Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 02:23:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: How should laws be justified?
Via the Natural Law(Rothbard) - 7 (46.7%)
Via the Survived Custom in Social Evolution(Burke, Hayek) - 6 (40%)
Via the Public Opinion of the Major(Rousseau) - 2 (13.3%)
Total Voters: 15

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Poll about Political Philosophy  (Read 1637 times)
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
April 04, 2012, 08:21:10 AM
 #1

I'm some kind of lingering between the first and the second.  Roll Eyes

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481422982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481422982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481422982
Reply with quote  #2

1481422982
Report to moderator
Rothgar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 375


Tune in to Neocash Radio


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2012, 10:14:41 AM
 #2

This is a strange question.  How should laws be justified?  Rothbard is an option.  Rothbard's claim was that laws were never justified.

Maybe it's semantics, but it's strangely worded none the less.


Visit http://neocashradio.com for the premier weekly bitcoin podcast.
Follow neocashradio on twitter.  https://twitter.com/NeocashRadio
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
April 04, 2012, 10:28:30 AM
 #3

Plus, there may be many other views. What about via aristocratic opinion?
vite
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 996


La Falta de Oficio Deteriora la Mente


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2012, 02:08:46 PM
 #4

If you are the ruler, via totalitarian dictatorship...

kinghajj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
April 16, 2012, 08:42:13 PM
 #5

I'm basically a utilitarian, which I don't see listed. "The Moral Landscape" presents some good arguments.
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
April 16, 2012, 09:46:29 PM
 #6

I'm basically a utilitarian, which I don't see listed. "The Moral Landscape" presents some good arguments.

You need values to measure utility, so you still need justifications.
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
April 16, 2012, 11:00:18 PM
 #7

1. Meaning of life is the most important.
2. Given the amount of debate on that subject, likely the best answer has not been found yet. Even considering religion - interpretations are still debated.
3. Finding the meaning should thus be priority number one.
4. The scientific method is the most widely accepted and successful method for problem solving and knowledge seeking.
5. Ergo - Laws should be justified in that they serve science and/OR the search for meaning. Anonymous might put this as "For the lulz".

/Positivist-technocrat-rant

(Yes its a movement... we're like 1.5 guys!)

Cheap and sexy Bitcoin card/hardware wallet, buy here:
http://BlochsTech.com
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 12:49:39 PM
 #8

/Positivist-technocrat-rant

(Yes its a movement... we're like 1.5 guys!)

You're the guy that Alex Jones warned us about.

If I were to make the observation that 1.5 guys can't possibly impose their rule on the rest of society, would you accept that as scientific fact and would your philosophy then self-destruct in logical contradiction?

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 12:54:45 PM
 #9

1. Meaning of life is the most important.
2. Given the amount of debate on that subject, likely the best answer has not been found yet. Even considering religion - interpretations are still debated.
3. Finding the meaning should thus be priority number one.
4. The scientific method is the most widely accepted and successful method for problem solving and knowledge seeking.
5. Ergo - Laws should be justified in that they serve science and/OR the search for meaning. Anonymous might put this as "For the lulz".

/Positivist-technocrat-rant

(Yes its a movement... we're like 1.5 guys!)
make that 2.5

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 01:02:45 PM
 #10

Law can only be justified by the highest power. (Stirner, Redbeard)

All else is mere preference.

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 01:30:44 PM
 #11

Law can only be justified by the highest power. (Stirner, Redbeard)

All else is mere preference.
By me then?

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Free bitcoin=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1610684
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 01:41:07 PM
 #12

Law can only be justified by the highest power. (Stirner, Redbeard)

All else is mere preference.

Well, if you are going for the tautology awards, you should've said that they cannot be justified. At all. Which is true of course.

Hence the use of the word "should" in the question. Separating the descriptive reality with personal motives might help you get it. I don't think anyone in their right mind assumes there are objective moral truths, so yours is not a discovery.

The second problem with that word game is the concept of "power". What is it? Who has that? You only know this after the fact, not before it, so it's double-plus-redundant.

Being a living thing is about mere preferences.
Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
 #13

I am just making sure religion and dogma knows its place.

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
frisco2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 03:27:28 PM
 #14

Your poll is a bit misleading and it is missing a fourth option.  First, laws protect right, so the question should be, how rights are justified.   The option that you are missing is "Objectivist theory of rights". 

Usually Natural rights concept is attributed to the Enlightment period, such as Jefferson, and not Rothbard.   This theory claims that "god" created everyone equal in nature. 

In contrast, the objectivist theory of rights proves its position from a basic observation of natural environment: that every alive entity, including humans, wants to survive, and must act accordingly.  Example, a tree wants sun light, and it is gonna strive to get it.  A lion wants meat, and will hunt prey (so killing is moral to a lion). Finally, a human needs to realize his ideas, and create stuff. Therefore, it is moral to arrange a situation for a human to be able to do so, and be protected. This arrangement constitute the laws about which you ask.  More details:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Why Rothbard anarcho-capitalism is not protecting individual rights.  It is sufficient to look at Russia since the nineties. The state did not protect private property, and every moderately successful businessman had to buy his own "police", to choose  a mafia to protect him against another mafia.  This is not an exageration or hyperbole.  The situation was terrible, and people fled the country as soon as they could. You can watch TV series Brigada, if you can find English subtitles, to get an idea how it was.

You need the government to have the monopoly on force, and monopoly on the court system, so that you will be able to keep your private property.

Just10.com -- Ad-Free Private Social Network for just 10 of your friends.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 04:06:14 PM
 #15

Why Rothbard anarcho-capitalism is not protecting individual rights.  It is sufficient to look at Russia since the nineties. The state did not protect private property, and every moderately successful businessman had to buy his own "police", to choose  a mafia to protect him against another mafia.  This is not an exageration or hyperbole.  The situation was terrible, and people fled the country as soon as they could. You can watch TV series Brigada, if you can find English subtitles, to get an idea how it was.

You need the government to have the monopoly on force, and monopoly on the court system, so that you will be able to keep your private property.

That's an interesting conclusion, but not necessarily the only possibility. I probably wouldn't be so opposed to monopolies if they didn't degrade into self-serving oligarchies (extrajudicial plunder via the ruling classes). This happens by design with any monopoly.

Competition is good if it is understood that all security forces, courts, lawful enforcement, and other similarly related organizations, are given deference within the domain of their respective jurisdictions (via free association). Absent that, you tend to resort to riot and war. Shame.

It's quite simple: respect property.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 09:18:18 PM
 #16

You're the guy that Alex Jones warned us about.
From a short wiki read of him I can believe that. As science is rather collaborative in nature positivist technocratic ideals end up with a progressive taint - and he sounds very conservative.
Quote
If I were to make the observation that 1.5 guys can't possibly impose their rule on the rest of society,
Obama/Kim Jung? Um/etc. are doing a pretty decent job at that I would say... but that's not really my retort here:

Quote
would you accept that as scientific fact and would your philosophy then self-destruct in logical contradiction?
Truth is truth even without public support, technocracy is not necessarily democratic and mostly not.

More importantly I consider the movement quite new so it's too early to judge its survival chances.


Both socialism and free capitalism/weak democracy seem to have failed though so the world seems to be in dire need of new ideas.

Edit:
I'm currently working on a software program to control the execution of law to eliminate human interpretation, so the my site has not been updated for a while, but the interested can check it if they want: floathaven.com.
Its half political and half trying to build floating islands in order to create better countries... don't know if that last part will ever work though...

Cheap and sexy Bitcoin card/hardware wallet, buy here:
http://BlochsTech.com
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 10:36:21 PM
 #17

More importantly I consider the movement quite new so it's too early to judge its survival chances.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but...

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
April 18, 2012, 01:06:40 AM
 #18

More importantly I consider the movement quite new so it's too early to judge its survival chances.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but...

Modern Technocrats have done away with the central authority aspect of a merit based hierarchy. It was basically scientism. The Venus Project, Zeitgeist Movement, and similar organizations promote positivism through the scientific method. None of these groups agree on everything, which is what science is all about. I think these are the epistemological progeny of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Disregarding the leaders of these organizations, they find a commonality in their destination if not their methodologies.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
frisco2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274


View Profile
April 18, 2012, 06:31:40 AM
 #19

There is no fear of govt monopoly when people share common ideas -- any  misbehaving would be overthrown. The problem with Iran is that many people subscribe with govt policy.  Revolutions happened during the enlightenment because people came to disagree conceptually with the kings.

Just10.com -- Ad-Free Private Social Network for just 10 of your friends.
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
April 18, 2012, 10:08:46 AM
 #20

Modern Technocrats have done away with the central authority aspect of a merit based hierarchy. It was basically scientism.

So Zeitgeist/Venus/whatever isn't scientism? They certainly appear that way.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!