Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON

1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.

2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).

3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.

4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.

5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.

This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.

As Eli Says:

—“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–

In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).

The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.

Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.

Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.

in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.

The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.

Thus Endeth The Lesson.