, your whole brain is wired backwards...

    You couldn't object to someone trying to murder you in the physical realm if you didn't control your own body.

    You couldn't object to someone trying to murder you on moral grounds if you didn't own your own body.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Lol, dude, your whole brain is wired backwards...

    You couldn't object to someone trying to murder you in the physical realm if you didn't control your own body.

    You couldn't object to someone trying to murder you on moral grounds if you didn't own your own body.
    What you mean to say is that a person who objects to being murdered on moral grounds must believe that he owns his own body.

    ...but that's isn't true either.

    There are any number of ethical theories on the basis of which one could offer an ethical objection to being murdered.

    ...but that's not even the most damning problem.

    Even if everyone did believe that they own their bodies, such that for them to deny it in argument would be a contradiction, it doesn't follow that they believe that others own their bodies.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Even if everyone did believe that they own their bodies, such that for them to deny it in argument would be a contradiction, it doesn't follow that they believe that others own their bodies.
    Well they could but that would be a logical contradiction.

    Again, you have trained your brain to be illogical which makes it difficult for you to understand arguments like UPB (or just about anything Molyneux says for that matter)
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What you mean to say is that a person who objects to being murdered on moral grounds must believe that he owns his own body.
    No, no, no..

    A person who objects to being murdered on moral grounds - to perform the action of objecting they must believe they own their own body - but to be morally correct in their action of objecting they must own their own body.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Well they could but that would be a logical contradiction.
    No, you're confusing consistency and universality.

    Consider the following ethical statement:

    "Everyone has the right to do whatever he wants."

    This is inconsistent. There is a conflict of rights, because people will want to do mutually exclusive things (e.g. eat the same apple).

    Compare to this:

    "Bob has the right to do whatever he wants; everyone else has no rights."

    This is perfectly consistent; there can be no conflict of rights. It just isn't universal.

    There's no logical contradiction in claiming that you own yourself, while denying that others own themselves.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There's no logical contradiction in claiming that you own yourself, while denying that others own themselves.
    Did this come from your Monarchy training school?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  24. #50
    I guess that's the end of the discussion...

    I'll leave you with a recommendation: in lieu of Molyneux's gibbering, pick up a cheap used copy of a logic textbook.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'll leave you with a recommendation: in lieu of Molyneux's gibbering, pick up a cheap used copy of a logic textbook.
    I got an A in my University level logic class.

    I'm not sure how you can logically claim that you own yourself, but nobody else owns themself unless without citing some information that differentiates you from everybody else... unless you come from Monarchy training school and think you are king of the world. That doesn't seem logical to me.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I guess that's the end of the discussion...

    I'll leave you with a recommendation: in lieu of Molyneux's gibbering, pick up a cheap used copy of a logic textbook.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again.
    Despite all our disagreements over the years, I strongly agree on this one. UPB is $#@! philosophy no serious philosopher-anarchist or otherwise-would consider legitimate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Despite all our disagreements over the years, I strongly agree on this one. UPB is $#@! philosophy no serious philosopher-anarchist or otherwise-would consider legitimate.
    You shouldn't +rep people for using $#@! logic against what you believe is $#@! philosophy, that doesn't further anything at all.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    You shouldn't +rep people for using $#@! logic against what you believe is $#@! philosophy, that doesn't further anything at all.
    Let me refer you to David Gordon's (a real philosopher with credentials and a track record of publications to prove it) review of Stefan's previous book, "Universally Preferable Behavior" so you can learn some things: https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 01-12-2018 at 03:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Let me refer you to David Gordon's (a real philosopher with credentials and a track record of publications to prove it) review of Stefan's previous book, "Universally Preferable Behavior" so you can learn some things: https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
    From the article:

    Although I have so far been critical of Molyneux, I am happy to give him credit for an excellent idea.


    What is the idea that is so excellent?

    UPB, as I understand it, in a nutshell. That is the "idea" that he is so excited about. That is precisely the "idea" that I have been discussing here with Rev3.

    The rest of the article doesn't argue against UPB, it argues against some other things he says in the book which he seems to not fully understand the reasoning.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    From the article:



    What is the idea that is so excellent?

    UPB, as I understand it, in a nutshell. That is the "idea" that he is so excited about. That is precisely the "idea" that I have been discussing here with Rev3.

    The rest of the article doesn't argue against UPB, it argues against some other things he says in the book which he seems to not fully understand the reasoning. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Certainly. Also from the article,

    Should he succeed, he would not only have achieved something of monumental importance; he would also have rendered a great service to libertarianism. Molyneux's system of morality has resolutely libertarian implications. If he is right, surely a time for rejoicing is at hand.It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad.
    He actually does argue against UPB. He takes it apart like a philosopher. (i.e. Stef's "moral rules")
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 01-12-2018 at 04:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Certainly. Also from the article,



    He actually does argue against UPB. He takes it apart like a philosopher. (i.e. Stef's "moral rules")
    No, what he did was get a bunch of people riled up in the beginning by saying what he said in that portion you quoted, then he tried to take apart a few of the things Molyneux said in his book (I don't think he did a very good job, seemed pretty irrelevant), then he praised what is actually the primary argument of UPB, then he said that Molyneux is actually a really smart guy at the end.

    But it seems you just read the first paragraph or two and said, "wow this guy doesn't like Stef too, this article is great"

    Ironically the part that he praised tears apart the arguments made by Rev3 who you +rep'd...
    Last edited by dannno; 01-12-2018 at 05:03 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  33. #58
    Currently enjoying the follow-up:

    https://mises.org/library/mr-molyneux-responds
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  34. #59
    @dannno

    Are you giving money to Molyneaux?

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @dannno

    Are you giving money to Molyneaux?

    Ya, I gave him some btc back in the day which is now worth a $#@! ton and I give him a little monthly stipend.

    I've given Rand more $$ but if he accepted btc back in the day and was able to HODL it he would be ahead.
    Last edited by dannno; 01-13-2018 at 01:26 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Transcending the State with Stefan Molyneaux
    By donnay in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-08-2014, 05:00 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-12-2011, 07:32 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 02:35 PM
  4. Northern KY Reception with Rand Sat. @ 4
    By amisspelledword in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 06:18 AM
  5. The Pre-Debate Reception is about to start...
    By Starks in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 01:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •