[F]AITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL
—“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous
So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon?
Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something.
By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception).
So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy.
Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker.
And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable.
If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness.
You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever.
Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability.
(That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. )
I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state.
By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law.
I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons.
-Curt
Feedback:
—“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin
Exactly. 😉