LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY IS MEANINGLESS His claim: He has created a theory of

LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY IS MEANINGLESS

His claim:

He has created a theory of liberty

That theory of liberty precedes any dependence upon property (depends on the definition of property)

That theory precedes any dependence upon morality (this is false)

That this theory obviates the dependence upon property for the definition of liberty. (property is not the question, the practical scope of property adjudicable under law is the question, furthermore subjective value is assumed but untestable by third parties)

That this theory is innovative (it is merely a restatement of subjective value)

I can criticize it as such:

1) “interpersonal liberty” is a contradiction in terms. Liberty has referred to freedom from interference in matters of property by the state. One cannot conduct interpersonal state operations. That is a contradiction in terms.

2) morality is demonstrable as a prohibition against free riding necessary for any organism to cooperate. Free riding is an imposed cost.

3) Lester has substituted the contradiction of “interpersonal liberty” for “morality”, rather than expressing liberty as the state of freedom from state imposition of costs (immorality).

To refute this

(a) one must demonstrate that the term liberty with its long history evolved as moral rather than political prohibition. (I think this is impossible)

OR

(b )To demonstrate that morality defined as the imposition of costs (free riding in economic and anthropological terms) is somehow different from the political imposition of costs. (I think this is impossible)

THEREFORE HIS ARGUMENT IS NOT PRE-MORAL, IT IS EXPRESSLY MORAL AND HIS CLAIM IS FALLACIOUS: IT IS MERELY A WORD GAME – A DECEPTION OR AN ERROR.

FURTHERMORE

The purpose of property is to eliminate deception because of the impossibility of measuring changes in subjective value, (lying); and furthermore, the degree of suppression of free riding is dependent upon the economic division of labor AND the family structure extant in any polity. As such the definition of property varies from group to group as the conditions necessary for the conduct of free riding (cost imposition) is constituted from variable conditions. Property definitions limit the scope of impositions of merit to the community.

Change in satisfaction is synonymous with subjective value. There is no difference. There is no debate outside of marxism with subjective value. The question is the objective means of measuring what the polity tolerates as decreases in subjective value that the community is willing to use violence in order to perform restitution.

As such while he claims to have solved the problem of liberty, he has not, since his argument is no improvement over subjective value, and our problem is a means of measurement of something immune to deception that we are willing to use force in order to rectify (restitution).

The question of liberty (preventing state immorality under rule of law) requires one of the following:

(a) we must, despite current failures, identify a necessary, non-preferential definition of property and the means of transgression against it;

Or (b) we must empirically test what definition of property provides people with the experience of liberty and define the experience of liberty as people demonstrate the experience of liberty.

Or (c) we must abandon property as the objective instrumental measure of whether we experience a condition of liberty or not, and then identify an alternative means of measurement;

Or (d) we must identify how to eliminate all possible means of transgression against our property, regardless of it constitution, such that no limit to our consideration of property is necessary.

24 mins · Like

Calling a cat a dog does not change the properties of the cat.

Saying the cart comes before the horse doesn’t fly either. Morality precedes liberty.

You can choose to call me whatever name you want but that does not change me.

You can call someone else my name but that does not make him me.

You can call morality the name “interpersonal liberty”, but that does not mean the properties of “interpersonal-liberty” are not is identical with morality. They are.

His whole edifice is nonsense. Empty verbalism. And furthermore it’s as bad an abuse of critical rationalism as I have ever seen.