Edmund Carlyle: Liberalism would be better and the State would have less pseudoliberal sycophants.
Liberalism would be better and the State would have less pseudoliberal sycophants.
What about all of the people who heard of Austrian economics from him and ended up here?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
If he were to have never been there, would things be better or worse?
The Tea Partiers might not be chanting "End the Fed".
I would not say that Paul has had a great effect on the course of US National or International Policy over the last 30 years.
That being said, if he has opened the eyes of a few people to true liberalism, then I think he has had a positive influence.
One can begin by reading Paul and then go to the original sources.
For instance, he does have an excellent reading list in the back of "The Revolution: A Manifesto"
What if you were to have a very young kid who one day were to try to walk into oncoming traffic, you were to pull him back, but then he were to try again? Would you feel justified imposing your will on him?
No. I might want him not to do it, but if you want to inject gasoline into your wang and pee fire, that's your business. Just not in my house.
Despite the vast waste of resources put towards it and the corruption of liberalism it has spread to vastly larger numbers of people? I would not say it balances out at all.
Just imagine if all those millions were spent promoting Austrian economics instead of some petty would-be benevolent despot?
Edmund Carlyle: No.
No.
Well, I don't know what to say.
Edmund Carlyle: Just imagine if all those millions were spent promoting Austrian economics instead of some petty would-be benevolent despot?
Too bad that isn't a realistic alternative.
If he weren't there, somebody else would be.
Neither is using political tyrants to spread liberal theory and practice.
If he weren't there, somebody else would be
Someone else I would jeer and oppose supporting. If it wasn't Office John arresting you it might be Officer Paul. Well, screw both of them.
Let's go back to the beginning:
Edmund Carlyle: Further, it is never justified to attack or impose on someone to prevent them from making stupid decisions.
Further, it is never justified to attack or impose on someone to prevent them from making stupid decisions.
Why not?
Edmund Carlyle: Neither is using political tyrants to spread liberal theory and practice.
I think of him as a double agent.
Edmund Carlyle: Well, screw both of them.
Well, screw both of them.
Sorry, but I would prefer Officer Paul, because he wouldn't arrest me in the first place.
Because I'm a liberal. There are various jurisprudential, sociological, economic, existential and eudaemonic reasons why I think this. Naturally someone can differ. Then they're not a liberal. To Hell with them.
I think of him as a false flag.
Unless you were from the wrong side of the border, or his State outlawed your religion, or you tried to get an aborition, or burn a flag in a county where it was prohibited.
I prefer kindly to cruel slave masters. But I will only advocate that all slave masters either quit their jobs or end up on a gibbet.
I detect some anger and fast bullets to politely discredit the guy. He has gone further than Rothbard, where he left it, and where many Christians don-t want to go, which is basically to the logical consequence that family is not voluntary but a biological.
He has gone further than Rothbard, where he left it, and where many Christians don-t want to go, which is basically to the logical consequence that family is not voluntary but a biological.
I'm not a voluntaryist, so I do not hold volition to be the ultimate value. While analysis of aggression/coercion in human affairs is a wonderfully useful tool in understanding how the political class abuses the productive class, it is only a first-order approximation. It's silly to say that all acts that constitute aggression between peer adults would constitute aggression when performed by a parent towards his or her child. Would a forcible enema be aggression against a peer adult who does not consent to receive it? Of course. How about a forcible enema on a 6 month old baby that hasn't had a bowel movement in a couple weeks, as approved by the child's parents and doctor?
Kids do not choose their parents and therefore the relation is not voluntary but based on need.
They also do not choose their place or time of birth or any of a million other dispositional factors. Shall we make relocation a fundamental human right?
You can paint with as many colors as you like, but the fact remains, it-s pure logic. It-s not an attack on anything, just stating a fact. When kids grow there comes a time when they are not in need and can take care of themselves. Therefore the bond based on necessity disappear, for the relation to continue, another bond has to be there, the moral one, the one constructed on earning the kid trust.
Well, the word "need" is a weasel-word. It implies that there is a bright-line demarcation between "need", on the one hand, and "imposition" on the other hand. Do children need to be taught table manners or not? I would say that most children do need to be taught table manners and their parents have a perfectly legitimate interest in "coercing" their children to learn whether they like it or not. Whether some particular action constitutes abuse or the ordinary un-pleasantry of childhood is too complex an issue to be sorted out with "simple logic." Simple logic is bad logic where it is too simple to solve the complex problem.
The evolution of human culture has already invent a method for sorting out these issues... it's called extended family and religion. Western monopolistic courts have interjected themselves into family affairs that have long been the domain of extended family and religious organizations, to the great detriment of Western culture. Look at Western culture today. This is the product of hyper-legalized parenting. It's not working so great, is it?
Hiding that fact is cheating, is a laziness on the parents or religious conservatives who believe they will have the kids forever because the commandments says respect your parents.
Parental abuse is a serious problem but it's also seriously exaggerated by certain special interests. Government courts, however, are not the solution and neither are the simplistic platitudes of 'rationalists' like Molyneux. I'll put it this way: If Molyneux is so right about parenting, let him start his own for-profit (perhaps through donations, whatever) parental guidance service and see how it competes in the market of such services. The children of the parents who partake in his services should be much better adjusted and, therefore, much more productive and higher earners. Word will get around that Molyneux's system really works. His ideas will spread and we will see a Renaissance in human parenting.
The reality is that humans have been trying to solve these problems for millenia. How do you raise your children in such a way that they are prepared for the real world when they get out there, yet show sufficient respect for their own ignorant choices so that they can have a long-lasting, mutually respectful relationship with their parents and have a chance to learn their own lessons for themselves? Parents want to impart the lessons they've learned in the School of Hard Knocks to their children so that their children do not have to repeat those particular lessons for themselves. Yet, it seems that some lessons are best remembered when directly administered by reality, in the School of Hard Knocks.
My children are still very young. My rule is that I absolutely prohibit anything which can lead to permanent, serious harm - that's a hard and fast rule and strictly enforced. They are not permitted to decide for themselves whether to walk on the sidewalk or the street. I make that decision for them and enforce it. But "learning how to learn" is so important, so I try to ensure that I'm leaving latitude for them to make their own mistakes. Is it a good idea to run through woodchips in the playground barefoot? I'll warn them but, if they think they know better, I'll let them figure that out and judge for themselves (and pull any resulting splinters).
That-s why Molyneux is dangerous, it shows a weakness in the life projects of many, it shows them they have to work hard and be responsible of their failures. That is, real libertarianism.
I hardly think that Molyneux holds a patent on the message of self-responsibility.
Clayton -
Edmund Carlyle: Because I'm a liberal.
Because I'm a liberal.
Then I guess that I'm not even close to being a "liberal".
Edmund Carlyle: There are various jurisprudential, sociological, economic, existential and eudaemonic reasons why I think this.
There are various jurisprudential, sociological, economic, existential and eudaemonic reasons why I think this.
Can you explain them?
Edmund Carlyle: I will only advocate that all slave masters either quit their jobs or end up on a gibbet.
I will only advocate that all slave masters either quit their jobs or end up on a gibbet.
What if being a double agent slave master would be the best way to pull that off?
What if you could substitute yourself for one of the slave masters, and slowly educate the slaves, and the other slavemasters, as to their alternatives?
The presumption of innocence as an epistemic norm for arbitration (otherwise one is demanded to prove a universal negative); finders-keepers and first-come-first-serve as the only coherent basis for initial dispute over spheres of influence (otherwise no one would ever be the legit. owner to begin with); the economic and social progress issues Mises has so amply demonstrated; the self-selection and epistemic blindness of political orders; a rejection of reification and social wholism as philosophical nonsense; a belief in eudaemonic stability of all non-antisocial interests; a rejection of domination games as personally and socially unproductive byproducts of a Jungle past; the Narveson-style argument for Contractarian liberalism as the optimal solution for Hobbesian scenarios; the belief that ideology mongering, idol worship and pandering to the masses as something beneath the intellectual person; the view that customary and voluntarist norms are selected to best reflect the interest of individuals involved; and a rejection of the hubris of pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do. Off the top of my head.
This has been tried for hundreds and hundreds of years to no avail. Look at those liberal elites and their Revolution. What comes next? A centralized authoritarian state which, within years, violently suppresses opposition to an illegal tax and imposes coercion on anyone critical of its 'liberal' despots.
It is not only ineffectual and often counter-productive (by massaging away and disguising the naked tyranny of all state power) it corrupts the 'liberals' who engage in it and subverts their reason and independence.
I have young children as well - and I agree with this paragraph whole heartedly - a 2 and 4 year old are not aware enough of their surroundings to be able to make rational decisions taking into account the consequences of their actions - such as running across the street to the park.
However a 12 year old is more than capable of makig those decisions.
I think that reposibility for ones actions is a concept that needs to be learned as well - it takes time for children to learn that their actions do have impacts on those around them, and they need to think about the long term repurcussions as well - they don't always do that.
Of course the idea of a "Permanent Record" in grade or high school never made me think twice about my actions.
Look at Western culture today. This is the product of hyper-legalized parenting. It's not working so great, is it?
I would rather live in Canada than Saudi Arabia. How does the Wahabbi faith work in terms of creating a society?
I would say that most children do need to be taught table manners and their parents have a perfectly legitimate interest in "coercing" their children to learn whether they like it or not.
I think most children do need to be taught table manners - or else they will eat in a completely undignified manner. The truth of the matter is that you are judged on your table manners on a regular basis.
Jeff Tucker has some good posts on this subject.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker89.html
And this.
http://blog.mises.org/8223/good-kids-bad-kids/
Also we need to define coercion - not giving my kid dessert because he was eating with his hands, or spitting at his sister at the dinner table does not constitute coercion.
Punching a child does.
This is like animals. Once they are able to coherently assert themselves, they can do as they like.
Such as, historically, raising a family, marrying, working on a farm. If modern Americans are incapable of raising such responsible and mature children maybe the very problem is their nanny micromanagement of thinking, choosing human beings; just as the welfare state reduces 30 year old adults to helpless dependents.
Edmund Carlyle: The presumption of innocence as an epistemic norm for arbitration
The presumption of innocence as an epistemic norm for arbitration
What is "an epistemic norm for arbitration"?
Edmund Carlyle: (otherwise one is demanded to prove a universal negative)
(otherwise one is demanded to prove a universal negative)
What is "a universal negative"?
Edmund Carlyle: otherwise no one would ever be the legit. owner to begin with
otherwise no one would ever be the legit. owner to begin with
What is a "legitimate owner"?
And would we need to carry the idea of "first-come-first-serve" past the "initial dispute for spheres of influence"?
Edmund Carlyle: the economic and social progress issues Mises has so amply demonstrated
the economic and social progress issues Mises has so amply demonstrated
Which of them supports your idea that it isn't "justified" to impose your will on somebody to prevent them from making stupid decisions?
Edmund Carlyle: the self-selection[...] of political orders
the self-selection[...] of political orders
What does "self-selection" mean in this context?
Edmund Carlyle: the epistemic blindness of political orders
the epistemic blindness of political orders
What does "the epistemic blindness" of political orders mean?
Edmund Carlyle: a rejection of reification and social wholism as philosophical nonsense
a rejection of reification and social wholism as philosophical nonsense
How does methodological individualism support your idea?
Edmund Carlyle: a belief in eudaemonic stability of all non-antisocial interests
a belief in eudaemonic stability of all non-antisocial interests
What does "eudaemonic stability of all non-antisocial interests" mean?
Edmund Carlyle: a rejection of domination games as personally and socially unproductive byproducts of a Jungle past
a rejection of domination games as personally and socially unproductive byproducts of a Jungle past
What is a "domination game"? Can you give me an example?
And how are they "personally and socially unproductive byproducts of a Jungle past"?
Edmund Carlyle: the Narveson-style argument for Contractarian liberalism as the optimal solution for Hobbesian scenarios
the Narveson-style argument for Contractarian liberalism as the optimal solution for Hobbesian scenarios
Huh?
Edmund Carlyle: the belief that ideology mongering, idol worship and pandering to the masses as something beneath the intellectual person
the belief that ideology mongering, idol worship and pandering to the masses as something beneath the intellectual person
What does it mean to be "beneach the intellectual person"?
And how does that support your idea? How it is even relevent to this?
Edmund Carlyle: the view that customary and voluntarist norms are selected to best reflect the interest of individuals involved
the view that customary and voluntarist norms are selected to best reflect the interest of individuals involved
What about the individuals who prefer oppressing people, having power, and so on to having more stuff and whatever else? Would "customary and voluntarist norms[...] best reflect the interest" of those individuals? Or are they not "involved"?
Edmund Carlyle: a rejection of the hubris of pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do
a rejection of the hubris of pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do
Weird, that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do.
We don't have your "customary and voluntarist norms" in place, yet you think that they would "best reflect the interest of the individuals involved". If that isn't "pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do", I don't know what is.
Edmund Carlyle: This has been tried for hundreds and hundreds of years to no avail.
This has been tried for hundreds and hundreds of years to no avail.
Check out my post here.
(Also check out the post that I link to at the end of that post.)
I think that it will ultimately be a market process which will tear down the state, but I think that people like Ron Paul have a useful place in diverting the state resources that he has influence over away from worse uses to educating the would-be entrepreneurs who will lead the revolution that I'm referring to.
Edmund Carlyle: Look at those liberal elites and their Revolution. What comes next? A centralized authoritarian state which, within years, violently suppresses opposition to an illegal tax and imposes coercion on anyone critical of its 'liberal' despots.
Look at those liberal elites and their Revolution. What comes next? A centralized authoritarian state which, within years, violently suppresses opposition to an illegal tax and imposes coercion on anyone critical of its 'liberal' despots.
I have no idea what you are trying to refer to here.
Edmund Carlyle: It is not only ineffectual and often counter-productive (by massaging away and disguising the naked tyranny of all state power) it corrupts the 'liberals' who engage in it and subverts their reason and independence.
How do people like Ron Pail "massag[e] away and disguis[e] the naked tyranny of all state power"?
How exactly does it "corrupt" them, and "subvert[...] their reason and independence"? What does that even mean?
12 years olds raising their own family. The truly free society!
Edmund Carlyle: Once they are able to coherently assert themselves, they can do as they like.
Once they are able to coherently assert themselves, they can do as they like.
Who decides when somebody could "coherently assert themselves"? Who gets that power?
The basic conceptual framework of jurisprudence. One can accept 'to each, his own' or 'for each according to...'. If the former, you need a method of rationally identifying and proving one's own, which must exclude the logically impossible. If the latter it is completely arbitrary, it is strictly speaking not arbitration but reallocation of properties.
Someone who whose claims are in line with the law. As Hoppe has pointed out, if the first person doesn't legit. own it then who 'owns' it is not something one can argue by jurisprudence or history, but is rather arbitrary reallocation.
As Mises points out, again and again, value is subjective. Saying 'I know better than you!' is hubristic nonsense.
People who don't believe in managerial, allocative approaches to social order generally will not become politicians.
Political orders have no test by which to examine their ideologies.
Ontological or existential individualism. Making claims about 'the group's' interest, or the 'nation's' will are ridiculous gibberish.
Interest which are not contrary to social order itself, i.e., the market economy.
Status climbing bureaucracies to demonstrate your superiority. I do think this also happens in voluntary circumstances. I think it's also pathetic here, though not actionable.
I suggest you read Narveson and de Jasay.
What does it mean to be "beneach the intellectual person"? And how does that support your idea? How it is even relevent to this?
Because illiberal and collectivist doctrines all revolve around managing people and orders that are not worth the attention of a person.
What about the individuals who prefer oppressing people, having power, and so on to having more stuff and whatever else?
Shoot them. I'm not interested in anti-social types.
Would "customary and voluntarist norms[...] best reflect the interest" of those individuals? Or are they not "involved"?
A person outside of voluntarist norms is by de facto outside of the system. Don't accept social order, nothing compels you to, but then you are an outlaw in the traditional, literal sense. You have no logical basis for opposing someone's stabbing you and taking your things.
Not at all. I favor social order and believe this is the only framework within which liberties and torts make any logical, consistent sense. I am fine with shooting robbers not because of some abstract, detached rule that robbery is bad but because these people have no claim to protection.
Lon L. Fuller is also worth reading on customary law.
Exactly the Nanny state/Welfare state is almost certainly to blame for this - people are raised as "wards" of the state. It is no wonder that the average birth rate in the welfare states of the wolrd is decreasing, the residents have never become fully fledged adults.
As I pointed out, today, it is widely accepted that you require 25 years in school to get the minimum amount of "Education" needed to enter the labour market.
Organised, state run education was created in order to train people to become productive members/Citizens of society much of our compulsory universal state run education system was adopted from the prussian model.
Certainly when you are raised within the state education system, you are very rarely taught to question it, there is very little in the way of understanding the tools of our liberties(what we have left) and absolutley no economics.
At this point you have numerous people graduating from high school with very little in the way of critical thinking skills...
People see themselves as CITIZENS first individuals second.
Think of the pledge of Allegiance - required in every public school.
The United States Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by an American socialist named Francis Julius Bellamy, who was also a Baptist minister, and whose cousin Edward Bellamy is the semi-famous author of two socialist utopian novels: Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy was born in Rome, New York, May 18, 1855. He died August 28, 1931. His original Pledge of Allegiance was first published in a magazine called Youth’s Companion, a nationally circulated publication written for youngsters. In 1888, Youth’s Companion began its campaign to sell American flags to public schools. For Francis Bellamy, this was more than a mere money-maker: it was an opportunity for him to spread his statist propaganda, and in the end Youth’s Companion became a supporter of the Schoolhouse Flag Project, which, under Bellamy’s watchful eye, aimed to place a flag above every public school in America. Francis Bellamy’s original Pledge of Allegiance, the recitation of which he intended to take no more than 15 seconds, went like so: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Here, in Bellamy’s own words, is why he chose the specific language that he chose for his Pledge: It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution … with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people… The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which it stands’. …And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future? Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all…
The United States Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by an American socialist named Francis Julius Bellamy, who was also a Baptist minister, and whose cousin Edward Bellamy is the semi-famous author of two socialist utopian novels: Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy was born in Rome, New York, May 18, 1855. He died August 28, 1931. His original Pledge of Allegiance was first published in a magazine called Youth’s Companion, a nationally circulated publication written for youngsters.
In 1888, Youth’s Companion began its campaign to sell American flags to public schools. For Francis Bellamy, this was more than a mere money-maker: it was an opportunity for him to spread his statist propaganda, and in the end Youth’s Companion became a supporter of the Schoolhouse Flag Project, which, under Bellamy’s watchful eye, aimed to place a flag above every public school in America.
Francis Bellamy’s original Pledge of Allegiance, the recitation of which he intended to take no more than 15 seconds, went like so:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Here, in Bellamy’s own words, is why he chose the specific language that he chose for his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution … with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people…
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which it stands’. …And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all…
Source
Few people knw this but the original Bellamy Salute to the flag was identical to the National Socialist Salute of the Nazi Party.
Rothbard already mada a claim with regards to Children.
The focus on property rights also provides us with the solution to the thorny problem of when the child can own and regulate himself. The answer is: when he leaves his parents’ household. When he gets out of his parents’ property, he then removes himself from his parents’ property jurisdiction. But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of selfownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom. This means that the fundamental tyranny of the parent over the child is not imposing curfews or getting him to eat spinach or preventing cohabitation in the back room; the fundamental tyranny is the current legal power of the parent to seize a child who has run away and drag him back home by force. The parent should, of course, have the right to try to persuade or cajole the kid to return, but he should never have the right to force him to do so, for that is kidnapping and a high crime that violates every person’s absolute right to his body. Asserting every child’s right to run-away freedom does not imply, of course, that the libertarian advocates running away; that is purely a question of the individual situation of the parent and child. But we must recognize that inherent in even the best of parent–child relations is an essential “class struggle,” a struggle rooted in the necessary existential fact that the kid is born into an environment created not by himself but by his parents. And even in the best of circumstances, tastes, values, interests, attitudes will differ from every individual to another, and therefore from every parent to every child. In the natural course of events, then, most children will, upon growing up, seek to create their own environment by leaving the parental nest. That is the way of nature, from the animal kingdom to man.
The focus on property rights also provides us with the solution to the thorny problem of when the child can own and regulate himself. The answer is: when he leaves his parents’ household. When he gets out of his parents’ property, he then removes himself from his parents’ property jurisdiction. But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of selfownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom.
This means that the fundamental tyranny of the parent over the child is not imposing curfews or getting him to eat spinach or preventing cohabitation in the back room; the fundamental tyranny is the current legal power of the parent to seize a child who has run away and drag him back home by force. The parent should, of course, have the right to try to persuade or cajole the kid to return, but he should never have the right to force him to do so, for that is kidnapping and a high crime that violates every person’s absolute right to his body.
Asserting every child’s right to run-away freedom does not imply, of course, that the libertarian advocates running away; that is purely a question of the individual situation of the parent and child. But we must recognize that inherent in even the best of parent–child relations is an essential “class struggle,” a struggle rooted in the necessary existential fact that the kid is born into an environment created not by himself but by his parents. And even in the best of circumstances, tastes, values, interests, attitudes will differ from every individual to another, and therefore from every parent to every child. In the natural course of events, then, most children will, upon growing up, seek to create their own environment by leaving the parental nest. That is the way of nature, from the animal kingdom to man.
Customary norms and basic reasonableness. This is only 'controversial' because people want to lord over the young. Much like many of your silly questions about the ins and outs of property norms, this is not a real problem that has ever existed in customary societies. Even when people had power over their offspring well into their twenties (Rome) they did not pretend that it was for some reason of incapability of decision making on the part of their offspring. It was because they believed in persons-as-property.
Edmund Carlyle: The basic conceptual framework of jurisprudence. One can accept 'to each, his own' or 'for each according to...'. If the former, you need a method of rationally identifying and proving one's own, which must exclude the logically impossible. If the latter it is completely arbitrary, it is strictly speaking not arbitration but reallocation of properties.
What does that have to do with the idea of "the presumption of innocence"?
And the idea of "the presumption of innocence" doesn't support your idea that it isn't "justified" to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes, because you haven't told me what it means to be "innocent". What if I just say that being innocent means not conflicting with my interests? Well, you need to tell me what "innocent" means, and tell me how we could apply it.
Edmund Carlyle: As Hoppe has pointed out, if the first person doesn't legit. own it then who 'owns' it is not something one can argue by jurisprudence or history, but is rather arbitrary reallocation.
As Hoppe has pointed out, if the first person doesn't legit. own it then who 'owns' it is not something one can argue by jurisprudence or history, but is rather arbitrary reallocation.
Why couldn't it be non-arbitrary reallocation?
And, again, why would we need to carry the idea of "first-come-first-serve" past the "initial dispute for spheres of influence"?
Edmund Carlyle: As Mises points out, again and again, value is subjective.
As Mises points out, again and again, value is subjective.
What are "values"? How could I observe one of these "values"?
Edmund Carlyle: Saying 'I know better than you!' is hubristic nonsense.
Saying 'I know better than you!' is hubristic nonsense.
Well, not really.
If somebody wants C, and believes that B would cause C, they want B. But what if it is actually A which would cause C? And what if that is what I believe? Couldn't we say that I "know better than him"? Couldn't we say that I know what he should want better that he does?
Edmund Carlyle: People who don't believe in managerial, allocative approaches to social order generally will not become politicians.
How does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn't "justified" to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?
Edmund Carlyle: Political orders have no test by which to examine their ideologies.
What about how much power they get?
Edmund Carlyle: Ontological or existential individualism.
Ontological or existential individualism.
What does that mean?
Edmund Carlyle: Making claims about 'the group's' interest, or the 'nation's' will are ridiculous gibberish.
Making claims about 'the group's' interest, or the 'nation's' will are ridiculous gibberish.
Edmund Carlyle: Interest which are not contrary to social order itself, i.e., the market economy.
Again, how does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn't "justified" to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?
Edmund Carlyle: Status climbing bureaucracies to demonstrate your superiority. I do think this also happens in voluntary circumstances. I think it's also pathetic here, though not actionable.
Yet again, how does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn't "justified" to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?
Edmund Carlyle: I suggest you read Narveson and de Jasay.
Can you re-state their relevant arguments in your own words?
Edmund Carlyle: Because illiberal and collectivist doctrines all revolve around managing people and orders that are not worth the attention of a person.
Why wouldn't they be "worth the attention of a person"?
And how are you in the position to tell somebody what is worth their attention?
Edmund Carlyle: Shoot them. I'm not interested in anti-social types.
So is it that you don't think that it is "justified" to impose your will on somebody unless they first imposed their will on somebody else?
Edmund Carlyle: You have no logical basis for opposing someone's stabbing you and taking your things.
You have no logical basis for opposing someone's stabbing you and taking your things.
What would a "logical basis for opposing" something like that even be?
Edmund Carlyle: these people have no claim to protection.
these people have no claim to protection.
What would a "claim to protection" even be?
Edmund Carlyle: I favor social order and believe this is the only framework within which liberties and torts make any logical, consistent sense.
I favor social order and believe this is the only framework within which liberties and torts make any logical, consistent sense.
Again, we don't have your "customary and voluntarist norms" in place, yet you think that they would "best reflect the interest of the individuals involved". If that isn't "pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do", I don't know what is.
If you ask someone to prove why he shouldn't be interfered with, you are asking him to prove a universal negative.
Because all reallocation is based on arbitrary values. You might say that non-reallocative justice is in itself an arbitrary choice, but it is the only one in which jurisprudence is actually meaningful and not fiat.
As for the rest, you are either missing the point or trying to find things which aren't intended to be there. I am not a moralist after the fashion of Rothbard. Furthermore, attempting to (or expecting) an explication of complex customary legal theory, eudaemonism and social order on a message board is rather silly; and I will not attempt to fulfill such mad demands. You can believe me or not, agree or not, the point is that I advocate strict liberalism which - like Jehovah - 'is no respecter of persons'.
Edmund Carlyle: Customary norms and basic reasonableness.
Customary norms and basic reasonableness.
Well, you messed that up when you told me that you wouldn't stop your young kid from walking into oncoming traffic.
Edmund Carlyle: This is only 'controversial' because people want to lord over the young.
This is only 'controversial' because people want to lord over the young.
How could it be any other way?
Edmund Carlyle: Much like many of your silly questions about the ins and outs of property norms
Much like many of your silly questions about the ins and outs of property norms
What is an "in" or "out" of "property norms"?
Edmund Carlyle: this is not a real problem that has ever existed in customary societies
this is not a real problem that has ever existed in customary societies
I'm not sure what problem you are referring to.
Edmund Carlyle: Even when people had power over their offspring well into their twenties (Rome) they did not pretend that it was for some reason of incapability of decision making on the part of their offspring. It was because they believed in persons-as-property.
Even when people had power over their offspring well into their twenties (Rome) they did not pretend that it was for some reason of incapability of decision making on the part of their offspring. It was because they believed in persons-as-property.
If it leads to the same action, it doesn't really matter what words you use to describe what you are doing.
I am not going to argue with you anymore. If you want to be a slave driver, that's your affair. But I find it personally disgusting and legally inane.
Edmund Carlyle: If you ask someone to prove why he shouldn't be interfered with, you are asking him to prove a universal negative.
What about this:
A: Why shouldn't I interfere with you? B: Because I'll kill you. A: Oh okay, yeah, then I'll leave you alone.
A: Why shouldn't I interfere with you?
B: Because I'll kill you.
A: Oh okay, yeah, then I'll leave you alone.
Looks pretty solid to me.
Edmund Carlyle: Because all reallocation is based on arbitrary values. You might say that non-reallocative justice is in itself an arbitrary choice, but it is the only one in which jurisprudence is actually meaningful and not fiat.
What does it mean to be "actually meaningful"?
And what's the difference between "arbitrary" and "fiat"?
Edmund Carlyle: As for the rest, you are either missing the point or trying to find things which aren't intended to be there.
As for the rest, you are either missing the point or trying to find things which aren't intended to be there.
Can you explain?
Edmund Carlyle: I am not a moralist after the fashion of Rothbard.
I am not a moralist after the fashion of Rothbard.
Did I imply that you were? Or what?
Edmund Carlyle: Furthermore, attempting to (or expecting) an explication of complex customary legal theory, eudaemonism and social order on a message board is rather silly; and I will not attempt to fulfill such mad demands.
Furthermore, attempting to (or expecting) an explication of complex customary legal theory, eudaemonism and social order on a message board is rather silly; and I will not attempt to fulfill such mad demands.
Yeah, I don't really expect to meet too many people who can substantiate their words.
Edmund Carlyle: You can believe me or not, agree or not, the point is that I advocate strict liberalism which - like Jehovah - 'is no respecter of persons'.
You can believe me or not, agree or not, the point is that I advocate strict liberalism which - like Jehovah - 'is no respecter of persons'.
I'm not even sure that there's anything behind your words!
But whatever. Unless this post changes your mind, I guess this is it at least for this chapter!
If I write a book on the subject, I'll let you know. But as I am not in search of converts, nor a person who has a very high opinion of forums to begin with, I don't see any profit in continuing.
As far as people not substantiating complex philosophical points which probably involve thousands of pages of theory behind them, this is no failing. It's a reality about the nature of forum environments, which are maybe a step above chat rooms. If you expect to come to a forum to discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics or natural sciences you are deluded. Try reading, or going to a University, if that is what you want. Forums are only suited for rather high level discussions which presume some fundamental agreement. It's like a run of the mill high school communist coming in and demanding answers for all his doubts regarding praxeology. He has, quite simply, made a mistake.
Edmund Carlyle: I am not[...] a person who has a very high opinion of forums to begin with[...] [...]It's a reality about the nature of forum environments, which are maybe a step above chat rooms.[...] Forums are only suited for rather high level discussions which presume some fundamental agreement.
I am not[...] a person who has a very high opinion of forums to begin with[...]
[...]It's a reality about the nature of forum environments, which are maybe a step above chat rooms.[...] Forums are only suited for rather high level discussions which presume some fundamental agreement.
It isn't like it has a character cap.
Seriously, I have no idea where you are coming from here.
Edmund Carlyle: If you expect to come to a forum to discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics or natural sciences you are deluded.
If you expect to come to a forum to discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics or natural sciences you are deluded.
I have met more than a few people on this forum that I can "discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics, or natural sciences" with, but countless others who throw out a few memes, and then run away when asked to explain themselves.
Edmund Carlyle: As far as people not substantiating complex philosophical points which probably involve thousands of pages of theory behind them, this is no failing.
As far as people not substantiating complex philosophical points which probably involve thousands of pages of theory behind them, this is no failing.
Not a great cover.
Look, if you can't explain yourself, I doubt that there's anything behind your words anyway.
(It isn't an accident that you use tons of jargon, tons of big words, and so on. Using plain language would probably reveal that there just isn't anything there.)
Holy shit. Bellamy was a freemason.
This might give you an idea of why he isn't pleased with Ron Paul. http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/09/the-apotheosis-of-ron-paul/
This might give you an idea of why he isn't pleased with Ron Paul.
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/09/the-apotheosis-of-ron-paul/
Quite interesting, especially this:
You see, on Planet Paul, big government is fine, provided that government operates at the state or local level, not federal. In fact, Ron Paul only believes in freedom unrestricted by federal law. When it comes to state and local governments, he fully endorses those governments’ “right” to restrict any number of your freedoms. It comes as no surprise to learn, therefore, that on a host of other issues, such as the banning of raw milk, marijuana, abortion, same-sex relations, and so on, Paul explicitly advocates majority rule at the state level.
You see, on Planet Paul, big government is fine, provided that government operates at the state or local level, not federal.
In fact, Ron Paul only believes in freedom unrestricted by federal law. When it comes to state and local governments, he fully endorses those governments’ “right” to restrict any number of your freedoms.
It comes as no surprise to learn, therefore, that on a host of other issues, such as the banning of raw milk, marijuana, abortion, same-sex relations, and so on, Paul explicitly advocates majority rule at the state level.
What a total misunderstanding. I am no fan of Ron Paul to be sure, as by his own standard he’s wasting his time, but this is the lousiest, head-in-the-clouds argument against him I’ve ever seen.
It's correct. Ron Paul is not a libertarian or a propertarian. He's a scheming politician and inconsistent as all Hell; he believes in state power, he just wants it to be the nice mafia. I don't understand the obsession a bunch of supposed libertarians have with this professional scoundrel.
Aren't customary norms (power to assert) formed out of group interests? If its a customary norm in my community to stop children from walking into busy streets I'm justified in doing so. Or is that gibberish?
No, customary norms arise out of individual dispute resolutions.
Disputes require more than one person (groups).
Edmund Carlyle:He doesn't 'get the word out'. He diverts resources from real libertarian projects to his inane authoritarian schemes and political jockeying, he produces a perverted pseudoliberalism which 1) produces a false view of liberalism and 2) attracts people who are anti-liberal to the libertarian movement. And I think that it goes without saying that if the biggest spokesperson for your liberal movement is a career politician then maybe you need to seriously rethink your strategy and what sort of people you want to be appealing to.
I can't tell if you're trolling or ignorant about economics.
I can tell you're trolling.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, not only does Edmund Carlyle needs to get a grip on reality & adopt a strategy that isn't full of fail & strawmen, it seems there are others here that do too.
Edmund Carlyle needs to understand that attacking a man who has done more for liberty than pretty much anyone else alive (by changing hearts and minds - bar maybe Rockwell via the Institute) isn't exactly a good use of ones time, and kind of reeks of sadism. Pathetic. The movement needs more people like Ron Paul, and less people like you.
Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist,
Except when he's not, like every day when he votes for anti-abortion, immigration restrictions, endorses local state's rights to outlaw flag burning and the centralizing document that created this monster to begin with. You're the one that needs to get a grip on reality, if you believe a pork barrel rolling white nationalist high level government employee is an anarchist of any kind.
Edmund Carlyle needs to understand that attacking a man who has done more for liberty than pretty much anyone else alive (by changing hearts and minds - bar maybe Rockwell via the Institute) isn't exactly a good use of ones time, and kind of reeks of sadism.
Claims which I reject utterly. Ron Paul and his so-called revolution have done nothing but muddy the waters and waste money on fruitless attempts to reign in a mafia through evil and unworkable methods.
I don't have anything against Paul personally, I've never met him, but he has no business calling himself a libertarian.