Are states' rights more important than human lives?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you realize your post #267 has almost comical errors in detailing a) what Milton Friedman (and the Monetarist school) believes and b) what Postivism is; to the point where you just about ascribe the exact opposite of their beliefs to them.

Sigh.

I understand better than you. I believe in Natural Law. I believe that laws can be intrinsically good and bad, and that laws that are intrinsically bad ought to be repealed.

Positivism comes from Bentham and utilitarianism. Positivism denies that laws can be intrinsically good or bad - they merely 'are'. A system is a system, we cannot assess whether the system is good or bad in all cases - because that it meaningless. We can only take things case by case. A law which is good in one instance may be bad in another.

Positivists believe that law is a construct of human society, and that law can only be a law within that society - change the society and the laws must change to reflect that society.

Natural Law (per Aquinas), is very different. It believes there exists a universal norm and that all societies are bound to their universal norm, and that this is both knowable (by most people), and that a law can be assessed based on whether it conforms with natural law.

And I never attributed any statement to Friedman. All I said is that it doesn't matter who is calling for perpetual government spending beyond the means of the state - they are wrong. It will not lead to prosperity - it will lead to ruin.

[giblets]

Plenty of people ask this quite often actually . Economists have shown themselves to be very bad at prediction. Its more like making educated guesses, but the world economy is not so easy to tame. I've come to see it as more akin to philosphy than biology.

Duh, how is a predictable business cycle even possible?

[Sava]

The leaps in logic BK makes are astounding.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks, I was taught all this by a lawyer friend of mine, many years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Positivism denies that laws can be intrinsically good or bad - they merely 'are'. A system is a system, we cannot assess whether the system is good or bad in all cases - because that it meaningless. We can only take things case by case. A law which is good in one instance may be bad in another.

Positivists believe that law is a construct of human society, and that law can only be a law within that society - change the society and the laws must change to reflect that society.

Um... Legal Positivism is not the same as Philosophical Positivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Positivism assumes that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.[2] Obtaining and verifying data that can be received from the senses is known as empirical evidence.[1] This view holds that society operates according to general laws like the physical world. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are rejected.

Basically: you understand nothing, Ben Snow.

And I never attributed any statement to Friedman.

Friedman can spend into oblivion

That's back to back posts, btw. Why exactly would Friedman spend anything?

[Ben Kenobi]

Um... Legal Positivism is not the same as Philosophical Positivism.

So, it's just a 'coincidence' that the two share the same name?

No, it's not a coincidence. But you know that, which is why you're making this argument.

One, Positivism has nothing to do with empiricism. Empiricism explicitly states that it can only apply to things that can be measured. Empiricism explicitly states that it is only partial understanding of the world - and not the complete understanding of the world.

Basically, empiricism is a tool - it helps you get to where you are going. Positivism reverses this, the tool becomes the goal - what you use to measure then becomes the truth that you find. If you choose not to find something, or choose not to see it, then it no longer exists.

Positivism fits in well with Marxism because both are materialist philosophies, and both deny the existence of absolute truth. Empiricism, on the other hand explicitly argues that it is limited - one cannot gain the whole sum of knowledge through it - even as it's principles are useful for obtaining reliable evidence.

When you're done citing wikipedia as evidence of the breadth of your education, maybe we can get onto a serious discussion?

[giblets]

You know who else was an Austrian? HITLER. Coincidence? I think not.

[Hauldren Collider]

Plenty of people ask this quite often actually . Economists have shown themselves to be very bad at prediction. Its more like making educated guesses, but the world economy is not so easy to tame. I've come to see it as more akin to philosphy than biology.

Dude, economics, particularly microeconomics, makes TONS of predictions. It can't predict the stock market or business cycle, because if it could, then they would cease to be useful or exist, respectively. But it can predict stuff like demand curves. I have no idea what you're on about. If it didn't predict anything at all, it would be like religion: Unfalsifiable and useless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, it's just a 'coincidence' that the two share the same name?

You are hopeless.

Do you also believe that the economic term of 'rational' is the exact same as the the philosophical term and therefore someone who is mentally ill, but wants more of a good rather than less, should be considered rational?

When you're done citing wikipedia as evidence of the breadth of your education, maybe we can get onto a serious discussion?

I am sorry that your views are so dramatically at odds with the collected knowledge (which is what wikipedia is). That is how we define terms, by the vast majority agreeing on their definition. Must be hard to know you fall on the side of falsity.

[Ben Kenobi]

it would be like religion: Unfalsifiable and useless.

Like I said, to them it's Margaritaville.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you also believe that the economic term of 'rational' is the exact same as the the philosophical term and therefore someone who is mentally ill, but wants more of a good rather than less, should be considered rational?

Do I believe that there is a rationale for irrational people to demonstrate rationality in a ratio according to their mental stability? Yes.

I am sorry that your views are so dramatically at odds with the collected knowledge (which is what wikipedia is).

It's also not a reliable source.

Hey look, the article says that Positivism was invented by Jesus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Far more reliable than you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Far more reliable than you

Wow, I didn't know I was the standard for assessing document reliability.

[BlackCat]

Wow, I didn't know I was the standard for assessing document reliability.

Lets say it this way - you make the Protocols of Zion sound almost sane.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lets say it this way - you make the Protocols of Zion sound almost sane.

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's not even a particularly good one. Maybe in another 10 years it will start getting good. It needs lots and lots of work.