ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS
Mythical (Allegorical)
Psychological (Moral)
Rational (Kantian)
Historical ( analogical)
Empirical (positivist)
Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).
QUESTION:
Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods?
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 12:06:00 UTC
COME HOME TO ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – LEAVE THE GHETTO.
I’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability.
That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans.
Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest.
Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is.
Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism.
Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:19:00 UTC
LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE
Without states how is liberty enforced?
It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation.
If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers.
*We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*.
That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them.
Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves.
You cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:09:00 UTC
WHERE LIBERTARIANS GO WRONG.
Libertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law.
It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary.
The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights.
As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant.
The NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 14:56:00 UTC
A very, very sweet white wine.
Rye crackers.
Danish butter.
Black caviar.
Lightly carbonated water.
Sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 14:50:00 UTC
UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE”
–BINARY–
Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent)
REJECTION (binary 0)
Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange.
Boycott of all exchanges.
Rejection of exchange.
CONSENT (binary 1)
Restitution via court
Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost)
Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost)
–TERNARY–
But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence)
VIOLENCE (ternary)
Restitution via violence
Transfer via violence.
Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement
High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 10:03:00 UTC
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/497472.html
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 09:30:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 09:30:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBwJU3Nnu8CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: MUSIC VIDEOS
Irina Allegrova & Slava – “First Love Last Love”.
(Ирина Аллегрова & Слава – Первая Любовь – Любовь Последн)
This video has been on the local equivalent of MTV for, I dont know how long – as long as I remember – and they play it about every 90 minutes.
I can’t quite put my arm around why it’s not something that we’d see in the states. But it makes a lot of ‘sense’ here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBwJU3Nnu8
(LYRICS)
Жизнь в лицо кидалась грязью, я, запутанная связью,
Перед Богом страх уже не сдерживала,
Ангел не ругал, но не поддерживал. Ангел не ругал…
Зря удерживать не стала, гордость женская взыграла,
Отпустила, и разлука в дом вошла.
Ты – моя любовь последняя была. Ты – моя любовь!
Хочешь, пойми… Сможешь, прости…
Припев:
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Кто сказал, что время лечит, но день ото дня не легче…
Протекает жизнь дождями горьких слез! Горьких слёз!
Первую любовь не приняла всерьез… Первую любовь…
Хочешь, пойми… Сможешь, прости…
Припев:
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Кто сказал, что время лечит…
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 08:46:00 UTC
YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
(important piece)
There is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory.
The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.)
I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth.
Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive.
Like all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable).
This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through.
Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state.
As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference.
However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral.
This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality.
There is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 05:58:00 UTC