Gavin Weiman <gavin....@icloud.com>: Sep 26 08:40PM +0200
Well Popper argued that ‘constructionism was, as a piecemeal process, always going to happen and could be usful. Khun argues that this causes paradigm shifts over time.
So while there’s a will, the ‘way' will always happen as the future is continually shifting. The question is how best to act in the present.
I have no desire to ‘knock’ you or anyone… however it seems the views I shared are not useful from your perspective… but keep trying to discover and shape yours ,… its good work for the mind
Gavin Weiman <gavin....@icloud.com>: Sep 25 12:15PM +0200
The problem with simplistic solutions is that the evolved rules complex is more complex than the human mind can easily encompass.
Even your idea of using these as meme like explanations of what your alternative is, end up being more complex than you hoped they would be.
Some tests for effective simplicity.
Neither NAP or Consent speak about property.
… this introduces the complexity of your having to explain that you own your own life and the product of your effort, oh, and any land you occupy or have traded with other for etc.
… otherwise you are met with
I don’t consent to you not consenting or the NAP or your very existence as a free person, you are my property and as such lack the rights implied by NAP and as my property I revoke your right to consent… (this is the attraction of the Ancap view)
One of the problems I am wrestling with at the moment (in a novel I’ve been writing for the past 30 years) is the question of defence.
Let’s see how your axioms might deal with this issue, or Jim can help me.
In all extant legal systems one may not initiate force, its threat or misrepresent with the intention of harm. This is not a libertarian invention its evolved human customary law.
This comes into conflict with the notion of the state as the impartial arbiter of disputes.
Since the state is, like all things, not omniscient and omnipresent, law allows you to use force to defend against aggression.
This defence right only applies if an attack has commenced or is immanent and cannot be avoided by other means and extends only to ending the aggression, not attacking back, making new laws or revenge. You must allow the state to do the latter on your behalf thought law and the courts.
My creative plot problem/philosophical problem with this (and its also a problem with the consent axiom) is this.
1) what is aggression?
2) what is immanent?
A human lifespan is somewhere between 65 - 120 years, and then there is intergenerational wealth.
Let's assume someone (the villain or a socialist state with a long view) intentionally initiate a series of actions over a period of decades or centuries that will one day in the future result in my destruction or loss of all my, and my generational wealth. (this is in fact one of my novels libertarian plot themes)
Existing legal notions give me no right of self-defence against these long term actions since they would not be considered acts that were immanent or even in themselves agression. I am supposed to use a democratic process to combat this and as as a last recourse revolution. In the mean time I am expected to allow the rights of free speech (propaganda) by the villains and comply with the rule of law, and not agrees against these villains.
My hero has decided that these rights and institutions are framed like a spiders web. He turns his back on society and its evolved norms, he withdraws his consent to their consent and NAP the rule of their law etc. he uses his generational wealth to commit ‘crimes against humanity’ ends up conquering the world and establishing a new code of law making future rights of speech, property, actions, consent constrained so that actions cannot be taken that can have a long terms aggressive impact on the freedom to live without harming others.
My heroes are self-aware, historically-aware libertarians. They even look like villains to exiting liberation type thinkers. They have decide that they do not have to persuade others to allow them to be free, they will make it so even if the cost is the lives of everyone who opposes them. They will not allow ‘peaceful’ or even consenual actions that cumulatively, whether internationally or otherwise will interfere with their liberty of actions. They consider themselves bound by the same constraints they end up establishing.
In their new order they also have to allow for the knowledge problem and uncertainty.
Hope it sounds like something you may want to read. It's like a reverse 'Atlas Shrugged'. Except Atlas doesn’t shrug, he picks up a sword.