Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

logart

Newbies
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by logart

  1. Anarchists saying that the proper government, which is a government that only use retaliatory force (the self-defense kind of force) to protect individual rights, is bad just because it is a monopoly on violence, is nonsense. Specially if the government is funded by voluntarily means ("voluntary taxes"). Anarchist have a phobia. 

     

     

  2. On 7/12/2010 at 5:42 PM, Teflon said:

    Your example includes a type of category error related to your use of the word "negative".

     

    You cannot prove a negative in the metaphysical sense if the domain of existence is beyond your perceptual means. For example, it is clearly not possible to prove that Darth Vader does not exist in a galaxy far, far away without having simultaneous knowledge of every far, far away galaxy in existence. Thus, you cannot prove the negative existence of something that could arbitrarily exist anywhere in the universe.

     

    On the other hand, you can evaluate the truthfulness of the statement "x is immoral" because the word "negative" when used in this context does not relate to negative existence but rather to negation of the good (i.e., something is bad or evil, the opposite of good). The evidence to support or refute such a claim can be ascertained because the standard of morality is man's life on Earth. This is an area of research that should be accessible to anyone who understands the consequences of "x" within the context of one's own moral code of values.

     

    That's my take on it.

    Yes, make sense. 

    It is possible to prove negative claims, but only for stuff that we know exists (positives). For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents.  Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer. 

    People conveniently use silly examples like this, to prove that it is possible to prove "a negative", but the desk, the drawer, nor the apple, are negatives, they are positives because we know that all three items metaphysically exists, so we can say that there is a 0.00001% of probabilities to find an apple inside the drawer of an unknown desk, and it would actually be provable, but is impossible to prove something when there is no previous evidence of its existence, so, to say, we will find a unicorn inside the desk drawer, that's a 0% chance of finding it, so, no matter how many times you search inside desk drawers around the world, a unicorn will never be found inside a desk drawer.

    Proponents of "proving a negative is possible" will only be able to prove that proving a negative claim is possible only for metaphysical animated and inanimate objects with previous evidence of their existence, but when you are searching a unicorn inside a desk drawer, they will just tell you, keep trying until you find it.

    Super silly. 

  3. The concept of Private property disappears in an anarchy. There are only possessions, like when a dog posses a bone, until the other dog takes it. The concept of private only exist under a proper government with objective law.

    It does not help when objectivists talk about "private force agencies" or "private judges", they practically are helping anarchists to succeed into stealing that concept. 

×
×
  • Create New...