ELI TRIES TO SCHOOL LIBERTARDS ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CIRCULARITY OF “SHOULD” VERSUS THE CORRESPONDENCE OF “IS” > Clifton Knox Hoppe’s argumentation ethic presented in formal logic. 1. Using reason and evidence to deny a proposition is a kind of argument. 2. Deny a necessary precondition or premise of an argument and you deny that argument. 3. Any argument that denies a necessary precondition of the activity of argumentation denies the basis of argumentation, and so contradicts itself. 4 The act of argumentation itself presupposes self-ownership. Therefore, Any argument that denies self-ownership, contradicts itself. > Ely Harman —“4 The act of argumentation itself presupposes self-ownership.”— Nope. A slave can argue. A child can argue, if it’s precocious. A woman can argue, if she’s in a particularly lucid state of mind. None of those are self-owners. > Clifton Knox I would say they are self owners. Even if some person has immorally compelled them to act in that other persons interests and against their own, they are still their own rightful owner. You always have the option of laying down and dying in the face of overwhelming force and nobody can do anything about it. Circumstantial reality does not change the ultimate facts of your ability to make the ultimate decisions regardless of outcomes. > Ely Harman You’re just trying to justify a preference for self-ownership. But “shoulds” don’t actually exist and you can’t just argue one into being. If you want to bring something about the only reliable way to bring it about, generally speaking, is to do all the things, and pay all the costs, that it logically implies. Sometimes you can con other people into paying the costs or doing the things for you, but even if you can that never lasts. And that’s all justificationary arguments ever are. See my next comment below this one. > Andrew Smith Slaves still own themselves… They are being coerced, which violates their right to self ownership, but the slave owner doesn’t control the body of the slave, he coerces the mind of the slave. Also, slavery violates argumentation ethics, so it’s besides the point. > Ely Harman What you own is what you demonstrate willingness and ability to defend. If slaves demonstrated willingness or ability to defend themselves, they wouldn’t be slaves. Ergo, slaves don’t, in fact, own themselves. > Ely Harman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics actually set out to prove the non-aggression principle, not self ownership. The argument was non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else.) Therefore to attempt to justify aggression argumentatively involves a performative contradiction and is invalid. His conclusion isn’t actually wrong. It’s just misleading. To attempt to justify ANYTHING argumentatively is invalid. It just ends up either being elaborate question begging (you have to assume the axioms so why not simply assume the conclusions? it’s exactly as valid…) or you run into the problem of induction if you’re trying to approach it that way. Nothing can be justified. Nothing needs to be justified. Aggression doesn’t need to be justified. Plenty of aggressors haven’t bothered trying to justify their aggression, and have gotten away with it; with something for their trouble. > Andrew Smith Self Ownership precedes (depends upon) the NAP, and property rights in things precedes self ownership. Self ownership doesn’t mean anything other than “you have a better claim to control your body than anyone else”. I’d suggest Stephan Kinsella for more on this topic. He is the best teacher of it that I’ve found. > Ely Harman “In answer to the Argives, who were disputing with the Spartans in regard to the boundaries of their land and said that they had the better of the case, [Lysander] drew his sword and said, ‘He who is master of this talks best about boundaries of land.’” > Clifton Knox It does both. It requires cooperation that precludes violence but it is based on the idea of natural law and self ownership. Number 3 includes self ownership as a necessary precondition. Even Hoppe has made it clear that self ownership,is a necessary precondition. There is no justification going on here. We could say nothing needs to be justified but we can also say everything needs to be justified. Why does everything need to be justified? Let’s elaborate, “everything that you wish to be reciprocated” needs to be justified. > Andrew Smith Ely you’re literally ignoring the entire point of property rights and self ownership. It’s for a society attempting to avoid conflict, not one looking to provoke it. If you’re pro aggression and believe “to the Victor goes the spoils” is a moral position, then the only thing to do is fight, you’ve rejected argumentation ethics, property rights, self ownership and the NAP > Ely Harman The argument is if you assume the right axioms, they’re irrefutable. But a lot of them CAN be refuted. And even if not, you’re still wasting time and energy on something pointless. > Thomas Cummings You have to ASSUME the axioms (ie: circular argument). People are not property. My body is not deeded or owned. If you are interested in purchasing human bodies, check with your local human trafficker Exactly, clif. No thank you. My body is not an item of property to begin with. Ownership thereof is moot > Ely Harman We can CHOOSE to cooperate or not cooperate or conflict. (According to our incentives.) I agree. If we want to cooperate, then some ground rules are necessary, starting with reciprocity. But not everyone wants to cooperate. And if they don’t, arguing at them about argumentation is worse than useless. If people aren’t going to cooperate, or if they aren’t worth cooperating with, extending them the benefit of cooperative norms is cost without benefit. And trying to justify the moral obligation to cooperate is still more cost without benefit. > Andrew Smith Ely who gets to determine who controls the coffee mug I’m drinking from? > Ely Harman If I’m Genghis Khan, I don’t care about your arguments. I drink from the coffee cups of 1000 men, right before I fuck their wives. Your arguments are meaningless to me. What are you gonna do now? I’m a smart, economically savvy, productive Genghis Khan. I actually don’t have anything against mutually beneficial trade. I just insist that most of the benefit accrue to me, while you get to keep only enough to cover your costs plus a token surplus, greatly less generous than my cut. Otherwise we fight. What are you gonna do now? —–:CURT:———- 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 above: —“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. Apr 23, 2018 11:10am
Any people with wealth will buy trinkets. Any people with wealth can participate in the luxury of the arts. Any people can produce gossip, ridicule, moral hazard, and gossip. Any people who work at it can produce propaganda.
The question is, how many people raise humanity out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, suffering, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe hostile to life?
How did western people do that in a few hundred years in the ancient world, and a few hundred years in the modern, while all of humanity slowly stumbled along?
Why is it that the jews, the most literate people in europe, a people who claim such success, did nothing, accomplished nothing, until we nearly forcibly converted them to rule of law and aristotelianism, kicking and screaming against us all the while?
I have no problem in respecting people’s traditions, but if anything they have done more harm to humanity with their adoption of the female technique of creating moral hazard, backed by disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, rallying, propagandizing, and its near industrialization in every form. In other words, the technique of undermining the moral order of every civilization that hosts them.
So lets be a little more honest in our understanding of history, and not fall into more propaganda and hazard creation.
Socrates, Aristotle, Archimedes and Zeno created the world we live in.
They, on the other hand, created the industrialization of the most catastrophic deception that has ever existed on this earth: pilpul, justificationism, fictionalism, and the art of profiting from destroying a people through undermining their trust in one another.
They have been the most destructive people in human history and are the antithesis of greek thought, and roman moral universalism, resulting a nearly a billion dead, the dark ages, and the near repeat of their cause of the dark ages in the modern world?
So, before anyone gets too self congratulatory let’s be a little more scientific in our analysis. Almost every good in human existence is due to the southern movement of corded ware peoples into greece, and the development of the hierarchy of math, logic, idealism, rational philosophy, proto-science, and aristotelianism, and it’s conversion into stoicism, empirical administration, and roman law by the romans. Every other discovery or addition is trivial by comparison and I’m happy to argue everything from persian astrology to arabic numerals to chinese paper, to indian steel. Wealthy peoples will eventually develop many technologies by trial and error, and will converge on techniques, but no other people invented reason – none, and no other people created adaptive market civilizations and rule of law because of it.
SEQUENCE OF HISTORY
The greeks invented idealism. The Rabbis adopted it. This is the beginning of rabbinical judaism. They Rabbis Combined Pilpul (justificationism that we see in numerology, astrology, and religious interpretation), Idealism, and mythology (invented to justify claiming ownership of lands upon persian retreat), to create their poly-ethical (‘immoral’) law.
The genetic advantage of the Jews originated in that they began with north african (semitic) levels of aggression and tribalism (do the research since the aggression gradient radiates out of the red sea), they have been through multiple population bottlenecks, and then rebuilt populations from very small numbers (possibly only in the hundreds), then funded the reproduction of their smartest, practiced serial marriage, and outcast anyone unable to master the traditions. Rabbinical breeding (small variations in top performer family size) in a small population will produce eugenic effects (at the high cost of genetic diseases) far faster than the average person understands. Contra select for verbal acuity in their males produced transfer of gender dimorphism resulting in transfer of female verbal ability to males, at the cost of well known but impolitic problems in the male genome. (This research is very difficult to assemble for obvious postwar reasons but it’s obvious to the dedicated.)
However, the claims of jewish contribution are false – it’s precisely the opposite. In fact, prior to Einstein it’s hard to find anything, which is why his brand is protected so aggressively.
The jews invented the cause of the dark ages: Abrahamism, that lost them their territory by underinvestment in commons, doomed them to that medieval condition and near extermination, destroyed the western aristocracy of the ancient world, and gave islam its methodology, with which islam destroyed the four great civilizations of the ancient world by conquest and consumption, killed half a billion or more people, and by 1200 had caused intellectuals under muslim rule to flee to the west – thankfully returning scraps of greek knowledge that the christians and muslims had all but extinguished by burning, or closing the greek and roman schools. (I specialize in the means of deception we call ‘abrahamism’ which is the use of (european) human vulnerability to optimistic suggestion to create and then exploit moral hazards. We created a low clannish, low tribal, outbred, high trust civilization – and the only one other than the Japanese – but we are vulnerable because of that trust. (We do not know if it’s genetic or not yet.)
The jews, despite being the most literate people in europe contributed absolutely nothing to civilization – at all. No arts, no monuments, no sciences, no letters, and by the time they were liberated, were so internally superstitious that they were considered mentally incompetent by the end of the 19th c. (Do the research.)
They medieval jews specialized in moral hazards that ‘good christians’ would not participate in: (a) moneylending to the poor then exploiting their dependence, (b) tax collection particularly in borderlands and questionable returns to the state, (c) using a+b to obtain property with which to extract rents. This resulted universally in the peasants (farmers and craftsmen) taking every opportunity to exterminate the jews, particularly during the plague era.
In the modern world jews were responsible for the counter-scientific revolution that included boasian pseudoscientific anthropology, marxism’s pseudoscientific economics and sociology, the pseudoscience of authoritarianism we call psychology and the means of shaming and ridicule we call ‘psychologizing’, the re-platonizing of mathematics through cantorian sets, the organized ridicule, shaming, and degradation of the representational, heroic, mythical, and romantic arts (modern art), disproportionately responsible for the soviet catastrophe, the membership in the secret police, and consequential genocides, and the near repeat of their destruction of the great civilizations of the ancient world, through their advocacy of the calamity of socialism and communism.
Worse has been the use of favoritism and funding to stack universities yet the systematic legal prosecution of western continuation of the same habit (a violation of reciprocity), their systemic attack on the vulnerability of our constitutional solution to the judiciary that allows the court to render judgements rather than return decisions to congress, by the intentional, well funded, selective prosecution of cases that force the court to legislate from the bench. Their funding and support for the 1964 immigration act by which they hoped to import underclasses to achieve through immigration that which had not been achievable by marxist revolution, socialist economics, frankfurt school ‘pseudo history’.
Today we still see jews dominating industries that profit from moral hazard and eschew all responsibility for warranty of consequences, by incremental destruction of our high trust norms: Entertainment, Media, Propaganda, Gossip, Pornography, Finance, Rent seeking, Academy, and Law.
Whatever people claim we can judge the quality of their character by the industries they occupy: those which products are warrantied and those which are not.
As sowell said, our elites today are ‘articulate and full of promise’ bu but the evidence is that those articulate elites are not only short on delivery, but have resulted in the total absence of an increase in productivity in the american economy since the 1970’s.
There are few economists that can hold this discussion with me but the reason that we have not gained in income and productivity is because of the policies that have been extremely destructive to the rest of the world, have been simply harder to implement here.
If we imposed the same warranty of due diligence we require of products and services on academic, political and economic speech those occupations filled with articulate people promising impossibilities in order to create and profit from moral hazard would be vacated and our civilization restored to its prior productivity progress and order.