shaming me you do what you accuse me of”— Ah. But the condition is quite diffe

http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/19/propertarianism-is-for-the-prosecution/—“by shaming me you do what you accuse me of”—

Ah. But the condition is quite different. Lets see…

Work through it because you cannot escape the fact that you use misrepresentative language to obscure your attribution of authority to the self by justificationary-rationality, rather than to non-retaliation (cost) by ratio-empiricism. ie: you err.

We aren’t debating any longer. I accuse you of deceit. This deceit may be the product of wishful thinking. It may be justified by inarticulate obscurant language, but it is not deceit by intent, then it is deceit by wishful thinking none the less.

***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but they keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay.

And this is the Libertine (NAP/ISV strategy), which is to claim not that separatism is a parasitic subgroup strategy within a host. But that all members of a polity should engage in separatist ethics.

And this is non-rational. It is the host’s production of commons that make free riding possible. It is the host’s production of commons that make the host itself possible. Because even your parasitic ethics of NAP/IVP must be constructed as a commons, and enforced as a commons.

***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.*** Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.

(This is probably more understandable to you than the technique of analytic philosophy.)

So, you see, that is what separates those of us who defend the commons from those of you who harm it. We pay the cost of commons maintenance. You do not.

And that is why you can select free riding on the commons using NAP/IVP and we select NA/DemonstratedProperty despite the high cost of policing the commons.

So since you engage in deceit and harm the commons, I engage in accusation.

And when that occurs we are not debating. I am prosecuting you.

Because you pollute the commons with excuses for non payment of them while relying upon them. ie you’re a parasite.

PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION