CONTRA KINSELLA’S VAPID CRITICISM OF LESTER (From Elsewhere H/T Lee Waaks.) 1) i

CONTRA KINSELLA’S VAPID CRITICISM OF LESTER

(From Elsewhere H/T Lee Waaks.)

1) it’s possible to classify lester’s argument as “pre-property RIGHTS”, even if it’s not pre-propertarian (pre-property). Property rights require OTHERS. Property requires only the self (an actor).

2) Lester is correct that the imposition of costs (Subjective Value) is the cause of moral sentiments (retaliatory sentiments).

3) There is zero need for a theory of liberty. We have a term called ‘liberty’ that has been around for centuries. All ‘liberty’ means and ever has meant, is that interpersonal moral constraints, or interpersonal local norms, are not violated by organized imposition of order (of one kind or another). in the original versions (latin, greek and babylonian) it meant ‘not a slave’ or ‘having permission’.

4) There is NOTHING fuzzy about the imposition of costs. That would invalidate subjective value. (ie: that would be profoundly stupid).

5) Kinsella uses IP as the litmus test and works backward from there rather than seeing IP as a potentially legitimate contract for exclusive supply in a polity in order to obtain products and services that could not be constructed without such subsidies. The problem is not the use of contracts of exclusivity when they are to one’s advantage. Instead, it is that these contracts are used indiscriminately when they are a disadvantage to consumers. There would be no reason for a voluntary, corporeal government to issue exclusivity contracts, as long as those contracts were open to suit under universal standing. If the government met the burden of proof, then it could stand, and if not it would fall. The politicization of these contracts, and the insulation of participants from suit is the principle problem with them. Otherwise, it’s merely denying people a tool that can be to their advantage.

Kinsella doesn’t like rational debate. He doesn’t engage in it. He’s a dogmatist. He’s a moral intuitionist. He’s a justificationist. He’s insulting when he doesn’t get his way. He is terribly ignorant outside of libertine scripture. And honestly, he isn’t very intelligent. Even in the PFS community he’s just loud and has Hoppe’s ear but most of us thought he was a bit of a twit – and an annoying one. His position on IP is largely correct. If he constrained himself to those arguments he would be fine. But he’s just an antagonistic belligerent mirror image of Stefan Molyneux. I like Molyneux as a popular rationalist, even if as a student of philosophy he’s weak, and as an author of it he’s severely lacking. I’d like Stephan as well if he just said “Well, I don’t specialize in that, so I stick to IP and Argumentation.”.

Honestly, if libertarian theory were anything worthwhile we’d have people at top universities spending time on it, rather than the fruitcake fringe.

I’m trying to save it but you can’t. It’s a cult for losers, not a philosophy for change.