I’m a paid subscriber, but I’m not sure exactly how to ask Professor Heumer questions on topics not related to his most recent posts. Anyway, my question concerns how he conceives an anarcho-capitalist system would/should deal with abusive/neglectful parents. How do I get to where I can pose this question to him?
Anyone who is aware of an abusive parent should be able to sue that parent, using the free market arbitration system that the anarcho-capitalist society would have, for whatever they think is a good remedy. This option might be underused, because most people would not want to spend their own time and effort and money helping someone else's kids. At the same time, the status quo both under-protects and over-protects children as well, because the state doesn't have any strong incentive to take care of children either.
Whenever justification is mentioned, I think of Popper, who claimed that justification was impossible.
Popper accepted deductive logic, and logic is intended to guarantee that true premises and valid logic would produce true conclusions. If the premises are justified, then the conclusion would be justified. The problem is how to get things started without an infinite regress; what could he justify without already having justified premises? It is just a variant of Agrippa's trilemma.
Popper sees justification as quite narrow and demanding, while other philosophers disagree. I am stumped.
Digression: what do we get when we justify a belief? We are not wise to treat justified beliefs as certain; and in some cases we may need or rationally want to act on unjustified beliefs. Ironically, the most obvious purpose lies in criticism, which Popper embraced enthusiastically.
I’m a paid subscriber, but I’m not sure exactly how to ask Professor Heumer questions on topics not related to his most recent posts. Anyway, my question concerns how he conceives an anarcho-capitalist system would/should deal with abusive/neglectful parents. How do I get to where I can pose this question to him?
Anyone who is aware of an abusive parent should be able to sue that parent, using the free market arbitration system that the anarcho-capitalist society would have, for whatever they think is a good remedy. This option might be underused, because most people would not want to spend their own time and effort and money helping someone else's kids. At the same time, the status quo both under-protects and over-protects children as well, because the state doesn't have any strong incentive to take care of children either.
Whenever justification is mentioned, I think of Popper, who claimed that justification was impossible.
Popper accepted deductive logic, and logic is intended to guarantee that true premises and valid logic would produce true conclusions. If the premises are justified, then the conclusion would be justified. The problem is how to get things started without an infinite regress; what could he justify without already having justified premises? It is just a variant of Agrippa's trilemma.
Popper sees justification as quite narrow and demanding, while other philosophers disagree. I am stumped.
Luckily, the question of the source of justification has already been solved.
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/compassionate-phenomenal-conservatism
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/phenomenal-conservatism-and-the-internalist
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/phenomenal-conservatism-uber-alles
Digression: what do we get when we justify a belief? We are not wise to treat justified beliefs as certain; and in some cases we may need or rationally want to act on unjustified beliefs. Ironically, the most obvious purpose lies in criticism, which Popper embraced enthusiastically.