Stephan Kinsella Mises.org Blog Entry: Empathy and the Source of Rights
Paul Wakfer
Stephan Kinsella wrote:
>
> I often tire of people asking (usually in a self-contradictory,
> petulant tone, more demanding than asking), "Okay, so what is the
> /source/ of rights?! Where do they 'come from'?!"
These are totally reasonable questions which often are not asked in any
manner which can be construed as a "self-contradictory, petulant tone,
more demanding than asking" (by me for one). So right off Kinsella is
guilty of using exaggeration and emotional tactics, rather than logical,
reasoned argumentation. Every concept valid for reality must have a
source in reality. This is even true for emergent properties - those
which appear to be novel characteristics and for which it is useful
(aids thought processes) to consider them as such, even though they are
actually a synergistic summation of other attributes with their apparent
novelty being the result of the complexity and inherent unpredictability
of the system of which they are characteristics.
> My reply is usually that the questioner either respects my rights, or
> he does not. If he does not, he can go to h*ll-I'm not wasting time
> talking to an uncivilized thug,
This statement is totally illogical. Unless and until the fundamental
concept of "rights" is defined and the details of the relationships of
such a concept to reality are fully described, how can it be reasonable
to ask any reasonable person to "respect" such a thing, much less accuse
hir of being "an uncivilized thug" if s/he does not.
> any more than I would treat with a rampaging elephant, bandit, lion,
> or hurricane.
This is again illogical, because the very existence of such a question
about "the source of rights" shows that the asker is a thoughtful,
concerned human and will almost certainly *not* act equivalently to "a
rampaging elephant, bandit, lion, or hurricane". The mere asking of the
question, does not imply any desire, willingness or ability to cause
Kinsella harm either intentionally or unintentionally. The question
could have come from an invalid in a wheelchair, whom Kinsella is now
potentially treating as "uncivilized thug". This makes it clear that the
biggest logical problem with Kinsella's response here is that he places
the burden of any violation that might be done to him on the person who
does not accept Kinsella's "rights", rather than on some enforcer who
might actually cause such a violation.
> And if he does respect rights-then my stance is: how dare you demand
> of /me/ that I justify /your own views/? Look inside-and figure out
> for yourself why you believe in such and such.
The above also is illogical as well as insulting with the "how dare you"
- this to a totally reasonable question and a request for a helpful and
sincere answer. The questioner may well "believe in" respecting what
s/he thinks are well defined and valid rights, but may still be very
foggy about where in reality these come from and why they are as they
are. Hir question is clearly a request for help in understanding
"rights", particularly including Kinsella's own definitions of them and
his description/justification for their existence and application to
human interaction.
Kinsella has been so illogical and disrespectful up to this point that I
think it highly likely that most readers (at least anyone with such a
serious question looking for a serious answer) would simply have quit
reading by this point or earlier.
> Second, I point out that to ask for a "source" of rights is
> scientistic and positivistic.
Yes, but what is wrong with trying to be scientific (rational, I would
call it) about every aspect of reality?
> It presupposes someone or some "thing" "legislates" or "decrees" rights.
No, it does not! No sensible person supposes that reality is a "thing"
which "legislates" or "decrees" the fundamental laws of physics.
> Even the natural law advocate who says legislatures don't "decree
> rights" seem to move it back a level-to God, or to Nature.
Yes to the latter (nature), but everything that is real (valid for
reality) must necessarily "exist in", "derive from", "be based on" or
"be connected to" some part of reality.
> But rights don't really "come from" anything.
If so then they would be fundamentally different than any other existent
(which is one of my arguments against their validity).
> When it is demonstrated that 2+2=4, this is a truth, a fact. Does it
> make sense to ask what is the "source" of this "truth"? Where does
> 2+2=4 "come from"? This is just nonsense.
Here Kinsella shows that he has little understanding of metaphysics and
none at all of mathematics. "2+2=4" is not a part of reality, rather it
is a statement about numerical attributes abstracted from reality, which
statement is true essentially as a tautology logically derivable from
the definitions given to all the terms within that equation. It makes
total sense to ask "what is the source of this 'truth'", since that
truth comes directly from the definitions of the terms and the use of
logic, without which definitions the equation would be not only invalid,
but meaningless. However this kind of constructed, definitional truth
(relating Existents of Meta-Realities - for more detail see
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html) is not equivalent to the
scientific statements ("truths") concerning the Existents of Reality
itself, which are always only known with less than a 100% degree of
confidence.
> And it is similar with normative propositions-with moral truths.Values
> and norms is that they are /not/ causal laws. They are not
> self-enforcing; they are /prescriptive/. This is a crucial insight: it
> shows that even the best proof of rights-even the Ultimate Natural Law
> Proof handed down by God Himself can be disregarded (is not this the
> lesson of the Ten Commandments?).
The above is very confused and confusing. It is first necessary to give
a consistent meaning for "moral truth" (which is not at all obvious or
necessarily even possible) *before* one can hope to describe what it is
and is not. Furthermore if one uses the general, but still ambiguous,
phrase "principles of right action" for "moral truths", then it is clear
that they *are* causal. Following them or not most certainly does have
many and different sets of effects. But yes, since humans are generally
free to take or not take any action, they are certainly free to
disregard any such principles (moral truths), even though because of
causality they are not free to disregard the consequences of such actions.
> Or, as Hoppe argues here
> <http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-appx.pdf>,
>
> no deviation from a private property ethic can be justified
> argumentatively _ [T]hat Rawls or other socialists may still
> advocate such ethics is completely beside the point. That one plus
> one equals two does not rule out the possibility that someone says
> it is three, or that one ought not attempt to make one plus one
> equal three the arithmetic law of the land. But all this does not
> affect the fact that one plus one still /is/ two. In strict
> analogy to this, I "only" claim to prove that whatever Rawls or
> other socialists say is false, and can be understood as such by
> all /intellectually competent and honest men/. It does not change
> the fact that incompetence or dishonesty and evil still may exist
> and may even prevail over truth and justice. [last emphasis added]
>
> Or, as Hoppe explains here
> <http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/Soc&Cap7.pdf>,
>
> To say that this principle [underlying capitalism] is just also
> does not preclude the possibility of people proposing or even
> enforcing rules that are incompatible with it. As a matter of
> fact, with respect to norms the situation is very similar to that
> in other disciplines of scientific inquiry. The fact, for
> instance, that certain empirical statements are justified or
> justifiable and others are not does not imply that everyone only
> defends objective, valid statements. Rather, people can be wrong,
> even intentionally. But the distinction between objective and
> subjective, between true and false, does not lose any of its
> significance because of this. Rather, people who are wrong would
> have to be classified as either uninformed or intentionally lying.
> The case is similar with respect to
> norms. Of course there are many people who do not propagate or
> enforce norms which can be classified as valid according to the
> meaning of justification which I have given above. But the
> distinction between justifiable and nonjustifiable norms does not
> dissolve because of this, just as that between objective and
> subjective statements does not crumble because of the existence of
> uninformed or lying people. Rather, and accordingly, /those people
> who would propagate and enforce such different, invalid norms
> would again have to be classified as uninformed or dishonest,
> insofar as one had explained to them and indeed made it clear that
> their alternative norm proposals or enforcements could not and
> never would be justifiable in argumentation/. [emphasis added]
To effectively critique Hoppe, I would need to refer to the full text of
his quoted works rather than these snippets. So I will not comment at
this time in this place. I only wish to point out that the argumentative
effect of Kinsella's quotations is to invoke someone who he considers to
be a higher "authority" in order to strengthen his own case. This is
quite different than quoting someone in order to present a uniquely
different viewpoint on a given issue.
> What this means is that any norms that are abided by in society are
> necessarily norms that are /self-undertaken/ by a community of people
> who share that value.
In spite of Kinsella's previous errors, here, he is very close to a
correct description of the voluntary arrangements and agreements with
respect to fundamental philosophy which are necessary within a truly
free (and necessarily cooperative) society.
> In the case of civilization, you can envision two types of
> individuals: civilized people who want to live in peace and harmony
> and prosperity; and criminals or outlaws, who do not care about this.
My major criticism here is the use of the word "civilized" since it
derives from "civil" and "civic" which both relate to a member of a body
politic - a State of some kind. However at this time I don't know of any
better descriptive word for a human who fully understands and agrees
that living in cooperative harmony with others, voluntarily trading
values to mutual advantage and being fully responsible for the
Responsible Harm done by all one's Violations is the optimal way for
hirself and all others to behave. Perhaps a better word for
"uncivilized" would be "savage", often used in this manner by Ayn Rand.
Within the society founded by the Theory of Social Meta-Needs
(http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html) I have simply
called such people, Freemen. Note that the capitalized words are defined
in the Natural Social Contract at: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
However Kinsella errs in maintaining that humans who act as criminals do
not want to live in prosperity, since that is the major motive of most
of them. The true destroyers of all value around them are very rare.
Finally I take major exception to Kinsella's use of the word "outlaw"
for such "uncivilized" humans. In my view since an outlaw by definition
rejects and acts contrary to current Statist laws, such a person may be
one of the very finest of humans. After all, Ayn Rand's hero Ragnar
Danneskjold was certainly an outlaw.
> This latter type are animal-like; even the "best" argument or proof of
> rights can and will be disregarded by them (see Hoppe's comments
> quoted above).
While it may be true that "uncivilized" humans reject all concepts of
and arguments for "rights", the converse is not true - I and my wife,
Kitty, (at least) are exceptions to such a converse statement. We both
reject all concepts of and arguments for "rights" but we are most
certainly "civilized" as Kinsella uses that word ("people who want to
live in peace and harmony and prosperity"). The important point is that
certain people are "uncivilized", not because they reject the concept
and arguments for "rights", but because they reject that the optimal way
for themselves is to live in cooperative harmony with others,
voluntarily trading values to mutual advantage and being fully
responsible for the Responsible Harm done by all their Violations.
> What do the former people have in common? I suspect that it is the
> trait of /empathy/. Only by placing some value on others'
> well-being-for some reason-can one value respecting their rights; and
> it seems to me that it is empathy that is at the root of this
> other-valuing, almost by definition. In my view, evolution is probably
> what led to this trait, as a psychological matter, but that is not
> that significant to me. So, in a sense, if we must find a "source" of
> rights, I would say-it is /empathy/.
I want to start my comments on the above paragraph by commending
Kinsella for at least attempting to find a source in reality for the
notion of "rights" which notion he steadfastly maintains must exist, be
valid and be the foundation of all "civilized" behavior. Note that this
is contrary to his opening remarks strongly rebuking anyone who even
asks for such a source! But there are several problems with thinking
that empathy is the source of "rights".
1) The amount of empathy that a given human has for another human has
great variation both among individual humans and with respect to
particular situations. I know of no evidence that such empathy is
strongly correlated with the acceptance of "rights" as the best way to
achieve "peace and harmony and prosperity".
2) In my experience libertarians are *not* highly empathetic humans
(both libertarianism and Objectivism seem to attract many "hard-nosed"
and even "greedy" businessmen) and socialist utilitarians are generally
much more empathetic, even though their actions are far less likely to
effect the benefit of others that they profess wanting to occur.
3) Empathy (particularly with respect to particular aspects of others)
is very much connected with cultural conditioning during youth and
development, which again suggests no logical relationship to any notion
and acceptance of "rights".
4) Empathy is a highly subjective emotion which for most people is
totally unrelated to rational thought. Surely one should seek to ground
such an important notion, as Kinsella and other libertarians regard
"rights", in some more absolute aspect of human reality. Or else how can
any argument for such "rights" ever be expected to be acceptable and to
be accepted?
Actually the "natural law" approach, which approach Kinsella
peremptorily rejects as merely "mov[ing] it back a level", is far more
reasonable than his idea of empathy as a "source" for "rights". However
I reject that approach also, but for quite different reasons than
Kinsella - see my critique of Randy Barnett's "The Imperative of Natural
Rights in Today's World" at:
http://selfsip.org/dialogues/rbarnett/nri.html Moreover even though in
my treatise on Social Meta-Needs referenced above I strongly reject the
entire notion of "rights" as invalid, that treatise *does* provide a
fully rational basis for humans to be convinced that living in
cooperative harmony with each other, voluntarily trading values to
mutual advantage and being fully responsible for the Responsible Harm
done by all their Violations (which means Restituting those whom one has
Harmed) is clearly the best way for each to behave. Moreover that
treatise even derives a clear meaning of and standard for just exactly
what is this "best way".
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> At:http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/
After several days of trying "every which way" to post this critique
as a comment to Kinsella's original article, I finally succeeded in
getting it there in two separate parts, but with the portion relating
to the quotes from Hoppe removed. I will now invite Kinsella to join
the group and respond here to the entire critique, since this format
is far more amenable to in-depth, lengthy discussion.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational -http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -http://selfsip.org
KittyAntonikWakfer
> On Apr 6, 6:08 pm, Paul Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> > At:http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/
>
> After several days of trying "every which way" to post this critique
> as a comment to Kinsella's original article, I finally succeeded in
> getting it there in two separate parts, but with the portion relating
> to the quotes from Hoppe removed. I will now invite Kinsella to join
> the group and respond here to the entire critique, since this format
> is far more amenable to in-depth, lengthy discussion.
>
> --Paul Wakfer
Paul's post elicited 2 very brief responses - the first from someone
using the pseudonym "Beefcake the Mighty" (?whatever *that* implies
about the user?!) with a time stamp less than 3 hours after Paul's 2nd
half. The second is from this morning by Stephen Kinsella, concurring
with "Beefcake". Both of these are essentially ad hominems because
they do not address *any* of the essentials of Paul's critique but
rather simply are "directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or
reader's personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect and
reason" and are "marked by attack on an opponent's character rather
than by answer to his contentions" - both quotes from Merriam-
Webster's definition for "ad hominem".
While I would respond myself to say just this, I know that my post
would be treated as merely vacuous support coming from a "dutiful" and
"protective" wife rather than an independently thinking and reasoning
individual.
Others are encouraged to read the replies themselves and see an
example, in the case of Kinsella, of a supposed intellectual acting in
a very non-intellectual manner, but typical of a lawyer trained in the
tactics needed to defend his position and "win" his argument - and to
date very few have had the courage to say that "[this] emperor is
wearing no clothes". As a mental exercise, I'd like to see comments
from anyone who recognizes the distraction technique Kinsella also
uses in his brief response to Beefcake - note, that Kinsella has not
responded to Paul at all - a tactic that lawyers very often use when
their case is weak.
As for "Beefcake", this is some totally anonymous and unknowable
character who can write anything and not be held accountable for the
lack of reasoned thinking he demonstrates. So his comment should be
viewed as effectively non-existent, just like his identity.
Hopefully someone in the future will read this blog entry of
Kinsella's, along with the comments, and make a meaningful comment
hirself pointing out the errors. A person named "Kevin" did so in
April 2009, but was treated pretty shabbily by Kinsella for objecting
to major points of that blog entry. Unfortunately "Kevin" is not
identifiable and so there is no way to let him know that an even more
substantial critique of Kinsella's writing in that entry has taken
place - Paul's.
**Kitty
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> On Apr 10, 3:54 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 6:08 pm, Paul Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> > > At:http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/
>
> > After several days of trying "every which way" to post this critique
> > as a comment to Kinsella's original article, I finally succeeded in
> > getting it there in two separate parts, but with the portion relating
> > to the quotes from Hoppe removed. I will now invite Kinsella to join
> > the group and respond here to the entire critique, since this format
> > is far more amenable to in-depth, lengthy discussion.
>
> > --Paul Wakfer
>
> Paul's post elicited 2 very brief responses - the first from someone
> using the pseudonym "Beefcake the Mighty" (?whatever *that* implies
> about the user?!) with a time stamp less than 3 hours after Paul's 2nd
> half. The second is from this morning by Stephen Kinsella, concurring
> with "Beefcake". Both of these are essentially ad hominems because
> they do not address *any* of the essentials of Paul's critique but
> rather simply are "directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or
> reader's personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect and
> reason" and are "marked by attack on an opponent's character rather
> than by answer to his contentions" - both quotes from Merriam-
> Webster's definition for "ad hominem".
I have responded at mises.org to both comments referred to by Kitty
above, and also to one new thoughtful comment.
Interested readers can read these starting at
http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-683454
Responses are welcome either there or here.
--Paul Wakfer
Paul Antonik Wakfer
the comment section of his blog entry, but unfortunately little that
was substantive and nothing substantive relating to the original blog
entry. I duplicate my last and final response below and remind readers
that the whole dialog can be read at:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://blog.mises.org/5573/empathy-and-the-source-of-rights/comment-page-1/%23comment-683454
--Paul Wakfer
My last response at the above blog comment area.
Again Stephan Kinsella addresses nothing of substance in my original
critique and little of substance in my last response. I will therefore
only respond to the few points of tactics and of substance that he did
address and ignore his pointless response to the rest.
More generally it has now become clear that Stephan Kinsella does not
have the fundamental understanding of the foundations of philosophy,
mathematics and science necessary for any fruitful dialog between him
and me. (A major point of this dialog was to determine just that, as
opposed to whether he just had a penchant for being difficult,
avoiding and abrasive with commenters.) This also implies that his
many posts on areas which involve such knowledge and foundational
thinking are both a fraud and a waste of time for others to be
reading. For this reason, although I will continue to respond to his
posts because it is necessary for someone to show others that there is
nothing of substance behind his posturings, my responses will be just
once to the main substance of the post without any continuation
(unless perchance he or someone else should address the substance of
my response remarks).
> We will have to agree to disagree on this point. I insist.
[The above stated several times]
Agreeing to disagree is a tactic of a coward, a quitter or an arrogant
person who thinks that the other is incapable of true understanding –
most certainly it is not the approach of someone who treats others as
peers and who sincerely wants to achieve a mutual understanding of
reality.
I often temporarily stop my attempts to get others to understand when
I see that I am getting nowhere (as now), until such time as I see
evidence of a fundamental change in such person, but I never “agree to
disagree”, since such “sweeping under the rug” is always a recipe for
eventual disaster in any relationship. And I most certainly never
accept anyone’s insistence – not unless it is clear that physical
force will be used against me if I don’t.
> I’m not appealing to authority–I’m referring those interested
> to a more detailed explanation of the dualist case–one I agree with.
> I don’t intend to reproduce their arguments.
If you, Stephan Kinsella, cannot produce your own arguments in your
own words (or at least a synopsis) then you don’t understand what you
are talking about and are merely a follower, rather than an
independent thinker. And BTW, your classification of yourself as a
“Misesian” is little different that the classification of followers of
Christ as Christians and the followers of Ayn Rand as Randians (or
“students of Objectivism”) – all of these being “true believers” in
contrast to independent critical thinkers about the ideas espoused by
those individuals.
>> Further, I would maintain that, again in this regard,
>> it is their thinking that is “stunted” (to use your word),
>> or better still, that none of them had/have the logical,
>> mathematical and scientific background (mathematics,
>> physics, computer and biological sciences) that I have
>> and which has enabled me to become convinced that
>> they are all wrong in this regard, even though they are
>> correct and their ideas/writings have been highly beneficial
>> in other regards.
> This is typical of the way engineers think.
[And later]
>> since I do agree that praxeology is a fundamentally “harder” [more difficult]
>> science in certain ways than are physics, chemistry and biology.
>> Correctly viewed, praxeology is closer in type and method to mathematics
>> than to any other science. I have always thought it a shame that
>> Mises did not have sufficient knowledge of mathematical axiomatic
>> theoretics to found praxeology in that manner.
> This view is typical of the engineering mindset mired in empiricism.
Here Kinsella seems to forget that it is engineers who made the modern
technological world, by standing on the shoulders of scientists, who
in turn stood on the shoulders of mathematicians. Without engineers,
whose fundamental thinking he so disparages, we would not be having
this discussion in this format. I also note that Kinsella continues to
use categorizations rather than individual ideas, attributes and
characterizations, which, of course, is the antithesis of
methodological individualism.
>> “Praxeology is in a sense a “harder” science than
>> the natural sciences ever can be”Do you really not know
>> that the word “hard” used in this manner refers to the sciences
>> concerned with physics, chemistry and biology?
>> But perhaps you are merely making a kind of pun,
> No, it’s not a pun. I am serious. You positivist-monists often
> classify the “harder” sciences (physics, etc.) to distinguish
> them from “softer” ones–those that are less rigorous or less
> amenable to empirical testing and falsification. By “harder”
> you mean it is more rigorous, and you can get more certain
> results out of it. But economic science, due to its apodictic
> nature, is in a sense much “harder” than even physics
> since it results in apodictically true knowledge, much more
> rigorous, while in physics the knowledge is always contingent
> and subject to revision.
Here Kinsella really shows his ignorance. The term “hard sciences” has
no relationship to “rigor” (Kinsella appears to not know the meaning
of that word). Rather the term “hard sciences” had its origin in the
fact that certain sciences dealt more directly with the matter/energy
of reality and, in particular, can make better and easier use of
measurement (although it is now the case that much of psychology does
make good use of measurement), than is the case for the other sciences
(sometimes called the “soft sciences”, but not by me since that term
is often used disparagingly). I, as with many others, simply use “hard
sciences” as a short form instead of listing them all as physics,
chemistry and biology. Note that l do not include mathematics as one
of the hard sciences although it appears most people do. Also note
that until recent times biology was also not included among the hard
sciences – mainly because it did not use the scientific method but
rather was mostly an observational and classificational science.
> Well there can be arbitrary maths based on arbitrary axioms,
> while praxeology is based on undeniable, apodictically true foundations.
Spoken like a true believer and a devout follower of a prophet!
Again Kinsella shows that he has no fundamental understanding of his
subject matter nor even of the words that he so glibly spouts. In
which case, of course, he should, in all fairness and honesty to his
readers, refrain from writing on such subjects.
Getting back to substance, however, just as mathematics can be based
on different (and even opposed) self-consistent sets of axioms, both
of which resulting theories can still model different aspects of
reality (eg Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometries), so too
can praxeology (the study of human action and conduct – Mises did not
invent the word) be based on different (and even opposing) sets of
axioms/assumptions only some of which will model some part of human
reality as verified by observation, prediction and, if possible,
experimentation, while others of which may model other aspects of
human reality (or perhaps the “action and conduct” of some other
species). The *only* apodictic truth is that which interrelates
concepts and other constructs of meta-reality and which is based
entirely on the logic of manipulating such constructs.
>> OTOH, the reason why mathematics is apodictic is that
>> it is based on pure abstractions from reality which are
>> all in meta-reality where truth can be absolute
> here we go with the crank-sounding talk that makes people’s eyes glaze over.
Interesting how the word “crank” is so often used by people who are
regarded that way by the vast majority of the world and/or have no
understanding whatever of the subject area of their correspondent’s
writing. As for “eyes glaze over”, that is what happens when one’s
intellect is so low and/or one’s knowledge so shallow that one has no
inkling of what the other person means.
>> “I continue to wait for a substantive response to the essential
>> points of my critique.”” I am not aware of any obligation
>> for anyone to give a point by point reply to you.”While it is
>> certainly true that you have no “obligation” for that (I and you
>> have not executed any contract obligating you in that manner)
> Even if I had, that would not give me an obligation.
> Contracts are title transfers. Not binding promises.
> (See Rothbard, and Evers.)
This is coming from a lawyer?!? Contracts can deal with service
obligations just as they deal with transfers of ownership of material
objects. In that manner, they *can* deal with binding promises. The
major flaw in most conceptions of a valid contract is that any valid
contract must have penalty and escape clauses – which prevents any
promise (or contract clause of any type) from being *totally* binding.
Again see the definitions and clauses of the Natural Social Contract
<http://www.selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> for all such definitions
and connections between the definitions.
As stated at the beginning, this will be my last response on this blog
entry unless there are substantive responses to my original critique.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "Libertarian Critique".
To post (approval and full identification required): send email to libertaria...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe: send email to libertarian-crit...@googlegroups.com
More options at: http://groups.google.com/group/libertarian-critique?hl=en