(dear dimwit of the moment) (from elsewhere) But (a) I didn’t justify monarchy,

(dear dimwit of the moment) (from elsewhere)

But (a) I didn’t justify monarchy, i justified Christian Monarchy under Natural Law. (b) I didn’t justify feudalism. (c) I have no idea what you mean by royalism but it’s extremely unlikely I justified it. (ergo, straw men, not arguments)

And (d) Natural Law as I use the term is not an abstraction but a rigorous definition: the limit of our actions to productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property-in-toto, limited to productive externalities. Or conversely, the prohibition of the imposition of costs upon property-in-toto. Where property in toto refers to demonstrated property not authoritarian declaration, or rational justification definitions of property. Or what you might call the initiation of ‘aggression’ against property-in-toto; whereby we preserve and expand the incentive to cooperate, and refrain from initiating the incentive to retaliate. (An adult version of the half truth we call the non aggression principle) (Ergo, straw man, not argument)

From what I see in just a few of your comments, and which is obvious from the chain of reasoning that you depend upon, you rely on sentimental rather than operational definitions of terms. This is a form of pseudoscientific argument applied to economic, political, and legal sciences.

If you define your terms precisely you will be unable to make the arguments you think you do.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine