Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mango wrote:Dogma,
Your quote

"And, again, your argument becomes if law = restriction, and restriction does not = freedom, then more law = less freedom. Paradox of material implication. "

For you to validate that argument you need to show how it is a paradox of material implication, not just say it is.

If law is restriction then, if restriction is not freedom, law is restriction. P -> (Q -> P)

Dogma,
Here is where your argument breaks down. For my statement “more laws = less freedom” to be a paradox, requires one of those statements to be true regardless of whether or not the other statement is true, or it would require both of those statements to be true regardless of what is said.

Is it true in all cases that a law restricts freedom? Yes, by definition all law works by restriction. Is there a paradox there? No
Is it true that in all cases restriction is the opposite of freedom? Yes, again by definition. Again, there is no paradox there.
Is it true in all cases that if one is more restricted they are less free? Yes, again there is no paradox.
Is it true that in some cases law does not work by restriction? If you can prove this, then my argument becomes a paradox.
Is it true in some cases that restriction is freedom? If you can prove this there is a paradox

The other side of that coin is if both of those statements are true regardless of what is said. For example “more laws=Swiss cheese” so “Swiss cheese = less freedom”
In neither case is the statement true. So there is no paradox.
If the statement “more laws =more order then Swiss cheese=more freedom” there is a paradox, because “more laws=more order” but Swiss cheese does not equal more freedom.

***post edited to remove a statement that on second reading could have been contsrued as insulting or condesending.

Mango wrote:Dogma,
Here is where your argument breaks down. For my statement “more laws = less freedom” to be a paradox, requires one of those statements to be true regardless of whether or not the other statement is true, or it would require both of those statements to be true regardless of what is said.

But I didn't say that was a paradox, did I? I said 'If laws are restrictive then, if freedom is not restriction, laws are restriction' is one of the classical paradoxes of material implication. Because you have defined freedom as the absence of restriction the notion that laws are restrictive is an axiom stating that laws reduce freedom. Your statement will be true regardless of whether or not restriction is necessarily the negation of freedom.

Mango wrote:
Is it true in all cases that a law restricts freedom? Yes, by definition all law works by restriction. Is there a paradox there? No

Positive law does not restrict freedom despite clearly being law. I pointed this out, and you ignored it. Cherry-picking.

Mango wrote:
Is it true that in all cases restriction is the opposite of freedom? Yes, again by definition. Again, there is no paradox there.

If it is true in all cases that restriction is the opposite of freedom, by definition, then you aren't making an argument at all. But stating an axiom.

Mango wrote:
Is it true in all cases that if one is more restricted they are less free? Yes, again there is no paradox.

If one is perhaps, but we aren't talking about one, are we? No, we're talking about society, as that is the context in which law, the general term, applies. If we were only talking about a single individual it would be very possible that laws could create more freedom, as the law need not bind the individual in question.

Mango wrote:
Is it true that in some cases law does not work by restriction? If you can prove this, then my argument becomes a paradox.

Positive law ex. a court may accept legal precedence as evidence. Not must accept, but may do so.

Mango wrote:
Is it true in some cases that restriction is freedom? If you can prove this there is a paradox

Restriction of one individual is freedom for all other individuals who are not like the first group. The law has restricted group A, and left group B free from their influence. You want to classify this as benefit, but the law could simply be phrased as 'Group B shall have freedom from the influence of Group A'.

Mango wrote:
The other side of that coin is if both of those statements are true regardless of what is said. For example “more laws=Swiss cheese” so “Swiss cheese = less freedom”
In neither case is the statement true. So there is no paradox.

Yes, but equivalence is not an operator in logic, unless what you mean is therefore (T: ). In which case the statement reads 'there are laws T: there is not freedom'. We can drawn no conclusions from this statement alone, but in the context of the leading argument 'If laws are restrictive then, if freedom is not restriction, laws are restriction' either statement is true in and of itself.

I realize that I altered the point, but you never actually substantiated the possibility of 'less freedom' or 'more law'. If, by definition, freedom is the absence of restriction, then it is not actually possible to have 'less freedom'. You either have it, or you don't.

Mango wrote:
If the statement “more laws =more order then Swiss cheese=more freedom” there is a paradox, because “more laws=more order” but Swiss cheese does not equal more freedom.

You can't judge the paradoxical nature of either of those statements, as they are not argumentatively linked. They are two independently reached conclusions that would be subject to different arguments. Also:

If there is Swiss cheese, then I can eat Swiss cheese.
If I can eat Swiss cheese, then I am free to eat Swiss cheese.
If I am free to eat Swiss cheese, then I have the freedom to eat Swiss cheese.
If I have the freedom to eat Swiss cheese, then I have freedom.
T: If there is Swiss cheese, then I have freedom.

Dogma,
You have a basic misunderstanding of what positive law is. It is not that a court may or may not choose to use legal precedence. It is the law ENFORCED by the courts. That is the problem of using wiki as your primary source of reference. And you did use wiki for both your argument of what positive law is as well as what a paradox of material implication is. The wording and text of both are identical matches to wiki. Try using sources that come from .edu or academically accepted and established dictionaries.
I have attached a link to a paper from Yale, that discusses exactly what positive law is. Feel free to read it at your leisure.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/murphy_philosophy.pdf

Again, since you have not proven that a law does not equal a restriction, then you have not proven that my argument is a paradox of material implication.
Dogma, Your quote
“If one is perhaps, but we aren't talking about one, are we? No, we're talking about society, as that is the context in which law, the general term, applies. If we were only talking about a single individual it would be very possible that laws could create more freedom, as the law need not bind the individual in question.”
Ok, in ALL cases a restriction does not =freedom.
Again my argument stands and is not a paradox of implication.

Try again.

What about a law that partially or completely repeals an existing law which created restrictions, or else creates new opportunities which didn't previously exist?

For example, the recent law in various creating Gay Marriage In All But Name. Prior to this law it was impossible for two men or two women to 'marry' each other. Now it is possible.

Did this law reduce freedom?

Now you're just playing with our minds Killkrazy.

Killkrazy,
You are again describing a benefit as a result of a law, not freedom. For something to be a law, it has to be enforceable. If a law is passed that repeals a law, the government has to ensure that the law is being obeyed. So if a county clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to the aformentioned gay couple, then the courts have the duty,authority and the ability, through officers of the court, to impose punishments upon the clerk. If the clerk is forced to issue the license through threat of punishment or through punishment, or if the clerk is removed and another installed,at that point you have indeed restricted choice. Therfore again the law has restricted freedom.

I personally believe you should be able to marry whoever or whatever you want. But if individuals in the community you live in want to ostrasize you for your choice, I'm ok with that to.


**the edit in this case was removing the word "a" from an incorrect place in the sentence.

Mango wrote:Dogma,
You have a basic misunderstanding of what positive law is. It is not that a court may or may not choose to use legal precedence. It is the law ENFORCED by the courts.

Law as enforced is defined by legal precedent, and is only relevant in that the court may, or may not, use it.

Mango wrote:
That is the problem of using wiki as your primary source of reference. And you did use wiki for both your argument of what positive law is as well as what a paradox of material implication is. The wording and text of both are identical matches to wiki.

I copied that particular segment of the United States Code from wiki because it was an exact quote. I wrote that particular paradox of material implication from memory, the fact that it matches wiki is merely coincidental.

Mango wrote:
Try using sources that come from .edu or academically accepted and established dictionaries.

So now you're disputing a direct quote, the original source of which I indicated clearly, and a common paradox formulation because they match wiki? That's pretty ridiculous.

Mango wrote:
I have attached a link to a paper from Yale, that discusses exactly what positive law is. Feel free to read it at your leisure.

Did you read the article? Because it agrees with my take on positive law.

Mango wrote:
Again, since you have not proven that a law does not equal a restriction, then you have not proven that my argument is a paradox of material implication.

It would be a paradox of implication even if I hadn't proven that law is not equal to restriction. That's the point of formal logic, it doesn't matter what is contained within the specific form of P. It only matters that it is consistently labeled as P. If you don't want the argument to be subject to the paradox of implication, then you must reformulate the argument in a way which is not subject to the paradox.

Mango wrote:
Dogma, Your quote
“If one is perhaps, but we aren't talking about one, are we? No, we're talking about society, as that is the context in which law, the general term, applies. If we were only talking about a single individual it would be very possible that laws could create more freedom, as the law need not bind the individual in question.”
Ok, in ALL cases a restriction does not =freedom.

That doesn't escape my objection. All cases still includes the case of one who lives in a society, but is not restricted by its laws.

Dogma,
No the article did not agree with you. The key concept is ENFORCE. Read it again.

Here is a direct quote from the article

“positive law is law whose content is clear, specific, specific, and determinate enough to guide and coordinate human conduct, to create stable exceptions, and to be enforceable by the court”

So, yes positive law allows for exceptions. The key concept however is "enforceable by the court". That means in all cases, even when an exception to the norm is given, it is STILL ENFORCED BY THE COURT"


When you copied and pasted the form of an argument, but do not show HOW the argument matches that form, you are not proving your argument. You are copying a statement.
I showed how my argument does not meet the definitiion of a paradox of material implication. The reason it does is the difference between = vs ->.

-> is a material implication (which as an aside can be legitimate argument form)
Paradox, go look it up. When an argument is a paradox, then it becomes invalid.
now go look up what = means.

I have shown how my argument is not a paradox. You have not shown how it is. Yet you keep saying it is.
You say a positive law is not an enforced law. I have shown that most emphatically it is. You keep saying that it is not.
Claiming something is true, even after being proven wrong, is not reasonable.

"when someone has not arrived at their position by reason, they cannot be reasoned out of it"

Using reason in an argument with an unreasonable person is like peeing into the wind. All it does is get you wet and make you look foolish.

With that I bid you adieu.