tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post3621181488430332972..comments2024-03-25T14:25:25.102+00:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Amia Srinivasan's 4 questions for Free Marketeerswindwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-61283524260889495252013-10-27T16:46:09.144+00:002013-10-27T16:46:09.144+00:00Aah these Bong-Tam(???) other similar hybrid abomi...Aah these Bong-Tam(???) other similar hybrid abominations with their fancy degrees and supercilious attitudes. Blood boils when they mimic the whites and produce "theories","opinions",backed by whites invariably to nix Indians openly or surreptitiously.Should be made to talk to a few peasants and farmers to get their heads fixed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-3335520532964875112013-10-24T01:55:34.828+01:002013-10-24T01:55:34.828+01:00The Duty may exist but surely it doesn't entai...The Duty may exist but surely it doesn't entail rejecting the Free Market? That can't be the 'common sense ' view. Yet, Srinivasan suggests that if you believe a duty exists to do things you don't want to do, then this creates a scandal for Free Marketeers. Suppose, there is a consistent system of deontic logic which can express the notion a Positive Duty binding on all possible agents. Then, for a technical reason, the paradox can arise that the articulation of a Duty can forbid or nullify the action it otherwise enjoins. windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-13190872717634218602013-10-24T00:34:35.871+01:002013-10-24T00:34:35.871+01:00Srinivasan isn't writing an academic paper, ju...Srinivasan isn't writing an academic paper, just a Newspaper op-ed. There are plenty of people who believe in Ayn Rand's 'Objective' philosophy and who do make arguments of the sort she describes.<br />In general, there is a Positive Duty to report a crime. I suppose it is up to you whether to treat an assault on your person as a crime or not. In any case, discretion should be maintained in the treatment of victims of certain sorts of crimes. So, this Duty does still exist and ins't 'nullified or forbidden' by anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-58377797169941766312013-10-23T23:25:19.662+01:002013-10-23T23:25:19.662+01:00The Free Market is theoretical concept and those w...The Free Market is theoretical concept and those who claim to base their Moralizing on it need to keep up with its contemporary canonical expression.<br />Are you saying there is a Positive Duty to report a crime? Suppose I was raped by my neighbor's cat. If I report this crime I will make myself a laughing stock and also have to return a lot of kitty litter. Clearly there can be no general beneficient duty of the sort you mention.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-45610355699749539292013-10-23T23:01:09.813+01:002013-10-23T23:01:09.813+01:00Srinivasan is talking about Free Market MORALISTS ...Srinivasan is talking about Free Market MORALISTS not Free Market theorists who either argue from a notion of 'self ownership' or else subscribe to Nozick's earlier work.<br />Thus your criticism misfires.<br />A Positive Duties argument does not, as you suggest, 'forbid or nullify' its own use. Take the Duty to report a crime. Suppose there is a person who believes that this duty entails making a particular type of argument. How does this fact 'nullify or forbid' the reporting of a crime?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com