...you're right to challenge my 'natural order of things' -- that's probably reading too much into that passage. He only refers to 'nature' and he probably means less by that than I wish he did! 😅
Good eye, brother. 🤜🤛
Oh, that's a good point. Rothbard and Hoppe were right to differ from Mises on the ground-basis for their arguments. Mises' outright rejection of natural law arguments in favor of rationalist (and yet also irratianalist!) ones is, IMO, a major flaw.
Nevertheless, you'll find sprinklings of natural law type sensibilites--unavoidable, I think--in his _Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis_ in passages such as this one--which is the one I had in mind for the paraphrase above:
> So far as Feminism seeks to adjust the legal position of woman to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances—so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of Socialism. _For it is a characteristic of Socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavour, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature_.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kahane-socialism-an-economic-and-sociological-analysis
Discussion
much like Bitcoin, good philosophy and economics doesn't care what you wish of it :)
I'm curious, though, why do you "wish he meant more"? what would that do for you?
Probably because an argument for liberty that is grounded in natural law is stronger.
Which I thought was true, before I explored Hoppe's argument, which took it to another level.
Where would you send someone for this argument in particular? I've started two or three of Hoppe's books, but never finished any of them.
His lectures about argumentation ethics would be good references
His introduction to Rothbard's 'Ethics of Liberty' gives a glimpse.
Chapter 2 in 'A theory of socialism and capitalism' offers a first principle view of self-ownership and property rights.
And his 'Economic science and the Austrian method' dives into epistemology and methodology.
Thank you. Will check these out. I'm very interested to ensure that my political and economic views are in alignment with, and flow from, my ultimate metaphysical and epistemological convictions--i.e., Christian Theism. I've heard that Hoppe was greatly influenced by Jurgen Moltmann (a Critical theorist), so I've been somewhat hesitant to jump in, but I'm wiling to hear him out. From what little I've heard, it sounds like his 'argumentation ethics' may even have some overlap with what -- in other circles -- we call _presuppositional apologetics_. But I could be way off on that.
interesting to put that before everything else in the order of flow. does it worry you that it might limit your process of discovery and learning? It's a super strong bias to start with.
I think metaphysics not only should but _must_ precede epistemology and ethics (and I'd put politics and economics in the larger category of ethics--i.e., "how should we treat one another?").
Denying God, you must agree, is an equally strong bias to start with?
I don't "deny" god. the idea (god) just doesn't even enter my mind or life. do you "deny" the legal jurisdiction of Cambodia, or does it merely not effect you - almost not even exist - in your life?
I meant no offense. From my perspective, his existence (and, thus, his presence) is as ubiquitous as the very air we breath. So, hearing someone express disbelief in God sounds to my ear very similar to someone expressing disbelief in air (while making use of that very air to do so). Again: I meant no offense.
To answer your question, are we assuming that I _do_ live in Cambodia, or that I _do not_ live in Cambodia? (And isn't that rather the point?)
🤙🏻
No offense taken whatsoever 🤝
Assume you do not live in Cambodia.
I knew that's what you meant...I was making the somewhat facetious point that the initial assumption of where I live determines whether their jurisdiction "exists in my life."
It's that presupposition thing again. None of us are neutral.
I think you're missing the original point about "active denial" vs "irrelevance".
You don't actively deny every jurisdiction that doesn't apply to you, not to mention the infinite number of nonexistent jurisdictions that you could _imagine_ and don't even purport reign anywhere. They are more like "irrelevant" or "N/A". Supporting a distant (or imaginary) jurisdiction is an active choice, simply not thinking about them is as close to neutral state of nature as you can get.
Did you think about an elephant while reading that paragraph? If not, were you "denying the elephant"?
Bro...if the elephant were _actually there_, then yes--I would have been ignoring and "denying" the elephant if I wasn't thinking of it. And certainly, if there was an elephant, it would be extremely relevant--don't you think? (And if there was an elephant, wouldn't you think me a little odd for having ignored something so obvious?)
Again: presuppositions. I gotta run. ✌️
I think compartmentalising can be useful.
Mises' methodological dualism is about using different methodologies in natural sciences and social sciences.
I'd say that the spritual realm and metaphysics can be approached differently from how we approach politics and economics as well.
Sure, in a pluralistic/classical liberal society, we don't have to agree _why_ we shouldn't lie, cheat, or kill--so long as we all agree that we shouldn't, then we can live peacably.
But when the question does turn to why--say, over a fine meal--we have to get 'back of' those assumptions. "Why do you believe that? How can you say that consistently? Etc." Many people can count very well, but they cannot _account_ for counting. Many can reason well (like Mises) but they cannot _account_ for the capacity to reason--where did it come from? What does it reveal? Etc. But when the plumber comes over, we don't discuss metaphsyics. He knows how to plumb and, for those purposes, that is enough.
Yep, I think that's beyond the scope of what Mises has written. He made a similar admission in the first part of Human Action, if I'm not wrong.
Imo, both rationalism and empiricism have their limits, meaning they are useful and fully valid in explaining the external world. When it comes to the world within ourselves, their limits become clear.
And check out this Tweet
Well, it would give a more solid ground to his argumentation. Neither rationalism nor irrationalism can provide that. He takes things for granted for which his metaphysical and epistemological assumptions cannot account--some would call this "living on borrowed capital." As it stands, he argues very well from the starting point that _humans act_, and deduces from there--but there are important facts to consider that are logically prior to that starting point that should influence his downstream argumentation. You'll likely pick up that I'm referring to the debate between revelation and reason as competing sources of knowledge--when, for my part, I agree with one philosopher who has said "reason is, itself, a revelation."
Which philosopher are you referring to?
Cornelius Van Til
Can you suggest some references please?
Especially regarding the origin of reason being revelation
Fair warning: Van Til is heaving sledding, to be sure. He "wrote in English, but he thought in Dutch." You might start with _The Defense of the Faith_ to ease into it, or _A Christian Theory of Knowledge_ if you want to jump in with both feet. I can't say for sure where that exact quote came from, but the thrust of it is scattered through many of his writings. I read a dozen(?) of his books, and they've rather blended together over the years.
yea I've never been convinced that it's justified to bring that stuff into the equation.
For the sake of argument, say that the God of the Christian Scriptures does exist--and has spoken. Shouldn't that influence...everything? I believe he does, and he has--so cannot justify leaving him _out_ of the equation. (In fact, I'd have a hard time justifying _equations_ at all--but that's beside the point.)
This is kind of the argument of _presuppositional apologetics_ -- no one argues from a position of 'neutrality.' We start with God, we end with God -- or we start rejecting him, and end without him too. At the top rung of every logical chain of argumetn is that principal starting point: God is, _therefore_... or God is not, _therefore_... Dostoevsky got at the heart of this when he said, "If there is no God, then all things are permissible."
Maybe his attempts at value-free analysis made him avoid embracing natural law at any point explicitly.
Rothbard touched upon this in the first chapter of Ethics of Liberty. It gives a primer on why different groups tend to dismiss natural law.
right. this is what consistency and intellectual honesty looks like. and it's why Mises is excellent and an example of how far you can go when you remain consistent
Of course. But Hoppe and Rothbard, being students of his ideas, extended his excellent consistency rather than dismissing it or refuting it.
I would agree with that first point, for sure. Yes, _Ethics of Liberty_ was helpful, even if inconsistent (I think of his lousy pro-"choice" arguments--abortion is a clear violation of the NAP).
the NAP is very clearly defined as being relevant only to individuals capable of reasoning.
I happen to believe that those who are most incapable of reasoning are the ones most susceptible to violence--and thus the NAP applies perhaps even more so to them. The strong should protect the weak--not unperson them.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning.
Does this mean that the NAP implies one should be a vegan?
If you don't think so, then you understand my meaning.
If the party in question is incapable of reason, persuasion, argumentation (fish, tree, blob of cells with no brain, etc.), the NAP doesn't apply. Maybe something else applies, but the NAP doesn't.
No, the NAP apples to human persons as human persons: 1) to quote Rothbard, "The animals may have rights when they petition for them"; and 2) to quote that other eminent philosopher, Dr. Suess, "a person's a person, no matter how small." "Object permanence" is a very early stage of childhood development that a lot of pro-"choice"-ers seem to have missed: just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Peek-a-boo! ;-)
Surely you don't mean that we can aggress against the mentally handicapped with impunity? Who gets to define the line between the capable and the incapable? Because, honstly, that last sentence reads like it's on a trajectory toward "useless eaters" having to "justify their existence" to the deciders - a la [George Bernard Shaw](https://www.bitchute.com/video/PK53hCbuScna/). Surely, you don't mean that?
If you want to use that Rothbard quote, fine. So, can a single cell petition for rights?
Same for the Seuss quote: is a single cell a person? is every one of my cells a person? are my sperms millions of people?
Well, as I hope you are aware...a sperm is only one half of a human person, so no. Surely you know that people like me argue that human life begins at conception.
But a human is a human, no matter how small. And the smaller they are, the more in need of protection. On this point, I will not negotiate. Human dignity -- the dignity of each, individual person -- is one of the wonderful side effects of believing that we are made in the image of God.
I'm trying not to presume **too much** about "people like you", as you're not a monoculture / hivemind, I would hope.
do you think you can make the case that human life begins at conception without involving any religious or supernatural concepts?
Ruling out those relevant facts of our existence is arbitrary, but sure, I'll give it a try.
The very word 'conception' means beginning. What is it the _beginning_ of? If left to follow its natural course, what will it become? Whatever it will be, it began to be that, at its _conception_.
If it's not alive, then why is it growing (metabolizing, etc.)?
If it's not a human, then what is it?
If it's not OK to murder (otherwise innocent) living humans outside the womb, how is it somehow OK to kill this (otherwise innocent) living human inside the womb?