Anarchistic Law - Re: Anarchism's Flawed Analysis

A brief explanation of objective, anarchistic law.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• anarchy
• anarchism
• retaliatory
• force
• Objectivism
• Ayn
• Rand

[PureLiberalChallenge]

Anarchists seem to SPECIALIZE in intellectual frustration. I had a conversation with Lew Rockwell (who visited New York) of The Ludwig von Mises Institute a few days ago, and he was rather interesting in his way of thought and defense of anarchy -- but he was still FRUSTRATING AS HELL to chat with!

Why are there no well-established authorities on this?! All Lew Rockwell mentioned was Murray Rothbard and Lysand Spooner!

[XOmniverse]

Did something about this video frustrate you?

[natdavi]

I disagree w/Xomniverse b/c of his 2nd definition of "objective". Firstly the point of getting an objective arbitrator is to get someone who's POV isn't clouded by attachment to the situation. Secondly I doubt that said arbitrator would be inclined to disregard the parties' interests in the dispute since that's the point of the dispute

[adaalman]

I don't want knowledge of totality, I'm comfortable with relative knowledge, it's highly utilitarian and is the only method available; My problem is with these people on youtube who are making the grandiose claims of having objective universal knowledge of this and that who I am debating.

[DavoT2]

A very Kant like view of science....however, everything we know about an object is a result of science/logic and reason, as such, any further knowledge will be the result of more of the same ole same ole.

You want knowledge of the totality before you give science its dues, but we're not omniscient, all we have is lowly science and philosophy as the means to acquire knowledge.

[DavoT2]

But what does that actually prove?

For me to accurately remember an object, I must have had first hand experience with it at some point...

[adaalman]

Empirical science is synthetic. It uses what we have available to make judgments, the only parts of it which are analytic are projections of statistical probability. Notice how to be objective these judgments would have to be verified universally, to do that requires universal knowledge.

[adaalman]

It would not be verified directly through sensation but through memory.

[adaalman]

First, the terms are not interchangable because they do not define the same things. Second, there is nothing in relativity which requires that the subjects be singular. For example, grouping is possible in information gathering and of the information itself. So, to split everything between subjective or objective, into a sort of monochrome reality, is to deny the entire spectrum of relativity.

[DavoT2]

An apple implies certain objective qualities,....so according to the terms of your thought experiment, the apple did exist in the past...ie, I have to know what an apple is to imagine it at "any" point in time, otherwise "what" am I imagining..?

[DavoT2]

""Science is empirical not objective""

I see no reason for these terms not to be interchangeable WRT science.

Science's output isn't subjective, just as long as it's subject to verification, IOW, if I can duplicate the results, then it's not just "one" persons opinion, and thus subjective.

[adaalman]

Science is empirical not objective, at least as far as I know. That means science is, in short, based on statistical analysis of general conception of the condition of objects. The status of understanding directly from sensation is that apparently all sensible objects fall apart and break down to elements; that is still within conception, and not yet considering the possibilities of what is occuring outside this relative state.