Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all bored... I realized we had different assumptions -- even though you spelled them out, and I disagreed. I was comparing the real world with a game, so a lot of the "game" assumptions wouldn't apply. And, therefore, the analogy isn't perfect. So, our conversation was useful. This one, though... not so useful. I'm sure I'm partly to blame, since I know very little about anarcho-capitalism, we must be speaking different languages almost. I get the same Rand-type feeling, that some devout anarcho-capitalists are very religious about their beliefs. But, that's just a first impression. I'll research some more. So, maybe this conversation has been useful after all -- to show me that I need to research to try to understand his point of view.

By the way, can you expound a bit on the "and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality" part of your statement?