Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM
—“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow
ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS.
Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why).
a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible.
b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible.
c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible.
d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons.
You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot.
LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION
—“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—
I’ll debate anyone who:
– has the knowledge to.
– has the ability to.
– is intellectually honest
– and is willing to.
This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics).
If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions.
The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,
a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand,
b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse;
c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to.
d) they are afraid I would win.
This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people.
LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS
You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to.
LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL.
Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud).
LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS
You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ).
CLOSING
So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air.
This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.