Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 16, 2013 23:46:33 GMT -5
My comment pertained to Paul's. We've been talking about types of slavery, "effective slavery", perceptions of slavery, etc., etc. throughout this thread. Paul's position is clear: the term 'slavery' applies to nothing beyond one man legally owning another. Perceptions, degrees, types are all irrelevant to him. He defines it very simply.
I don't mind a fundamentalist view. I do mind the fact that he's hung up on a definition. You shouldn't have to change 'slavery' to a more general term like 'oppression' in order to discuss it in slightly-less-than-fundamental terms.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 0:00:29 GMT -5
My comment pertained to Paul's. We've been talking about types of slavery, "effective slavery", perceptions of slavery, etc., etc. throughout this thread. Paul's position is clear: the term 'slavery' applies to nothing beyond one man legally owning another. Perceptions, degrees, types are all irrelevant to him. He defines it very simply. I don't mind a fundamentalist view. I do mind the fact that he's hung up on a definition. You shouldn't have to change 'slavery' to a more general term like 'oppression' in order to discuss it in slightly-less-than-fundamental terms. i know, Virgil. i was just adding my 2 cents. we were surprisingly like minded on this one. i say "surprisingly" because even those that i agree with far more often had a big problem with it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2013 0:24:41 GMT -5
I once knew a thoughtful poll dancer, who died in his 90's from cancer, and inscribed on his grave: the words "What makes a slave?" He'd searched 90 years with no answer.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 10:29:51 GMT -5
I once knew a thoughtful poll dancer, who died in his 90's from cancer, and inscribed on his grave: the words "What makes a slave?" He'd searched 90 years with no answer. persons can be enslaved by all kinds of things: lust, greed, addiction, hopelessness. truly free people can make changes in their lives promptly. how many of us could drop everything and go? i am @ very low risk for cancer, by the way.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Sept 17, 2013 11:26:02 GMT -5
'i am @ very low risk for cancer, by the way.' Don't say that. I thought I was also but this last year of surgery, chemo, radiation, tests told me different. I'm 72 with no ancestral cancers that I can find. Might be someone hidden in the wood pile though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 12:10:39 GMT -5
I once knew a thoughtful poll dancer, who died in his 90's from cancer, and inscribed on his grave: the words "What makes a slave?" He'd searched 90 years with no answer. persons can be enslaved by all kinds of things: lust, greed, addiction, hopelessness. truly free people can make changes in their lives promptly. how many of us could drop everything and go? i am @ very low risk for cancer, by the way. how many of us could drop everything and go?
Any of you seen the film "up in the air" with George Clooney the scene where he is giving a speech at the front of the auditorium, and talking about all the stuff we carry around (responsibilities) We all are FREE to up and leave.....no one will stop us, other than ourselves Why...because OTHER people rely on us....and we have to live with ourselves afterwards.....but could we.....YES
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 12:37:44 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, this.
In one sense, freedom is an empirical property. Some entity is free in proportion to that entity's ability to act in accordance with its own will. Visitation of consquence upon that free action does not constrain its character of freedom. Such freedom is not at all abstract, and the curtailment of this freedom is the manifestation of enslavement. This appears to be Paul's position, as I understand it.
In another sense, freedom is an ideal. Some society is free in proportion to that society's level of defense of certain freedoms for its citizens. Through the conditioning measure of negative reinforcement attached to illiberal behaviors, mediated through the state's police power, a willed and willing acceptance of limits to absolute empirical freedom as outlined above is inculcated. The desirability of the freedoms so protected, in the modifying context of the burden of the police power, creates the parameters for a social contract between government and governed.
In another sense, freedom is a subjective impression. It is in this sense that dj appears to be arguing freedom has meaning, and certainly most entities impress us most forcefully in the subjective realm. By this token, a man who actually can do very little in the exercise of his will, but whose expectations have been so managed that this restriction does not strike him as onerous, is not a slave; whereas a man who is among the most privileged on earth, but whose expectations have been inflamed by class-conscious rabble-rousing, may consider himself the very lowliest of slaves. I think it's dangerous to argue that there is actually merit to this consideration from a standpoint of public policy; the substance of politics is certainly presentation and the management of expectations, but policy must needs be concerned with objective metrics. No government should have as a policy goal the happiness of its citizens; rather, it should strive for a stable and functional social contract.
It should be noted that a government could have a highly stable and functional social contract in which the police power were near-absolute and the citizens' freedom scarcely defended at all. Moreover, such a society could self-describe as 'liberal' if it understood the function of government to be protecting its people from the deleterious consequences of their own folly.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 17, 2013 12:54:15 GMT -5
So say that. "Slavery exists if and only if conditions X, Y, and Z are met. More general concepts such as labour exploitation, perpetual indebtedness, confiscatory taxation, feudalism, etc. are distinct and should not be called 'slavery'." Concise. Respectful. Boring. (and Stupid)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 17, 2013 13:18:11 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, this.
In one sense, freedom is an empirical property. Some entity is free in proportion to that entity's ability to act in accordance with its own will. Visitation of consquence upon that free action does not constrain its character of freedom. Such freedom is not at all abstract, and the curtailment of this freedom is the manifestation of enslavement. This appears to be Paul's position, as I understand it.
In another sense, freedom is an ideal. Some society is free in proportion to that society's level of defense of certain freedoms for its citizens. Through the conditioning measure of negative reinforcement attached to illiberal behaviors, mediated through the state's police power, a willed and willing acceptance of limits to absolute empirical freedom as outlined above is inculcated. The desirability of the freedoms so protected, in the modifying context of the burden of the police power, creates the parameters for a social contract between government and governed.
In another sense, freedom is a subjective impression. It is in this sense that dj appears to be arguing freedom has meaning, and certainly most entities impress us most forcefully in the subjective realm. By this token, a man who actually can do very little in the exercise of his will, but whose expectations have been so managed that this restriction does not strike him as onerous, is not a slave; whereas a man who is among the most privileged on earth, but whose expectations have been inflamed by class-conscious rabble-rousing, may consider himself the very lowliest of slaves. I think it's dangerous to argue that there is actually merit to this consideration from a standpoint of public policy; the substance of politics is certainly presentation and the management of expectations, but policy must needs be concerned with objective metrics. No government should have as a policy goal the happiness of its citizens; rather, it should strive for a stable and functional social contract.
It should be noted that a government could have a highly stable and functional social contract in which the police power were near-absolute and the citizens' freedom scarcely defended at all. Moreover, such a society could self-describe as 'liberal' if it understood the function of government to be protecting its people from the deleterious consequences of their own folly. There is a place for a philosophical discussion of freedom- especially what constitutes "true" freedom. For example, are the lines on the map and governments merely a figment of our collective imagination and individuals are in fact sovereign? Or do certain entities retain the right to rob us simply because a group of people got together 200 some odd years ago and gave a self-perpetuating entity run by a succession of people who feel they retain this right? This is a discussion that I myself started in another thread, and it is an interesting discussion. See: However, in my opinion the question of "slavery - vs- "scut work": which is better?" is a false premise. The underlying presupposition is that slavery vs. scut work is a choice, which of course it is not. Then it assumes that slavery could actually, possibly be an acceptable alternative to "scut work"- which of course it isn't. The answer is both obvious- and pointless at the same time. If you really want to answer the question, it is: scut work. Because you do not HAVE TO DO SCUT WORK. The question avoids altogether the valid, and far more interesting question of whether or not human beings are sovereign, or subject to ruling authorities? And that's why this thread is stupid. Don't think scut work is a choice?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2013 13:28:20 GMT -5
You got it bolded and redded, hence I suspect you're correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 13:49:58 GMT -5
Perhaps he was just highlighting the typo in 'consquence'
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:11:12 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, this.
In one sense, freedom is an empirical property. Some entity is free in proportion to that entity's ability to act in accordance with its own will. Visitation of consquence upon that free action does not constrain its character of freedom. Such freedom is not at all abstract, and the curtailment of this freedom is the manifestation of enslavement. This appears to be Paul's position, as I understand it.
In another sense, freedom is an ideal. Some society is free in proportion to that society's level of defense of certain freedoms for its citizens. Through the conditioning measure of negative reinforcement attached to illiberal behaviors, mediated through the state's police power, a willed and willing acceptance of limits to absolute empirical freedom as outlined above is inculcated. The desirability of the freedoms so protected, in the modifying context of the burden of the police power, creates the parameters for a social contract between government and governed.
In another sense, freedom is a subjective impression. It is in this sense that dj appears to be arguing freedom has meaning, and certainly most entities impress us most forcefully in the subjective realm. By this token, a man who actually can do very little in the exercise of his will, but whose expectations have been so managed that this restriction does not strike him as onerous, is not a slave; whereas a man who is among the most privileged on earth, but whose expectations have been inflamed by class-conscious rabble-rousing, may consider himself the very lowliest of slaves. I think it's dangerous to argue that there is actually merit to this consideration from a standpoint of public policy; the substance of politics is certainly presentation and the management of expectations, but policy must needs be concerned with objective metrics. No government should have as a policy goal the happiness of its citizens; rather, it should strive for a stable and functional social contract.
It should be noted that a government could have a highly stable and functional social contract in which the police power were near-absolute and the citizens' freedom scarcely defended at all. Moreover, such a society could self-describe as 'liberal' if it understood the function of government to be protecting its people from the deleterious consequences of their own folly. There is a place for a philosophical discussion of freedom- especially what constitutes "true" freedom. good, let's have it then. but please don't start with Freshman Relativism. consensual acts are not governed by individuals, but by groups. you can't "rob" someone IF they agree. and if they agree, it is NO LONGER ROBBERY, it is a consenting economic relationship between a group or individual and another group or individual.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 14:11:22 GMT -5
I think it's more of a leading question than a false choice, strictly, because I don't think there's any intent to imply you can only have one or the other (in fact, the rhetorical intent is pretty planly to refute the argument that there is a meaningful choice there, and, if you take the point that slavery, subjectively speaking, is experienced as the obligation to labor for another then this has some force).
It seems pretty well-established that thread authors can make good faith efforts to limit the scope of debate within their own threads. Dj mentioned disappointingly little about vantage points from which Katy Perry might discreetly be oserved sunbathing, but I don't castigate him for it. If the problem exercises me sufficiently, I have thread-posting privileges of my own.
That said, my contributions to any thread tend to be tangential at best, so I don't mind running with your hare for a moment. Your question hinges on the statement of mine that you highlighted in red up there. We are sovereign insofar as we can escape the punitive consequences of exercising our sovereignty; we are subject to the rule of law insofar as that instrument can overcall our will, and replace those outcomes we would bring about through the exercise of sovereignty with those the State deems more fitting. In the modern United States, our sovereignty is compromised but not to a marked degree in my view. A lot of us can get away with a lot before Authority bears down on us, and even afterwards.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:15:02 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, this.
In one sense, freedom is an empirical property. Some entity is free in proportion to that entity's ability to act in accordance with its own will. Visitation of consquence upon that free action does not constrain its character of freedom. Such freedom is not at all abstract, and the curtailment of this freedom is the manifestation of enslavement. This appears to be Paul's position, as I understand it.. possibly. here is mine: if you are not inhibited in your activity, you will perceive yourself as "free", even thought you may be nothing of the sort. you may have a very large enclosure. or you may not value things that others consider essential. i think the latter objection is the most interesting aspect of this debate. if you consider yourself free if you have no concerns about food, shelter, and medicine, a zoo may work perfectly for you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:17:29 GMT -5
In another sense, freedom is an ideal. Some society is free in proportion to that society's level of defense of certain freedoms for its citizens. Through the conditioning measure of negative reinforcement attached to illiberal behaviors, mediated through the state's police power, a willed and willing acceptance of limits to absolute empirical freedom as outlined above is inculcated. The desirability of the freedoms so protected, in the modifying context of the burden of the police power, creates the parameters for a social contract between government and governed.. if one internalizes the value of the state, or the captor, one might rightly see themselves as a free agent, when they are nothing of the sort. there have been several examples of this on the thread, but my favourite one is how journalists internalize the values of their editors and employers when exercising their profession. but that is only because i find the media a fascinating subject. most others probably don't think it a very interesting example.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 14:18:05 GMT -5
I'm deeply suspicious of hivemind arguments. The tacit consent of the Nixonian silent majority is a fiction and an enabler of oppressive and abusive politicians. In no wise is consent ever other than an individual gift. I feel I must be misunderstanding the opening portion of the quoted excerpt here - the idea that a fraternity have any proper authority to determine the sexual availability of a drunken woman is consistent with my reading of your phrase, and repugnant.
The second sentence is no less confusing to me. The essence of robbery is that it involves taking without permission - what on earth do you mean when you say 'you can't "rob" someone unless they agree?' What form of "robbery" are you implicating?
I'm looking at this from a praxeological standpoint.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:20:51 GMT -5
I think it's more of a leading question than a false choice, strictly, because I don't think there's any intent to imply you can only have one or the other (in fact, the rhetorical intent is pretty planly to refute the argument that there is a meaningful choice there, and, if you take the point that slavery, subjectively speaking, is experienced as the obligation to labor for another then this has some force). It seems pretty well-established that thread authors can make good faith efforts to limit the scope of debate within their own threads. Dj mentioned disappointingly little about vantage points from which Katy Perry might discreetly be oserved sunbathing, but I don't castigate him for it. If the problem exercises me sufficiently, I have thread-posting privileges of my own.. LOL! this is brilliant, Mojo!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:22:32 GMT -5
The second sentence is no less confusing to me. sorry. i had a typo there. i meant to say IF, not UNLESS. my apologies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:25:27 GMT -5
I'm deeply suspicious of hivemind arguments. The tacit consent of the Nixonian silent majority is a fiction and an enabler of oppressive and abusive politicians. In no wise is consent ever other than an individual gift. I feel I must be misunderstanding the opening portion of the quoted excerpt here - the idea that a fraternity have any proper authority to determine the sexual availability of a drunken woman is consistent with my reading of your phrase, and repugnant.. an impaired (or unaware, or misinformed) individual is not truly capable of consent, imo. hopefully that will derepugnify my position.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 14:27:45 GMT -5
I don't know what praxeological means. However, I think I understand dj's intent. For something to be "consensual" there must be more than one person in agreement. We often think of it in a two person context rather than a "group", but two people make a very small group. correct. the imbicile in the video (no offense to imbiciles) imples that if he writes down "it is OK for me to rob you" that makes it OK. but that is not how law in a consensual republic works. it is vastly more complicated, and vastly more representative/respectful of individual rights than that.I think the robbery example was meant to start "you can't rob someone consensually unless they agree", but I don't know that either. i made boo boo. boo boo corrected. bad boo boo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 15:11:01 GMT -5
I don't know what praxeological means. However, I think I understand dj's intent. For something to be "consensual" there must be more than one person in agreement. We often think of it in a two person context rather than a "group", but two people make a very small group. I think the robbery example was meant to start "you can't rob someone consensually unless they agree", but I don't know that either. It actually gets used in a few contexts to mean different things. I use it in the sense it appears in von Mises' "On Human Action," where it describes the rational decision-making of contractual actors. I agree that a contract must be between several parties, but I assert that it exists only because individuals as individuals signed up to it. A lot of the problems with contracts arise because of the woolly post facto assumption that all parties who initially signed up remain committed to the contract as currently operated and enforced. Marginal utility theory applies, which again is where I'm coming from a praxeological standpoint, and where I think I'm sharing Paul's perspective on the social contract and the "just consent" of the governed. Being unable to rob someone IF they agree makes more sense to me Your clarifications were appreciated!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 15:13:52 GMT -5
What a great word. Sadly, the counter doesn't really address the point. If consent is vested in the group rather than the individual - if a cartel can dictate to an obligated party, to trim some of the histrionics from the example - then the condition of the individual, beyond their ability to hold up their end of the Devil's bargain, becomes moot. That, too, is a subjective working definition of slavery, here from the perspective of the slaveholder. Once reject a man from the kingdom of ends, and you have made him most truly a slave.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 15:15:11 GMT -5
LOL. Perhaps I shouldn't be so hasty to post what I "think" someone else means- especially when they are online! It's probably okay if you're not claiming authority over their meaning.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 15:45:45 GMT -5
What a great word. Sadly, the counter doesn't really address the point. If consent is vested in the group rather than the individual - if a cartel can dictate to an obligated party, to trim some of the histrionics from the example - then the condition of the individual, beyond their ability to hold up their end of the Devil's bargain, becomes moot. That, too, is a subjective working definition of slavery, here from the perspective of the slaveholder. we might be talking about two different things. i was talking about government. what were you talking about?Once reject a man from the kingdom of ends, and you have made him most truly a slave. indeed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 15:47:58 GMT -5
I agree that a contract must be between several parties, but I assert that it exists only because individuals as individuals signed up to it. A lot of the problems with contracts arise because of the woolly post facto assumption that all parties who initially signed up remain committed to the contract as currently operated and enforced. Marginal utility theory applies, which again is where I'm coming from a praxeological standpoint, and where I think I'm sharing Paul's perspective on the social contract and the "just consent" of the governed. i am unclear on Paul's position vis-a-vis the social contract. from what i gather, he thinks it doesn't have any legal, moral, or constitutional basis. do you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2013 16:53:12 GMT -5
I don't know what praxeological means. It seems to be an obscure term for behavioural science. It's obviously a competitor to contemporary behavioural science since it's rooted in the work of Menger, von Mises, and Hayek, whose theories are (it's safe to say) universally loathed by most would call themselves "behavioural scientists". The arc re consent is beginning to self-cannibalize. You guys mind want to wind down before you end up debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course he does. He's not an anarchist. He desires to live in a society of law, the sine qua non of which is a binding lifelong social contract.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 17:29:58 GMT -5
Most of us are bound by a social contract devised by people that are long since dead, with only minor revisions being made currently. We are born into a system we must comply with, whichever system that is. Even if we do not consent our ability to change that contract is non existant unless we can convince enough people to go along with us to have enough force to overturn the current structure. Many people are happy to work within that system, no matter how bizarre it may be, if it gets them enough of what they consider important. This kind of leads back to my point of the powers that be figuring out the absolute minimum they need to share.
We really have no freedom unless we are able to summon enough force to fight off anyone that tries to impose consequences for breaking "the rules". The fact that someone likes the rules they are living with does not make them any more free. Unless you buy into that cliché "The greatest freedom is doing what you have to because you want to."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:34:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 17:33:06 GMT -5
Or...look I know this is cheesy but it is relevant...freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 18:14:58 GMT -5
I don't know what praxeological means. It seems to be an obscure term for behavioural science. It's obviously a competitor to contemporary behavioural science since it's rooted in the work of Menger, von Mises, and Hayek, whose theories are (it's safe to say) universally loathed by most would call themselves "behavioural scientists". The arc re consent is beginning to self-cannibalize. You guys mind want to wind down before you end up debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course he does. He's not an anarchist. He desires to live in a society of law, the sine qua non of which is a binding lifelong social contract. every time we have this discussion it invariably leads to "the government is robbing me at gunpoint". are you suggesting that this is merely rhetorical? because clearly, it implies that the social contract has no basis in law.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2013 22:41:59 GMT -5
It seems to be an obscure term for behavioural science. It's obviously a competitor to contemporary behavioural science since it's rooted in the work of Menger, von Mises, and Hayek, whose theories are (it's safe to say) universally loathed by most would call themselves "behavioural scientists". The arc re consent is beginning to self-cannibalize. You guys mind want to wind down before you end up debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course he does. He's not an anarchist. He desires to live in a society of law, the sine qua non of which is a binding lifelong social contract. every time we have this discussion it invariably leads to "the government is robbing me at gunpoint". are you suggesting that this is merely rhetorical? because clearly, it implies that the social contract has no basis in law. It means he believes the government has gone too far. Simply put, he believes there are fundamental limits to how burdensome to the individual the social contract can be. Taxes that are lawful, are employed to the noblest of ends, and are supported by 99% of a society can still be unfair. Unfair taxation is closer to racketeering than to robbery in my mind, but the point is clear that the contract is no longer one of mutual benefit to the individual and society at large. It changes from symbiosis to parasitism.
|
|