@Kvirion said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.
It is logical and coherent, and I have never seen a good refutation of its current form,
For example, Star Trek stories are also coherent and mostly logical, but this does not make them real or true.
You seem to assume that Plato's Ideas and Forms exist. I'm not, it has been (indirectly) refuted by natural sciences, especially by Complexity Science (nonlinear causality, entanglements, emergence, interrelatedness, interdependence, constant change/evolution, etc.).
Strawman fallacy. Maths or logic are not stories, they are formal systems. Natural Law is the same.
I also never talked about "true" or "real" as well, which are not properties that we care about in law, they are properties that we care about in science. In law, we care about properties such as fairness and impartiality which require different methodologies. This shows that you probably did not understand what I am talking about.
The fact that you conflate what I am saying with Platonicism clearly shows your limits in epistemology, a priori synthetic judgements have nothing to do with Platonicism.
"Beyond Pythagoras: No Laws Entail Evolution"
BTW Ray was against the ideas of Descartes and Plato...
What I am talking about has nothing to do with the "ideas of Descartes and Plato".
Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.
Again, your mistake is a categorical one. You believe that law should be derived from empirical methods without ever proving why, and I will actually show you why it is not possible to derive a coherent system with these methods.
It's not a mistake, it's practical scientific wisdom 
It has been shown many times that most things that are some kind of "god/universe given" are usually a power grab or utopian illusion...
Strawman of my arguments again, and I will repeat myself: law is not a science.
For law to be fair, objective and coherent, you need it to apply to every human, to have isonomy of rights, for the rights to respect the law of noncontradiction, and for them to be non-prescriptive (Hume's Guillotine). Otherwise, your system of law is just a derivative of the "law of the strongest" which is subjective.
For a law to be fair it needs to be context-dependent - understand the unique circumstances. Nietzsche explained this pretty well.
Legal principles cannot be context-dependent, otherwise they are subjective and there is no isonomy in rights, or the rights contradict themselves. I'm pretty sure that you like it when your government tells you in some contexts that you have right to your property (including your body), and then in other contexts forces you to inject foreign substances in it "to protect you and old people from a dangerous virus" lol.
If that's what you like though, continue living and defending this kind of system man, I just feel sorry for you that you would accept and defend arbitrary legal systems.
Moreover, our actions are usually just a consequence of a myriad of cause-and-effect relationships, not a free choice. I would recommend listening to Prof. Robert Sapolsky, e.g. this.
Are you sure about that? I thought you claimed that "...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong", but you seem pretty sure of yourself all of a sudden. Are you even able to stay coherent?
BTW being "fair, objective" is impossible "by design". Humans don't evolve this way.
Which is why I am not talking about humans, but about a legal formal system to judge and organize their actions. Again, you don't seem to understand.
Natural Law is objective because it can be found by reasoning by individuals of any period or culture, just like mathematical theorems. It is fair because it respects isonomy of rights, is non-prescriptive and is impartial. Its application by humans might not always be fair, just like students can make mistakes when they try to use a mathematical theorem, this still doesn't invalidate the theorem.
Spoiler alert: this doesn't exist, and if you accept such systems of law as legitimate, you're just accepting that an arbitrary authority can at any time tell you that "you won't own anything and you will be happy and you will eat bugs" or if there is a consensus that killing millions of innocent people is fine, that's enough to justify it, you just need a little bit of social engineering, majority of population that agrees, and "voilà".
It is simply a practical approach by trial and error and also shows that imperfect hierarchies and imperfect maladaptive systems are real - and it's all that we have.
This is not all that we have, anarchist societies have existed and still exist, although they are a threat for governments who try their best to destroy them as they are afraid that their citizens see alternative models that work. If you want to continue living in the same old ways, fine for me, I am not trying to force you. It's just funny how much you're trying to convince yourself that something else doesn't exist though while claiming to be a "realist", I also see that you don't agree with Ray and Kropotkin for that.
All of that while being told that you are in "democracy" and that you have a "right to property" (noncontradiction law is completely obliterated and nobody even understand something as simple as that). Georges Orwell warned us a long time ago, but most people still accept doublethink and double binds. If you try to defend such systems as legitimate, you are just coping in a state of Stockholm syndrome.
I thought that we were talking about reality not dreams or illusions. 
Exactly, which is why I am explaining that political and legal systems create doublethink and double binds which lead to delusion, and that these systems need to use constant hypnosis, propaganda and social engineering on the population for its people to continue endorsing it.
Can't you accept the human's (systemic) imperfections?
Humans will always break the law, I am fine with that. I am just talking about a legal system that humans can use to organize their societies, which is an important thing in any political system. By the way, perfection (or imperfection) is a subjective value judgement.
It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"
I've never said that all info can be deduced, please don't put words into my mouth, this is not an honest debatting technique (I actually think that there is ample room for empiricism, the scientific method and induction in other domains),
you contradict yourself, because earlier you wrote:
Okay, so here is your first mistake: Law is not a science (just like maths are not a science), and Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods, utilitarianism or the hypothetico-deductive method. Natural Law is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement, just like mathematical theorems are.
So where is the contradiction?
I said that Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods but is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement. I've never said that all info can be deduced, and I did not say that I am against empirical methods. They just don't work in the context of law, or mathematical theorems.
Just like medicine or private detectives need to use abduction which is more effective for the purpose of their own discipline.
But you're claiming that empiricism should be the only method used in all disciplines. I just pointed out your lack of nuance here, no contradiction on my hand.
A don't belive in a priori... Aristole was wrong...
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes... Again you're wrong, a priori synthetic judgements don't come from them.
By the way, I think that utilitarism is also wrong, because we usually never know if the final consequences will be good or bad...
We agree on something then, although probably not for the same reason.
So you basically consider yourself as a consequentialist?
and I've never made any claim of truth or "naturality" (it is just confusing because the Natural Law theorists were postulating a human nature during religious Middle Age, but Natural Law in 2024 doesn't have anything to do with that anymore, don't conflate the two).
This doctrine seem to contradicte itself more often...
Again you make an empty statement. Where is your demonstration of a contradiction? If someone prior to Pythagoras made a mistake in his discovery of the theorem and that Pythagoras later on corrected it, does it mean the theorem is wrong?
I only claimed that Anarcho-capitalism is not based on beliefs, just like maths are not based on beliefs, and that Natural Law is the only coherent legal system that we know of.
Math is based on axiom, which can be disqualified...
Then disqualify the Pythagorean theorem, I'm waiting. The keyword here is "can", which doesn't necessarily mean "will".
So I just defined what law is, and I then demonstrated that only Natural Law satisfies the criterias of a coherent system of law (which is why it is an a priori synthetic judgement). All other systems don't satisfy these criterias because the "rights" of Positive law or utilitarianism contradict themselves and create double binds (such as when you're told you have right of property but cannot remove squatters from your property).
It your point of view, not mine. I'm not convinced. There is no "natural law" there are only (changing) constraints and (strange, evolving) atracttors...
Again, I thought that you said "...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong". Yet you use attractors for your reasoning.
Did you know that attractors are mathematical objects and depend on mathematical theorems such as the ones in number theory or set theory to be used (for example to measure time), which are... you guessed it, a priori synthetic judgements. So you're basically using such formal tools whenever it suits you to guide your thinking, but reject them whenever you don't like them.
I'm pretty sure that you don't have any problem to admit that the Pythagorean theorem is valid even though you cannot falsify it.
I can touch or see a triangle and measure it with my palms
And I can shoot people in the ass with my gun if they attack me in order to defend my legitimate rights to not be aggressed. What's your point?
It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.
It is called "objective" because it doesn't depend on a human subject, like any a priori synthetic judgement. That is actually its strenght and why it allows for anarchy and decentralization, because you don't need any 3rd party to define it for it to still exist and make sense, which wouldn't be the case if it was a posteriori/empirical like what you're suggesting.
agina an internal contradiction of NL...
Where, why? Explain where there is a contradiction.
"Rationalism" is just a set of deductive methods, just like "Empiricism" is another set of inductive methods (and you have another category of methods which is called abduction in other contexts).
I know that as a sense-maker, please don't be condescending...
Well I am sorry if you think I am condescending (although I would remind you that you said earlier I lacked nuance and did not understand epistemology or ontology). You've shown that you don't understand a priori synthetic judgements, and were making categorical and methodical mistakes by claiming that NL is unscientific. I am just trying to help you to understand where you are wrong by taking some of my precious time and energy, nothing condescending as you can correct your mistakes, although I am starting to loose patience.
By the way, I understand that you've listened to Daniel Schmachtenberger, pretty obvious when you talk about complex systems, attractors, and now sense-making. Pretty surprised that you would subscribe to this line of thinking after all of the claims you've made in this thread.
I've demonstrated earlier how this is done, but I think you did not really understand, it seems that you believe that empiricism is the only valid method in every domain of human knowledge and every context, which is very limited and lacks nuance and context.
LOL, and who is using ad hominem now?
I was correct in my assessments that you believe empiricism is the only valid method (you even criticize my "Platonicist bias" later), so this was no ad hominem. But if you think I am wrong, then explain how.
Yes we are, however methodological individualism works to create a coherent system of law. I am not denying that humans are social beings, the system I am talking about just doesn't sacrifice individuality, while still allowing for individuals to form human groups and function in societies. The opposite is not true, collectivism usually sacrifice individuals.
No, people are heterogeneous - can be seen as a Normal Distribution (Bell Curve), not dichotomous...
I am not talking about people, I am talking about systems of laws, individualism and collectivism.
Well you don't share any argument here and just claim without details, but if your counter-arguments are on the same level as what you previously shared, I'm afraid you will need to do much better.
All I wrote is the current stance of the science, you claim otherwise, so the burden of proof is on you. Simple as that.
You actually claim to make a counter-argument, and I already told you that law is not a science. So I already did my part in regards of the "burden of proof" and am waiting for yours.
Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.
Wrong, it can be used to make a functional decentralized society that doesn't sacrifice individuals, and even Ray was a Kropotkinian anarchist, who actually respect Natural Law. Even people from the 16th century such as La Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talk about Natural Law. Most anarchists were aware of Natural Law, but it is very rare in contemporary people that talk about political science, because most people don't understand basic epistemology or logic. Most people think that "anarchy is anomie", they don't even know or understand what jusnaturalism is.
There is no "Natural Law".
Of course there is a Natural Law, I just described it to you. You can deny it if you want, as you could say that there is no Pythagoras theorem, it doesn't erase their existence, it just serves to remove your cognitive dissonance.
Humans simply have some similar dispositions (proclivities, tendencies) but in specific cases they act in context-depended (i.e not universal) ways.
Which is why I recommended you to read Jonathan Haidt's books and that I said that this isn't a good idea to base your legal or political system on subjective human value systems like done currently.
Yoy rely too much on ilusionary philosophy... Or you still seem to be standing on a utopian ground - rejecting the natural traits of people and characteristic of their complex systems...
You've shown for 5 minutes straight that you don't even understand what I am saying, so I will simply ignore this ad hominem.
"developmental stages" is a falsifed/refuted pseudoscience.
You seem quite sure of yourself again. Are EVERY developmental psychological theories and stages been refuted or some of them? I'm curious by the way, what's not refuted/falsified in social science or psychology according to you?
You just have to see how Charlie acts on the Ray Peat Forum, and other members in this community, most people don't reach very high psychological development stages during their life, even though they try to "boost their metabolism". That's sad, but that's how it is, humanity currently doesn't have the means as a whole to live in a non-authoritarian way,
Yep. Reality...
So?
...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box
I know these kind of claims, and I have done a lot of research on the limits of human knowledge, epistemological skepticism and the likes. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. This by the way applies to every model and system, not just Natural Law.
You seem to like to sound smart... 
You seem to assume that I seem to like to sound smart. I just like to be precise and I don't drop concepts or names if they are not necessary to the discussion, I only use names whenever necessary to make a point and be sure that the person I am talking to understands.
However, some models and systems are still more robust than others, we still use maths or logic to act in the world, because even if "the map is not the territory", some maps are better drawn and more precise than others, which helps to navigate inside the territory much better.
It's obvious dear Watson
Glad that you agree with me there, you might not be a lost cause after all.
That's the case with Natural Law.
No, it isn't.
You can claim that a mathematical theorem isn't valid if you don't like it and it hurts your feelings, it wouldn't prevent others from using it.
The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb
I really appreciate NNT and have read most of what he has written, and this is pretty obvious that you're quoting him out of context. NNT criticizes rationalism in the field of statistics and finances, with midwits that stupidly believe that statistics and probabilities can perfectly predict the future and find the causes of every effects because they are based on laws such as the Normal law/bell curve. And I completely agree with him in this context, but being the intellectual that he is and a mathematician, I am pretty sure that NNT understands a priori synthetic judgements and mathematical theorems, and that he doesn't criticize rationalist methods in every fields of knowledge. Again, context and nuance my friend.
You knowledge on non-ergodic system seem to be pretty good, but you still have such a platonic bias...
I don't have any platonic bias. I use empirical or rational methods whenever they are appropriate, in context.
I do think and observe that humans seem to have some innate "categories of understanding" such as logic and causality, which helps us to perform a priori reasoning (and there are other types of reasoning), such as what we do with mathematical theorems for example.
You still don't understand that rationalism can be useful in some contexts, and still believe that law should be "real" or "true" while the purpose of law have nothing to do with that as this is not a science.
So, you did not change my mind as you did not refute anything so far, you showed your subjective preference that every field of human knowledge should be subjected to empiricism, and you didn't provide any demonstration or explanation of why this should be the case. Hope I brought a bit more clarity here and helped you understand one or two things.
I'm simply a realist... You rather not... Thank you for helping me understand this.
Again, you are making a subjective value judgement. If you want to feel superior, make value judgements and ad hominems go ahead, but since this is a waste of my time I will just ignore it from now on.
