Is libertarianism incompatible with Democracy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Legal positivism was aimed at creating predictable rights and obligations by creating a transparant, clear system of laws. Theoretically, judges would only rely on statutes and such instead of local customs, "natural law" or subjective notions of morality. They rejected the idea of "natural law" specifically because law & justice are man-made concepts. I have absolutetly no idea where you got the idea from that legal positivism is about exhaustively summing up the things a person is allowed to do, and forbid him from doing anything not expressly allowed; it simply isn't true.

In the UK you can do something unless they pass a law against it, in a positivistic legal system if the government ries to stop you doing something you have to prove a legal right to be able to do it. In practice it does work like that, just like the US government has to justify its rights of government (the opposite principle).

Also, positivism assumes that Rights are not inalienable, worse (as you have already noted) it decouples Justice and Law. Justice is not "man-made" any more than "happiness", Justice is a metaphysical concept. A legal system without metaphysical undergurding is just due process.

[Papewaio]

Happiness is the very definition of self-made, it's the satisfaction with our lot in life, the achievements we have gained by dint of perspiration and the ability to chose to get back up and smile after life knocks us on our arse. We can chose a life of happiness the problem is most people chose a life of pleasure saturation and pain avoidance.

As for justice it is essentially the punishment side of the coin of reciprocity. Justice is the punishment we would expect meted out to us or a loved one if they harmed someone else. The punishment should also result in a net negatitive benefit to the attacker so that there is no profit in the crime... Including those who don't get caught.

You don't need metaphysics you just need to be fair to one and all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for justice it is essentially the punishment side of the coin of reciprocity. Justice is the punishment we would expect meted out to us or a loved one if they harmed someone else. The punishment should also result in a net negatitive benefit to the attacker so that there is no profit in the crime... Including those who don't get caught.

No, that's the definition of "Retribution", quite litterally the "flip side" of positive repriscosity.

"Justice" is something else.

And you need Metaphysics for everything.

[Papewaio]

Blah

[Papewaio]

Actual since it's definition means beyond the physical... Doesn't that leave the physical not needing metaphysics?

Retribution can be just or unjust. That's why I included a variation of he golden rule within my short example of justice i.e. Punish as you would like to be punished.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actual since it's definition means beyond the physical... Doesn't that leave the physical not needing metaphysics?

Retribution can be just or unjust. That's why I included a variation of he golden rule within my short example of justice i.e. Punish as you would like to be punished.

"Above the physical" might be better, the assumption that the world has a concrete "phyiscal" reality is metaphysical.

"Punish as you would like to be punished" - what if I would not punish someone for child rape? Does that mean I should not be punished, is that Just?

I blame C.S. Lewis for the "Golden Rule", he is th earliest proponent I can trace, no doubt he thought it was a way to make Christianity palatable to the masses (it was in his book "Mere Christianity") - crucially, Lewis was a firm believer in "Natural Law" which is basically the same thing as "natural" Justice.

None the less, as it has been populasied by Karen Armstrong it is a completely relativistic and therefore worthless statement.

The actual "Golden Rule" is:

Love the Lord your God with all your Hear and all your Mind and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbour as Youself.

That is not a relativistic statement, it is unequivical and a much better Creed to live your life by. If You don't like the "beardy" God by all means substitue Einstien's/Spinoza's and the import is preserved.

[Fragony]

Course it is, every pure form of ideoligy is, except when it's democracy of course. But it's still the libertarian mindset I'm most fond about.

[Papewaio]

"Above the physical" might be better, the assumption that the world has a concrete "phyiscal" reality is metaphysical.

"Punish as you would like to be punished" - what if I would not punish someone for child rape? Does that mean I should not be punished, is that Just?

I blame C.S. Lewis for the "Golden Rule", he is th earliest proponent I can trace, no doubt he thought it was a way to make Christianity palatable to the masses (it was in his book "Mere Christianity") - crucially, Lewis was a firm believer in "Natural Law" which is basically the same thing as "natural" Justice.

None the less, as it has been populasied by Karen Armstrong it is a completely relativistic and therefore worthless statement.

The actual "Golden Rule" is:

Love the Lord your God with all your Hear and all your Mind and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbour as Youself.

That is not a relativistic statement, it is unequivical and a much better Creed to live your life by. If You don't like the "beardy" God by all means substitue Einstien's/Spinoza's and the import is preserved.

Earlist form of the Golden Rule by Lewis? I think you need to read a few more things outside of Britain and Christianity... actually read abit more in Britain and Christianity and you'd defeat your own declaration:

In the right corner Hay-Zeus oops sorry not south park...

"Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
"

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
—Sirach 31:15

"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" – Confucius [21][22]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius [23]

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[24]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[25]

You can read the rest of the quotes in the wiki on Golden Rule including ones for Ancient Egypt, Hinduism, Plato(nism)

So Ancient Egypt, Greece, India and China... I think at least one of those might be older then say C.S. Lewis and even older then his Lion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Earlist form of the Golden Rule by Lewis? I think you need to read a few more things outside of Britain and Christianity... actually read abit more in Britain and Christianity and you'd defeat your own declaration:

Lewis is the earliest proponent I can find of the "Golden Rule", I'm not challenging the idea that repriscosity is ancient, obviously it is, but that was not my point. Also, no all those quote are referencing the "Golden Rule"

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi

This is analogous to the "Great Commandment", there is no principle of repriscosity, because Mozi does not say that your enemy must love your family in order for you to love his.

"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[24]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[25]

There is even less repriscocity in this, this is explicitely non-reciprical, no matter how other people treat you, you should treat them well.

In any case, you have not addressed my point, that the Golden Rule shawn of some concept of Natural Law is essentially meaningless, you can twist it around however you want.

[Kralizec]

In the UK you can do something unless they pass a law against it, in a positivistic legal system if the government ries to stop you doing something you have to prove a legal right to be able to do it. In practice it does work like that, just like the US government has to justify its rights of government (the opposite principle).

Also, positivism assumes that Rights are not inalienable, worse (as you have already noted) it decouples Justice and Law. Justice is not "man-made" any more than "happiness", Justice is a metaphysical concept. A legal system without metaphysical undergurding is just due process.

Another legal philosopher chips in, I see. No doubt you're able to name several positivist philosophers who've argued in favour of the system you describe.

If the government, or a civil plaintiff, drags someone to court they'll have to prove that the defendent has broken a law, or infringed on some right of theirs. In particular; any act is only subject to criminal prosecution if the act is explicitly prohibited in the penal code.

Positivism holds that laws and ethics often overlap, but that they're not the same - moral norms are only enforcable by the authorities insofar they've been codified. And some things that would be considered "immoral" by society aren't illegal because there are no statutes against them. I like it that way; it's much better that the courts are forced to judge cases according to positive (written) rules rather than relying on their subjective interpetations of morality, or "metaphysic justice". IMHO, of course

[Slyspy]

I can't see what could stop a libertarian system from becoming a strongman autocracy, human nature being what it is.