Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism (Read 1040 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7623
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #40 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 12:41am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 12th, 2018 at 12:22am:
The chicken has the right to defend himself, regardless of what his captors might think. Only the chicken's means of self-defense are in question.

A clever person can take away the chicken's means of self-defense.

The smartest person in the world cannot take away the chicken's right of self-defense.


Rothbard could, and he did.

http://www.hanshoppe.com/2014/12/murray-n-rothbard-and-the-ethics-of-liberty/
As an immediate implication of this insight into the status of the principles of self-ownership and original appropriation as ethical axioms, Rothbard rejected as nonsense all notions of “animal rights.” Animals are incapable of engaging in propositional exchange with humans. Indeed, it is this inability which defines them as non-rational and distinguishes them categorically from men as rational animals. Unable to communicate, and without rationality, animals are by their very nature incapable of recognizing or possessing any rights.

This is, of course, despite the fact that animals do exchange with humans, (see video) but when discussing libertarian rights, we must accept the libertarian concept of rights as a given. This means certain premises are assumed. One example being that animals do not engage in propositional exchange with humans. Because the girl and the crows did not settle on the specifics of the exchanges, you see, it doesn't count.

  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7644
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #41 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 1:09am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 12th, 2018 at 12:41am:
Rothbard could, and he did.
animals are by their very nature incapable of recognizing or possessing any rights.


Rothbard is/was a fool.

When Rothbard feels safety in knowing that all animals "by their very nature" are incapable of recognizing their natural rights, some animal will kill him in spite of his stupidity/ignorance.

Tragic? 

Not really.  Darwinian Survival Of The Fittest/(smartest).  This is how humans (and other species) evolve. 

Stupid/ignorant people will be killed (hopefully before they can procreate and taint the genepool).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34253
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #42 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:36am
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 8:51am:
The IQ of pretty much every group studied has been increasing since IQ tests were created.
I just read the opposite.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34253
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #43 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:38am
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 8:51am:
4.  Nitpick, the aquatic ape theory alluded to on page 1, generally rejected by anthropologists.  It is only promoted by a feminist journalist because it suited her dogma. 
That's the nature of science. Most theories end up being rejected.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34253
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #44 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:51am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:35am:
As usual, you're over-thinking this, Oppo.   

All animals will always have a right to defend themselves.  This right cannot be revoked or infringed.

It's not dependent on anything - it is a natural right. 

Of course, you can sedate the bull, cut his horns off and take away his means of self-defense, but you never took away his right of self-defense.
Yes, animal 'rights'.

If you follow the idea of animal 'rights' to it's limit, you'll go nuts and conclude that humans have no right to eat animals (Why not plant rights too?) and the humans who respect the rights of all 'others' will die out.

Sure, chickens will try to avoid being eaten by foxes and deer will try to avoid hunters, but it doesn't make any sense to me to drag the will to survive into a discussion of rights and use it to claim animals have rights, lest you end up trying to arrest and prosecute predators for eating prey.

Civilized humans have granted animals the privilege of being treated humanely.

Chickens can respect each others 'rights' if they want to, but all we humans need to do is respect their granted privilege to be treated humanely.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2121
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #45 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 9:01am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:36am:
I just read the opposite.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect


Jeff wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:38am:
That's the nature of science. Most theories end up being rejected.
The aquatic ape hypothesis is a great example of pseudo science though.  Its superficially plausible so the casual reader might think its well excepted at least in the running for scientific acceptance.  But it never really was.  It was picked up by this women Elaine Morgan who's now written a dozen books and even had a documentary or two. 

I'd seen one of the documentaries and really liked the idea, then picked up one of her books, she is nuts.  Her idea was that women moved into the water to get away from men on account of all the rape.  Among the ideas, women are afraid of spiders because their hairy and remind them of pubic hair which is scary because of all the rape.  Men like nice asses because that's the view they gut when they were raping.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34253
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #46 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 9:45am
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 9:01am:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect


The aquatic ape hypothesis is a great example of pseudo science though.  Its superficially plausible so the casual reader might think its well excepted at least in the running for scientific acceptance. 
Thanks for setting me straight on IQ trends.

Theories are often wrong. Creating a theory out of observations is a pretty standard thing, and it's not at all rare that a combination of observations will seem to create a plausible theory to some person or even to a group of people, but it will nevertheless fail to be generally accepted.

That doesn't make it "pseudo science", it just makes it a theory that is generally viewed as incorrect.

Isn't that what happened to psychologists theory that homosexuality was a mental disorder? Do you call that "psuedo science" too?

Edit: Being "nuts" in some of your thinking doesn't by itself discredit every theory you might have. (Is "nuts" an official mind scientist term?)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2121
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #47 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 11:01am
Print Post  
Its pseudo science because she continued to flog it long after it was largely abandoned by the scientific community. 

Also, creating hypotheses out of observations is pretty common, theories are generally well tested.

Nuts is my my word, not mind scientists.  She's specifically nuts in the thinking that drove the aquatic ape hypothesis, so I'd say it does discredit that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7644
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #48 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 12:26pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:51am:
Sure, chickens will try to avoid being eaten by foxes and deer will try to avoid hunters, but it doesn't make any sense to me to drag the will to survive into a discussion of rights and use it to claim animals have rights, lest you end up trying to arrest and prosecute predators for eating prey.

I'd like to take another whack at this dead horse.

The "will to survive" is quite different than the right of self-defense.  Even with animals.

A gazelle will usually flee from the cheetah that's chasing it.   But on rare occasions, the gazelle will NOT flee.  It will stand its ground and exercise its right of self-defense. 

Cheetahs have been gored and killed by a pissed-off gazelle that didn't want to be some cheetah's lunch.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34253
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #49 - Jun 13th, 2018 at 2:10pm
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 11:01am:
Its pseudo science because she continued to flog it long after it was largely abandoned by the scientific community. 

Also, creating hypotheses out of observations is pretty common, theories are generally well tested.

Nuts is my my word, not mind scientists.  She's specifically nuts in the thinking that drove the aquatic ape hypothesis, so I'd say it does discredit that.
One person holding on to a theory that is rejected doesn't make it "pseudo science", it just makes it a rejected theory.

Theories that can be tested are, but some theories rely on nothing but observations, and theories about the origin and development of human life are based on scanty evidence to begin with, and some (many/all?) theories of human development are purely speculative, like "Why did humans start walking upright?". Is there any way to "test" such theories?

In another field of science, is there any way to "test" the big bang theory?

Perhaps I mis-remembered, but I thought her theory was that early humans (not "apes") had lived for some period of time in an aquatic environment, and I don't think that a theory that can be dis-proven or proven, just rejected or accepted.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy