@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 universe 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, they have been (indirectly) refuted by natural sciences, especially by Complexity Science (nonlinear causality, entanglements, emergence, interrelatedness, interdependence, constant change/evolution, etc.).
"Beyond Pythagoras: No Laws Entail Evolution"
BTW Ray was against 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...
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.
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.
BTW being "fair, objective" is impossible "by design". Humans haven't evolved this way.
I would recommend watching this.
So tell me of any system of law derived from empirical methods or from utilitarianism that respect these conditions?
We are talking about the illegitimacy of Natural Law, do not broaden the scope, please.
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. Occam's razor...
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 initially that we were talking about reality not dreams or illusions... 
Most people are unable to think in a way as described above...We are mostly driven by simple/simplistic ("Mode 1") thinking
Can't you accept the human's (systemic) imperfections?
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.
BTW I don't belive in a priori... Aristole was wrong about this...
By the way, I assume that utilitarism is also wrong, because we usually never know if the final consequences will be good or bad...
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 NL doctrine seem to contradicte itself even more often...
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 axioms, which can be disqualified...
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's your point of view, not mine. I'm not convinced at all. There is no "natural law" in the real world. There are only (changing) constraints and (strange, evolving) attractors...
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
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.
Again an internal contradiction of NL...
"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... Or be - it amuses me...
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?
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...
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.
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". Humans simply have some similar dispositions (proclivities, tendencies) but in specific cases they act in context-depended (i.e not universal) ways.
You rely too much on illusionary philosophy... Or you still seem to be standing on a utopian ground - rejecting the natural traits of people and realistic characteristics of their complex systems...
And in terms of psychological developmental stages, only a few people can currently truly
"developmental stages" is a falsifed/refuted pseudoscience.
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...
...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... 
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
That's the case with Natural Law.
No, it isn't.
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.
Your knowledge of non-ergodic systems seems to be pretty decent, but you still have a such Platonic/Aristotelian bias...
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.
The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb QED
