LIBERTY OR LICENSE?
One either possesses liberty or license. A Rothbardian, at best, has license, an Aristocratic Egalitarian at worst has liberty. 🙂
License: Legal rights, human rights, natural rights, argumentation ethics.
Liberty: Reciprocal insurance in the contract to use violence to defend life and property.
Licence = nonsense.
Liberty = violence.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-22 05:28:00 UTC
THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC
(Reposted from comment on National review:)
They either must sue or impeach or they risk the de facto destruction of the balance of powers.
I prefer that he be struck by lightening from the hand of god (or a lucky lunatic foreign or domestic), but otherwise impeachment is political, impossible and leaves us with an imbecile in the presidency, while the courts construct prescedent and effectively reconstruct the laws that he has broken. I would much prefer a body of law to constrain the administration than I would the political process.
Once he is guilty he is defacto guilty of high crimes, so impeachment is either easier or unnecessary. In either case his presidency is done.
We will eventually have to separate state (ritual and veto) from government (administration). The presidency is, empirically a failed institution, both domestically and internationally. A monarchy with veto power and a parliamentary system have proven superior. But since we have no monarchy, a president unbound by term limits whose only power was the podium and veto would better fulfill the demands of the balance of powers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:41:00 UTC
SCRUTON DISCOVERED THE COMMON LAW (AS DID HAYEK AND WEBER)
—-Scruton took the opportunity to study law and “discovered … the answer to Foucault” in the common law of England, which he took as proof “that there is a real distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power, that power can exist without oppression, and that authority is a living force in human conduct.”—
But does anyone grasp that the common law, voluntary exchange and property rights form a calculable, not rational, set of operations?
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 10:36:00 UTC
The supreme court is just fine with undermining the constitution, undermining the rule of law, destroying the family, and creating special inegalitarian rights for minorities. But god forbid they should limit the power of the other two branches of government. If we have a revolution I want the privilege of pulling the gallows lever for Roberts. I assume there is too much competition ahead of me for both Ginsberg and Sotomayor.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 07:27:00 UTC
OBAMA HAS KILLED THE PRESIDENCY
Obama has killed the presidency.
More so than nixon.
More so than FDR.
He has destroyed the office.
Unless he is impeached.
Which is not possible under current ratios.
We will have to convert to a prime minster model.
Leave the presidency as a weak head of state.
Otherwise obama has created dictatorship.
The end of the american experiment.
That was it.
It’s done.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-21 15:12:00 UTC
THE FALLACY OF STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS RATHER THAN NEEDING TO CONSTRUCT THEM
If you have no property rights, but only permission from the state, to use its property in certain fashion, then the state cannot aggress against your property – nor can anyone else, except to the extent determined by the state.
To defend against this argument you must counter that natural rights exist like a soul, or are merely an allegory to contract rights, envisioned out of necessity for flourishing – or some other magical concept. Despite the fact that, contradictory to universal claims, nowhere on earth do private property rights exist. They are profoundly unnatural.
All that is necessary for cooperation is the institution of property. The scope of property is not defined by the means of transgression against property. We can only possibly hold a right that we have obtained in contract. The contract for property rights in the absence of a state can only be constructed by individuals exchanging the promise of defense in response to transgression, and the means of aggressively constructing those rights . The only means of preventing the universally extant violations of those rights obtained in such a contract, and reciprocally insured via that contract, is the organized application of violence against the state.
So it is an erroneous assumption, and a convenient one, that you start from a position of liberty, rather than start from a position of needing to construct liberty.
Intersubjectively verifiable property is a fallacy. Aggression is a fallacy. Natural rights are a fallacy. Crusoe’s Island is a fallacy. Man evolved from consanguineous bands by suppressing free riding, thereby pressing all into participation in production. Property is the natural result of suppressing free riding. At all points and at all times property is constructed by resisting free riding. Property results from the suppression of free riding. The origin of private property as we understand it occurred when Indo European cattle raiders were able to concentrate extraordinary wealth under pastoralism, by way of organized violence and they kept what they obtained in those raids. This is the origin of property: the organized application of violence against free riding.
People who are unwilling to enter the contract for organized violence in order to construct property rights both in contract and in daily practice (as a norm), are merely free riders (thieves) from those who are willing to act to construct property rights in contract and in daily practice (as a norm).
In other words, by claiming you have ‘natural rights’ you’re not only demonstrably wrong, but just trying to obtain property rights at a discount by free riding on the efforts of those who do construct property rights.
So, you’re not only wrong, but a dishonest, free riding thief, like statists you condemn are.
As far as I know this argument is bulletproof.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 23:00:00 UTC
http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Attitudinal-Model-Revisited/dp/0521789710WHY OPERATIONALISM, PROPERTARIAN DEFINITION OF PROPERTY, AND STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM ARE NECESSARY FOR RULE OF LAW
The “Attitudinal Model”: When decisions are unclear, they are made by moral intuitions. Not by reason.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 22:22:00 UTC
FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL
Given that necessary morality is objectively defined (in-group cooperation: the prohibition on free riding), and unnecessary moral rules are defined (in-group signals and rituals) and out-group cooperation is also defined (rothbardian ethics – the ethics of states) we can look at four possible permutations of representing the causes of criminal, ethical and moral in-group conflict under different legal prohibitions:
1) ILLEGAL or LEGAL and NON-MORAL: If two people want to engage in blackmail, but the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, then there is no crime, because without a state there is no one else to make the claim of wrongdoing.
2) ILLEGAL: If blackmail is illegal, because it is immoral, and the party wants to sue, he can.
3) LEGAL: If it is not illegal but it is immoral, then the victim has no other recourse but violence.
I do not see how one can claim innocence if one aggresses via blackmail, then is murdered for his aggression.
4) MINIMUM LEGAL SCOPE, FREEDOM OUTSIDE THAT SCOPE. So that means the fourth scenario is that violence is of course always available as a means of settling unethical and immoral conflicts. So the law can only be used for rothbardian levels of conflict (crime) and violence remains available for unethical and immoral actions.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 13:17:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/How-is-anarchism-a-functional-system-for-a-country
It’s sort of like we need a house of Limits for conservatives, a house of Commerce for libertarians and a house of Charity for progressives. Commerce and Charity can make contracts with one another, and those contracts must observe strict construction, and under that strict construction limited to observable, demonstrable, voluntary exchanges. The house Limits has the right of veto without comment.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 08:01:00 UTC