COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT) (thanks to Kar

COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT)

(thanks to Karl for helping me with this topic)

An individual, a gang of thugs, and members of a state, all may impose costs on you. They call may conduct criminal, unethical and immoral actions. However since it takes more than one to conspire, only a gang and a state can conspire. And since it requires a state (a territorial monopoly) to violate your liberty (freedom of interference from the state) then only state actors, by definition, can violate liberty in fact, while the gang and a group and an individual can only violate your liberty by ANALOGY. They can all engage in immoral actions, where the spectrum of immorality includes criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

Why is this very technical argument necessary? Because it shows that while morality (freedom from imposed costs) evolved, and for the purpose of distinction, was divided into morality and liberty, all Lester has done is to divide Liberty into two categories: Political Liberty and Interpersonal Liberty, by constructing the NAME interpersonal liberty, (which is itself a contradiction in terms), and claiming that he has made a pre moral pre-property argument. He hasn’t. He’s just made up a new word. That doesn’t diminish that he worked backwards from political liberty to identify morality, but it does mean that his claim that he has created a pre-moral definition of liberty is false.

History tells us that morality evolved first, and that Liberty evolved second, like rule of law, a constraint upon the government, no matter how that government was constructed, that it must perpetuate and not violate those moral rules. Religion even today constrains government to not violate moral rules – that is why conservatives are successful.

Science tells us that (a) humans evolved to be acquisitive of many things, and changes in human gratification, are synonymous with changes in property en toto, (b) morality, and agitated punishment for moral violation, evolved as instinct against free riding and imposting costs against property en toto, of those with whom we cooperate in order to prevent parasitism, (c) property rights adjudicable under law, constitute a contractual agreement to resolve conflicts over only a subset of those forms of property needed for cooperation in the community given its division of knowledge and labor, and (d) the subset of property necessary to construct liberty (from the state) is that which prevents enough retaliation for any moral violation in the possible scope of moral violations, that will produce conflict or retaliation, and therefore demand for an authoritarian state, to either suppress retaliation or apply violence to those who violate moral rules outside of courts, and; (e) the subset that prevents demand for government is the construction of contractual institutions rather than authoritarian instructions which allow the construction of enforceable contracts for the production of commons necessary for any group to compete against any other group, as well as those commons which groups wish to prevent from consumption (parks etc).

Lester practices “get away with it’ Truth. He’s a cosmopolitan libertine using marxist arguments and hiding behind a misrepresentation of critical rationalism – which is in itself hermeneutic and cosmopolitan. He has constructed and makes use of extant meaning, not action or necessity. As such I cannot use his work. He is the kind of fuzzy thinker that we require propertarianism, operationalism and testimonial truth to defend ourselves from – and therefore end the century of pseudoscientific and pseudo philosophical mysticism.

I have sketched this out enough times that I have reduced the necessary argument to this little bit. It has taken me, as usual, quite a bit of effort to do so. But as far as I know, my criticism of Lester is the best extant, and he is little other than another example of the culture of critique: a cosmopolitan of libertine sentiments using marxist arguments like most libertine libertarians will be all but impossible to refute.

So as far as I know, Lester not immoral like Rothbard, he’s just immaterial.

I may refine this a net or two, but it’s pretty much rock solid. Like I say. I am good at what I do. It’s just an objective observation. It sounds like egoism – but the truth is it’s because I work very, very hard, and no other reason. When I construct a debate it is so that I can learn under fire. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian after all.