Oct 7, 2019, 9:35 AM Here is another straw man (or what I call ’empty hat’).
—“I am not sure what you want them to criticize. What has propertarianism accomplished? Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments. Some ideas based on statistical data sure, but no statistical data of a deployment of P in a real world government and/or legal system. Until such a time as this can be done people are left in a situation not unlike the pre Bolshevik era in which many people can speculate but have no real evidence. Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation. I do think it’s interesting that anybody who disagrees just doesn’t “understand.” Now that is a Marxist echo if I ever heard one.”— Clifton Knox
I can criticize Marx on his first premises, and so can anyone else, we all know that the premises are false. Try to criticize P on any such premise. Go ahead.
—“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—
Same thing I can say for hoppe and rothbard, right? So how is that a defense of their work vs mine? P is a continuation of the anglo rule of law by creating the long-sought-after means of strict construction free of interpetation of the law. Pretty much the entire anglo world runs upon it (although with weak constitutions everywhere). You can’t claim rule of law isn’t practiced, only that P-law applied to speech isn’t practiced. And even there that’s questionable because we do it all the time in commercial cases.
—“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—
How long did it take Smith/Hume, Marx, Aristotle to be applied? Darwin is still struggling against the entire abrahamic project? How is that a criticism? I haven’t even published yet. Although we ARE teaching it and our movement is growing.
—“Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments.”—
P consists of multiple works. The logic of cognitive science, logic of social science, the logic of language, and the logic of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, how to construct a range of constitutions under it, and an explanation of why it evolved in the west, but could be imitated by any group able to construct a sufficient demographic by use of soft eugenics. P is a continuation of the anglo tradition of rule of law by the common law, where the common law is reducible to tort. It is the most continuous form of government in europe, the tradition, at least in the northern realm, is somewhere near 5000 years old. So rule of law, particularly by monarchy, and houses of the classes, was discovered in northern europe during the middle ages, but it’s not like we havent practiced it in some form or other for millennia. P is most analogous to a programming language – operational logic, which is where I took the model from – You can construct ANY form of government with it as long as it consists of articulation as reciprocity and trades within reciprocity. I know this because I”ve tried. Aristotle, and the Founders wrote a constitution, why didn’t Hoppe or Rothbard? That’s the only argumentative ‘test’ of a theory of politics, isn’t it? Even if survival of a polity under it is the only empirical test. If you can’t write a constitution you are just talking smack. Aristotle did, the founders did, and I am doing it.
—“Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation”—
Well you know, how is that a criticism vs hoppe and rothbard? It’s very easy to test P-logic and P-law. so far it’s flawless. P is a formal OPERATIONAL logic, and the first formal operational logic of social science, that can be used to compose constitutions, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. Mises didn’t understand (and neither does Hoppe) that all logics are falsificationary, and operational logic the most falsificationary possible by human beings because it requires we falsify every dimension of consistency (constant relations) perceivable by man. You can test P over and over again as many of us have now: try to state a falsehood in testimonial form, operational language. Do it and illustrate that you can. For example, both ordinary language logic and formal logic (symbolic) can be criticized, empiricism can be …. I’ve written an argument (“Ruling”) for every substantial question of political conflict I can find, in some degree of completeness. I know. I’ve done it. And people are always blown away by them. they just take time. What you have done so far is use a STRAW MAN. SO:
(a) yes rule of law has been tried and is successful – its the holy grail of all peoples. We live under it. (b) every one of P’s operational logics is open to criticism by falsification. Go ahead and try. If it’s LAW it must be open to logical analysis. It’s not an empirical question. (c) all constitutions will produce conflict because we all seek advantages over others with different abilities and interests. However, rule of law (and the constitution I’m writing) prohibit the use of via-positiva coercion and force people using via-negativa-law into the markets for cooperation rather than tolerating imposition of costs upon others.