CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION (I might as well just beat this horse until it’s r

CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION

(I might as well just beat this horse until it’s really, really, dead.)

Aggression that causes violence is determined empirically. The definition of Property that people treat as aggressed against is determined empirically. You don’t get to make stuff up. We are supposed to be the smart people you know?

[kinsella]—“Libertarianism says that only aggression may be countered with force, that aggression is the only way to violate rights so that a forceful response is justified. Other rightful behavior, even if it is immoral or “bad,” is rightful so long as it is not aggression”— [kinsella]

Yes, rothbardian libertarianism says that immoral and unethical actions are permissible and that you are forbidden from retaliating against people in court, and that you can be taken to court if you retaliate against immoral and unethical actions.

Yes, rothbardian libertarianism legally authorizes immoral and unethical conduct. Yes, rothbardian libertarians prohibits retaliation for immoral and unethical conduct. Yes rothbardian libertarianism provides incentives to engage in immoral and unethical conduct. Because immoral and unethical actions allow profiting from unproductive professions that are parasitic to the polity. So yes, rothbardian ethics reflect the ethics of the low trust societies of the world. And in all low trust societies, the state is necessary as a suppressor of violence. That is why all low trust societies have strong central states: to suppress violence created by immoral and unethical actions that are non-productive, and which have no peaceful means of resolution other than violence.

High trust societies force all profiting into the market where it is mutually beneficial. High trust societies force ALL competition into the market. They force all actions into PRODUCTIVE actions.

It is ONLY high trust societies that have produced liberty. That is why only the formerly aristocratic nations possess liberty. Because through outbreeding and violence they forced all conflict into the market for goods and services, by prohibiting both criminal, unethical and immoral actions.

Why have no low trust societies that employ the absence of moral and ethical standards ever formed?

<sarcasm>

OF COURSE I’M RIGHT.

I know. You will get there. Or you will go to your grave whispering “I believe in NAP, I believe in NAP, I Believe in NAP” like any other good cult member.

Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it. Abandon rothbardiansim as the failed program that it is: a pathetic attempt to pretend that cosmopolitanism was somehow a competitor to aristocratic egalitarianism.

TIme for big boy shoes.

You can do it if you try.

<sarcasm/>

PROPERTY IS DEFINED BY EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL MEANS

If we define property as people ACT in high trust societies define property then yes it is a trespass. That is what I can’t seem to get across to you.

Low trust = scarce property rights.

High trust = lots of property rights.

People flock TO high trust societies and AWAY from low trust societies.

High trust = high velocity of trade and low demand for the state.

Low trust = low velocity of trade and high demand for the state.

It’s just the evidence. Nothing will change it. No matter how many canticles for rothbard you kneel for. No matter how much hand wringing that you muster.

Jan lester was almost right. I”m right. This is how it is. Just time to deal with it.

A voluntary polity is only POSSIBLE under suppression of immoral and unethical behavior via the common law, because people will not abandon or tolerate unethical behavior.

2 mins · Like

<sarcasam>

So. Um. Like usual. I’m right. Yeah. Sorry. It must be painful.

I kinda wish someone else had this job. You know? But it seems like it’s my civic duty to flush Rothbardian ethics into the toilet of phlogiston theories.

<sarcasam/>