Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

STOREY TRIES TO PULL THE STAKE FROM THE ROTHBARDIAN VAMPIRE AND FAILS.

—“The state, being a judicial monopolist, is an irrational system of government because of the self-contradictory violation of private property rights required to establish or maintain it. “—

That’s illogical (irrational) since no rights can exist until an insurer is brought into material existence to insure them. There exist no property rights until they are constructed. We may NEED possessions, the norm of property, and rights of restitution from an insurer of property, but no rights can be brought into existence without an insurer capable of de-facto insuring them.

—“Praxeological jurisprudence and the doctrine of dialogical estoppel provide the rational framework to show that, where there is incentive for rational consistency in the law, estopping the activities of state government and, rather, employing private judicial services is the only rationally viable option.”—

The value of constructing increasingly competitive cooperation requires the suppression of the imposition of costs upon the investments of others so that retaliation is avoided, and all individuals must limit themselves to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality. Otherwise the incentive of the strong is to prey upon the weak through killing, takings, or serfdom or enslavement rather than cooperation.

—“rational consistency in the law,”—

The purpose of rational consistency in the law is to prevent the jurist from favoritism, and to remove incentives to enter into conflict, so that extra-judicial violence and retaliation cycles are prevented.

—“private judicial services”—

There is a vast difference between an independent, private, professional judiciary and a polylogical law. All polylogical law societies have failed. They cannot suppress sufficient desires for retaliation to eliminate demand for prior restraint, or the extermination of deviations from norms, or invasion by peoples with lower trust (allowing greater parasitism in law).

The rest of the article is nonsense as well And here is why:

1) you rely on praxeology, meaning, through sequential analysis of incentives and choices from them.

2) you refrain from arguing your point praxeological, and instead do so ideally.

In other words, your argument is ridiculous because it relies on one logic but demonstrates another. THIS IS HOW THE COSMOPOLITANS learned to lie from the practice of PILPUL (excuse making) in jewish law. The use of excuse making in christian doctrine (hermenutics).

3) you are relying on the existence of an enforced order (state, normative law, tribal law, cult law) as a prior cause if you even mention the words Estoppel. In other words, you’re just repeating hoppe/what’s-his-name, in that you’re assuming a contract of cooperation at the point of negotiation (legal argument) when a state or equivalent must exist to construct the institution of property or demand rational discourse, or truth. Instead, we start with the permanent opportunity for predation, flight, or cooperation, and there exists no promise of truth or non-contradiction, or even rationality of argument – only a negotiation of demands, one of which is that if the negotiation fails, is violence.

So your argument starts out with a pyramid of some combination of lie, error, and falsehood, as such all that yo produce from false premises is merely error.

In other words. it’s a circular argument. A bit of sophomoric nonsense sold by rabbis, rothbard, hoppe and the like to simpletons indoctrinated into abrahamic fictionalism so deeply that they cannot but fall victim to it themselves.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine

(Ps: libertinism is just common-property marxism. Another abrahamic fiction constructed of Pilpul (lies). Time to grow up. Marxism, Libertinism, Neoconservativsm are dead, and we are in the process of killing postmodernism.)