The Libertarian Case for National Military Service

[Jamie Michelle]

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, "The Libertarian Case for National Military Service", Cato Unbound, Sept. 9, 2013. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/09/09/pascal-emmanuel-gobry/libertarian-case-national-military-service , http://archive.is/dczNA Intra-publication reply by Jason Kuznicki, "There Is No Libertarian Case for National Military Service", Cato Unbound, Sept. 11, 2013. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/09/09/there-is-no-libertarian-case-national-military-service , http://archive.is/jicHz

The following is my reply to Gobry's foregoing article, which I posted to the Cato Unbound website circa 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Sept. 10, 2013 on Gobry's above article page. The blog software stated that my post is being held for moderator approval. Many other replies have been posted to Gobry's article that were submitted after mine. Hopefully my reply will also be posted at Cato Unbound. But even if it does not get posted there, I can nevertheless post my reply elsewhere. (I also posted it on Kuznicki's above article page on Sept. 11, 2013--replacing "present article" in my text with "aforecited article"--and it also as of yet has not been approved.)

[begin]

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry's present article is extremely muddleheaded. Gobry keeps using the word "libertarian" without ever defining what he means by the word, while attributing positions to it that are antipodal to what the leading libertarian theorists--particularly Profs. Murray N. Rothbard (known by the sobriquets "Mr. Libertarian" and, while he was alive, "The Greatest Living Enemy of the State") and Hans-Hermann Hoppe--have explicated as being libertarianism.

Gobry's problem in his article is that to him, libertarianism is just a vague idea of desiring more freedom, instead of a rigorously logical system with definite truth or falsity values on the legitimacy of the entire range of possible human interactions. With Gobry's nebulous conception, "libertarianism" could be anything, since even the most totalitarian of governments maintain that their subjects are free (e.g., "Arbeit Macht Frei"). Furthermore, libertarianism in the sense of Profs. Rothbard and Hoppe is not only a logically rigorous ethical system, but one which is apodictically true, in the sense that the truth of rigorous libertarianism cannot be denied without assuming its truth in the denial. One who disagrees with rigorous libertarianism is logically wrong in the same degree as one who argues that they cannot argue. For more on this, see my following article: James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network, Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733.

Nor, contrary to what Gobry states, is the United States a free country. Currently the US government maintains that it can kill and indefinitely imprison anyone anywhere in the world based upon nothing more than the US president's say-so, including US citizens arrested on US soil. And the US government maintains it can do all of this in secret. So no such thing as a human right exists in the US vis-à-vis the US government. Moreover, the US has the highest prisoner population of any country in the entire world. This is both in terms of absolute numbers, as well as on a per capita basis (see Roy Walmsley, "World Prison Population List (ninth edition)", International Centre for Prison Studies [King's College London--School of Law], May 2011). Many of these US prisons and jails are hellish torture-pits where boys and men are gang-raped without condoms for years and decades on end, and where mutilation and death is an ever-present reality.

Moreover, the US government routinely mass-murders is own subjects in staged terrorist attacks in order to have a pretext for usurping ever more power, such as with the 9/11 attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Pearl Harbor attack, etc. Regarding the US government's Gulf of Tonkin false-flag operation, some 58,000 US citizens died in the Vietnam War which directly resulted from said false-flag. This was nothing less than mass-murder by the US government against these US citizens, since their deaths were the result of malice aforethought by the US government: the US president and the US's highest military leaders involved in staging this false-flag operation cannot coherently claim that they are not responsible for these US citizens' deaths, no more than one who throws a person into a lion's den can veridically claim innocence in the victim's resulting death. Such an abuser is fully guilty of murder.

For a much deeper examination into the aforesaid three US government-staged pretext-attacks, see Sec. 8.2.1 of my following article, in particular pp. 70-86: James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network, Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. This article concerns physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything; however, it also analyzes the societal implications of said, particularly the implications of the exponential advancement of technology and hence also the coming radical life-extension technologies (i.e., transhumanism) in light of a world dominated by a callous oligarchy.

[end]

The following are links to the two articles of mine which I cited in my above reply (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

[Stavros]

Furthermore, libertarianism in the sense of Profs. Rothbard and Hoppe is not only a logically rigorous ethical system, but one which is apodictically true, in the sense that the truth of rigorous libertarianism cannot be denied without assuming its truth in the denial.

Rothbard is remembered as a crank who first insisted that his justification for anarcho-capitalism is indisputably correct, and thus depicted every argument deviating from his version of economics as wrong, which made him an incompetent philosopher and a useless historian. Examples of the lunacy which his arguments lead to in practice are 'the right' of parents not to feed their children, even if this means they starve to death; and that blackmail should not be a crime (because it is a financial transaction between two people the state should not interfere with).

These links offer coherent examples of Rothbard's ideas and why most sensible people reject them, and note that these are not critiques from a Marxian perspective, but mostly from conservatives, including William Buckley.

http://critiques.us/wiki/William_Buckley_on_Murray_Rothbard

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/horror-of-rothbardian-natural-rights.html

http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf-back/23-RA-7.pdf

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

[trish]

If by “apodictically true” one means tautologically true; i.e. derivable from the axioms of logic alone using the rules of inference, then libertarianism would be incapable of making anything but tautological assertions and thereby incapable of suggesting any but the most vacuous of policy decisions concerning economics, laws and governance.

Let us take the example of first order logic. First order languages are built from symbols for universal quantification, the logical connectives, as well as non-logical predicate and function symbols. To construct a first order theory of (say) “rights,” one would have to introduce one or more non-logical predicates symbols and describe their interpretation. Thus one might introduce the unary predicate symbol P(x) to stand for “x is a person and a unary predicate symbol Q(x) to stand for “x has the right to carry a firearm.” However, using only the rules of inference and the axioms of first order logic it is impossible to prove (x)[P(x) -> Q(x)] which is Principia’s notation denoting “For every x, if x is a person, then x has the right to carry a firearm.” Certainly the uninterpreted form “(x)[P(x) -> Q(x)]” isn’t a tautology and doesn’t follow from the rules of inference and the axioms of logic alone. To derive it from a “theory of rights” that theory cannot be apodictic; i.e. it must hypothesize at least one non-logical axiom.

Clearly, then it cannot be the case, as Jamie claims, that “One who disagrees with rigorous libertarianism is logically wrong in the same degree as one who argues that they cannot argue.” With charity, “apodictically true” can at best mean self-evident. And I am sure the principles of libertarianism appear to be self-evident to its adherents, for there is no other kind of credible evidence to support it.

[Jamie Michelle]

Rothbard is remembered as a crank who first insisted that his justification for anarcho-capitalism is indisputably correct, and thus depicted every argument deviating from his version of economics as wrong, which made him an incompetent philosopher and a useless historian. Examples of the lunacy which his arguments lead to in practice are 'the right' of parents not to feed their children, even if this means they starve to death; and that blackmail should not be a crime (because it is a financial transaction between two people the state should not interfere with).

These links offer coherent examples of Rothbard's ideas and why most sensible people reject them, and note that these are not critiques from a Marxian perspective, but mostly from conservatives, including William Buckley.

http://critiques.us/wiki/William_Buckley_on_Murray_Rothbard

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/horror-of-rothbardian-natural-rights.html

http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf-back/23-RA-7.pdf

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

Hi, Stavros. Your above claims are the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

Regarding Prof. Murray N. Rothbard being "remembered as a crank", undoubtedly etatists have often tried to characterize him as such, but then apologists of the state have a very tenuous relationship with truth. (CIA agent William F. Buckley, Jr.--who you cite above--being a classic example of this.) For more on this phenomenon, see the following items:

Julian Assange, "On the take and loving it: Academic recipients of the U.S. intelligence budget", Wikileaks, Oct. 7, 2007. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/On_the_take_and_loving_it , http://www.webcitation.org/6EYUw5pXp

Marcus Raskin, "The Megadeath Intellectuals", New York Review of Book, Nov. 14, 1963, pp. 6–7. nyrb 1963 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/50330552/nyrb-1963) , http://www.webcitation.org/6EYVgxXfX

James Redford, "The Major Media Is Owned by the US Government", Prison Planet Forum, Feb. 19, 2013. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=242458.0 , http://www.webcitation.org/6F7JYVjMH

Not all anarcho-capitalists come to that political system from the position of objective law, as some are Friedmanites (referring to Milton Friedman's son, Prof. David D. Friedman), or some come to it from another position--and hence, such anarcho-capitalists are not Rothbardians, at least as it concerns their approach to objective law.

Almost all of the scholars associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the regular contributors to LewRockwell.com, are Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. The Murray N. Rothbard Institute would be a more accurate name for this Institute, since where Mises and Rothbard differ, its scholars side with Rothbard--and quite correctly so.

Dr. Ron Paul is also a Rothbardian, and when he was a congressman had a picture of Rothbard on his congressional office wall, alongside pictures of Ayn Rand, Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek. Ron Paul seems to have a great affinity for anarcho-capitalism, even if he hasn't yet explicitly promoted it; nevertheless, Paul seems to recognize that anarcho-capitalism in the Rothbardian sense is objectively true. Ron Paul's closest intellectual friends are the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists connected with the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com.

But even the intellectuals connected to the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com do not worship Rothbard as infallible. For example, most of these Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists are Kinsellaians when it comes to the concept of intellectual property rights, and hence break with Rothbard's defense of this concept. The reason they depart from Rothbard over this is precisely because the legal ethics which Rothbard advanced are objectively true, and hence it is possible to derive what its implications are, including deviations from it.

The very concept of "intellectual property" is fallacious and unjust. The entire point of valid property rights is to resolve disputes in scarce resources. Thus, if John takes someone's lawnmower then that person no longer has that lawnmower. Yet if Mary copies some output of someone's intellect, it subtracts no physical holding from that person.

So-called "intellectual property" cannot rise to the level of valid property for the reason that it is not a scarce resource: and hence everyone, in principle, can have their own copy of an intellectual creation without subtracting any physical holding from its creator. Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

For more on the fallaciousness and unjustness of so-called "intellectual property", see the below article:

N. Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1–53. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6E9neqZI3 N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008). http://mises.org/books/against.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5nvOa8JMd

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O.P. Alford III Prize for scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)

For the objective correctness of anarcho-libertarianism, see my following article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

Prof. Rothbard is correct on his explanation regarding parents' objective-law responsibilities vis-à-vis children. No legitimate law can compel positive action, but rather legitimate law consists solely of the prohibition of aggression. One can incur a debt through the transfer of title to real property or aggression, but even here the right of the aggrieved is to confiscate the defaulted debtor's real property or inflict punishment in proportion to the debt incurred.

There are situations that occur in which a parent would not be able to abide by such a law no matter how much they wanted to, such as during a famine. This is a theme which comes up often with illegitimate laws that require positive action, since such laws assume a state of affairs in which it is physically possible to abide by them, of which state may not obtain. Whereas legitimate law is universal: it applies in all times and places.

However, in cases where the child cannot simply ask others for help, the parent should make known to others if practicable the abandonment of their child, as otherwise this would effectively be forcible starvation, i.e., the secreting away of a child too physically immature to seek help.

But any positive action taken to end a born and innocent child's life would be murder under objective law.

Blackmail indeed is not a veridical objective-law crime, since the blackmailer is simply offering the blackmailed party not to reveal information about said party. Thus, the blackmailed party is actually better off at least having the option to choose whether he wishes information about himself to be made known than had the would-be blackmailer simply chosen to reveal the information or sell it to others (such as to the press)--as the blackmailed party can always just turn the blackmailer's offer down, in which case the blackmailed individual is in no worse position than had the blackmailer simply, e.g., gone to the press to begin with. But more to the point, blackmail in this sense involves no aggression against the person or justly-acquired property of another, and hence simply fails to be an objective-law crime.

For much more on these matters, below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974). http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp , http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3r05ti

Murray N. Rothbard, "Defense Services on the Free Market", Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970). http://wayback.archive.org/web/20040720094416/http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/rothbard-power-and-market/rothbard-power-and-market.pdf

Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52. http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46. http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf

Prof. David D. Friedman, "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market", Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; orig. pub. 1971). http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html , http://webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ , http://archive.is/I1mt4

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

Murray N. Rothbard , The Ethics of Liberty (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998; orig. pub. 1982). http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp , http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995). http://mises.org/esandtam.asp , http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

Murray N. Rothbard, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", in Mary Sennholz (editor), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255. http://mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve4WQnYm

Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2004; orig. pub. 1962). http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp , http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5v3cOaaAG

Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970). http://wayback.archive.org/web/20040720094416/http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/08/28/rothbard-power-and-market/rothbard-power-and-market.pdf

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5th ed., 2000; orig. pub. 1963). http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf , http://webcitation.org/5v3cWFPsd

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/details/JesusIsAnAnarchist , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

See also my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/details/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm

For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://freakshare.com/files/i2ehznsj/Frank-J-Tipler-Videos.txt.html

[Jamie Michelle]

If by “apodictically true” one means tautologically true; i.e. derivable from the axioms of logic alone using the rules of inference, then libertarianism would be incapable of making anything but tautological assertions and thereby incapable of suggesting any but the most vacuous of policy decisions concerning economics, laws and governance.

Let us take the example of first order logic. First order languages are built from symbols for universal quantification, the logical connectives, as well as non-logical predicate and function symbols. To construct a first order theory of (say) “rights,” one would have to introduce one or more non-logical predicates symbols and describe their interpretation. Thus one might introduce the unary predicate symbol P(x) to stand for “x is a person and a unary predicate symbol Q(x) to stand for “x has the right to carry a firearm.” However, using only the rules of inference and the axioms of first order logic it is impossible to prove (x)[P(x) -> Q(x)] which is Principia’s notation denoting “For every x, if x is a person, then x has the right to carry a firearm.” Certainly the uninterpreted form “(x)[P(x) -> Q(x)]” isn’t a tautology and doesn’t follow from the rules of inference and the axioms of logic alone. To derive it from a “theory of rights” that theory cannot be apodictic; i.e. it must hypothesize at least one non-logical axiom.

Clearly, then it cannot be the case, as Jamie claims, that “One who disagrees with rigorous libertarianism is logically wrong in the same degree as one who argues that they cannot argue.” With charity, “apodictically true” can at best mean self-evident. And I am sure the principles of libertarianism appear to be self-evident to its adherents, for there is no other kind of credible evidence to support it.

Hi, Trish.

Your error in the above is that you are applying an invalid analogy by citing the example of mathematical/formal-logic axioms, i.e., an axiom in the sense of a proposition which itself is not proven. However, veridical economics (i.e., Austrian School economics) and veridical legal ethics are based upon axioms which themselves are unavoidably true: they are basic a priori axioms, i.e., true synthetic a priori propositions; or, propositions which cannot be denied without necessitating their use in the denial. That is to say, any attempt to deny the truth of said axioms would necessitate presupposing their truth in the denial. Their nature is such that their denial is in principle no different than one who argues that they cannot argue--anyone who so proceeds is contradicting themselves in the very act of the denial. For more on the nature of such true synthetic a priori propositions, see App. B: "Basic A Priori Axioms", pp. 7 ff. of my following article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

[trish]

Philosophers once thought the parallel postulate (and other postulates of Euclidean geometry) were "true synthetic a priori propositions." See Kant for example. So much for the ability of humans to recognize whether a given claim belongs to that category, should the category even exist.

[Jamie Michelle]

Philosophers once thought the parallel postulate (and other postulates of Euclidean geometry) were "true synthetic a priori propositions." See Kant for example. So much for the ability of humans to recognize whether a given claim belongs to that category, should the category even exist.

The parallel postulate does not involve a performative contradiction in its denial, whereas, e.g., anyone who argues that they cannot argue is contradicting themselves by that very denial. So true synthetic a priori propositions do exist, but their nature is such that they involve a relation by a sapient being in reference to a claim made by said being: that is to say, it's possible for sapient beings to make claims which by their very nature are intrinsically false or true. Again, for more on the nature of such true synthetic a priori propositions, see App. B: "Basic A Priori Axioms", pp. 7 ff. of my above-cited article "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct".

[trish]

"The parallel postulate does not involve a performative contradiction in its denial" and yet it was long claimed to be a true synthetic a priori proposition; i.e. substantive and self-evident. We now know clearly it is not such an animal. Hence is remains true that if such animals exist, humans (Rothbard for example) cannot be trusted to recognize them. To remedy this problem I see you've added a criterion you neglected to mention before now. The substantive, self-evident claims upon which libertarianism is based are performatives. In libertarianism I suppose these take the form of promises, deals, contracts and agreements. The act of making a promise is a performative (according Austin). And promises can be synthetic (or substantial). And though promises can be kept or broken, they aren't usually thought of as true, let alone true a priori. So how are some performatives to be recognized as synthetic a priori truths and others not? If the truths of libertarianism are a priori, why doesn't everyone recognize them as such and accept them as true?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1391131]

Hi, Stavros. Your above claims are the logical fallacy of bare assertion.
--I did not go into a detailed argument, that is true, but I did provide links to extensive critiques of Rothbard, so it was not entirely 'bare assertion'.

Prof. Rothbard is correct on his explanation regarding parents' objective-law responsibilities vis-à-vis children. No legitimate law can compel positive action, but rather legitimate law consists solely of the prohibition of aggression...
However, in cases where the child cannot simply ask others for help, the parent should make known to others if practicable the abandonment of their child, as otherwise this would effectively be forcible starvation, i.e., the secreting away of a child too physically immature to seek help.
--What is so chilling about your defence of this argument is that you probably believe it. If parents did stick a notice on the door saying 'We are no longer feeding little Johnny' you must also agree it would be a violation of 'legitimate law' for anyone to open the door, forcibly if necessary, to feed little Johnny, and they could be arrested and charged with breaking and entering, and so on. This argument works because you refuse to apply any concept of morality to the situation, so that the moral decision by a stranger to feed the child is abhorrent to you, and yet your manifold declarations of your Christianity in previous posts must surely impose on you an obligation to feed that child, if only as an act of love, the very love that Jesus asks you express to your equals at all times, and in this case specifically to the child in need.
Ask yourself, seeing that sign on the door: What would Jesus do?

Blackmail indeed is not a veridical objective-law crime, since the blackmailer is simply offering the blackmailed party not to reveal information about said party. Thus, the blackmailed party is actually better off at least having the option to choose whether he wishes information about himself to be made known than had the would-be blackmailer simply chosen to reveal the information or sell it to others (such as to the press)--as the blackmailed party can always just turn the blackmailer's offer down, in which case the blackmailed individual is in no worse position than had the blackmailer simply, e.g., gone to the press to begin with. But more to the point, blackmail in this sense involves no aggression against the person or justly-acquired property of another, and hence simply fails to be an objective-law crime.
--This is absurd, because the law, like economics, is not an objective reality in the sense in which we understand gravity, or light, or trees. The law expresses rules and values determined by society over many years, even centuries, and much as you might disapprove of it, blackmail is considered a crime -and I somehow doubt you would be taken seriously if you went on tv to argue the 'Rothbard defence'. If blackmail involves the disclosure of information stolen from the victim, say, photographs, which were stolen when a private dick entered premises to seal, isn't that a crime? And if a married man is photographed in a public place kissing another woman (or a man for that matter) what business is it of the blackmailer's in the first place? Does the intention to extort money from the victim not constitute a violation of any of his rights? Does the victim have rights?

The study of economics has emerged historically and for you or Rothbard or any of the others to claim some privileged access to 'objective truth' is meaningless when truth, like the language we use to describe it, is socially determined, for otherwise we would not be able to function as individuals in social networks. We would be wandering around semi-naked and grunting. Your insistence that individualism is the natural condition of humankind is strange and in historical terms simply wrong, the correlation of it with laisse-faire economics, anarcho-capitalism call it what you will, is wishful thinking.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else debating the merits of anarcho-capitalism, or any other form of capitalism, or communism, or social democracy, but the point surely is to engage in debate not be hectored from the sidelines by someone who insists before the debate begins she is right. That isn't debate at all.

[hippifried]

It's true if I say it is!

~ God ~

[broncofan]

Some philosophers make this same distinction in assisted suicide/right to die cases. Is there a difference between not feeding someone who requires a feeding tube to survive and giving them a lethal dose of morphine? In my view, the only reason the law makes the distinction is because of the difficulty in regulating assisted suicide. But otherwise, I would argue providing the dose of morphine to someone in excruciating pain is more moral than allowing them to painfully starve to death.

Human beings are moral agents. Failing to act has moral consequences.

To not feed a child who depends on you, and to prevent others from doing so based on notions of private property, is a gravely immoral act. Not because I say so, but because children are vulnerable and human beings have a responsibility not to look upon the suffering of others with indifference.

With views like this, and ideological origins like this, why are people so proud to proclaim they're Libertarians?

[broncofan]

However, in cases where the child cannot simply ask others for help, the parent should make known to others if practicable the abandonment of their child, as otherwise this would effectively be forcible starvation

If they have no responsibility to feed their child, they have no responsibility to tell others their child is starving. This is positive action as well and cannot be compelled. You cannot "abandon" someone you have no responsibility to care for to begin with.

What imperative would others have to feed someone else' child that those parents don't themselves have?

The distinction between prohibiting action and requiring a limited responsibility to act is not meaningful. As long as people have brains and some sensitivity to the pain of others, are able-bodied and can act, then their failure to do so will be morally significant and should be reflected in law.

[broncofan]

"There are situations that occur in which a parent would not be able to abide by such a law no matter how much they wanted to, such as during a famine"

A very pathetic excuse. Who could write a law flexible enough to account for exigency? A third grader perhaps?

Parents have a responsibility to feed their children to the extent they are capable and have the resources to do so. Otherwise, they have a responsibility to turn to an organization that can assist in providing for their children.

To avoid the difficulty of planning for contingency we should advocate the starvation of children?

[Stavros]

Some philosophers make this same distinction in assisted suicide/right to die cases. Is there a difference between not feeding someone who requires a feeding tube to survive and giving them a lethal dose of morphine? In my view, the only reason the law makes the distinction is because of the difficulty in regulating assisted suicide. But otherwise, I would argue providing the dose of morphine to someone in excruciating pain is more moral than allowing them to painfully starve to death.

Human beings are moral agents. Failing to act has moral consequences.

To not feed a child who depends on you, and to prevent others from doing so based on notions of private property, is a gravely immoral act. Not because I say so, but because children are vulnerable and human beings have a responsibility not to look upon the suffering of others with indifference.

With views like this, and ideological origins like this, why are people so proud to proclaim they're Libertarians?

The difference is based on contending arguments for the meaning of 'consent' and 'informed consent' with the additional problem of children not being old enough to value themselves, and those who are unable to give any kind of consent because they are -for example- in a Persistent Vegetative State.
John Harris, whose work on politics and morality has been of critical importance in the last 40 years or so, has argued that a crucial issue in deciding issues around children is not just based on 'our' beliefs that it is wrong to cause harm to others, directly or indirectly, but that it is 'our' decisions which replace the child's because the child intellectually, cannot give any kind of consent.
The libertarian argument fails because the decision by the parents to deliberately neglect the child, prevents that child from developing the very sense of self-worth and value which is fundamental to the 'self-interest' that libertarians claim as the natural condition of humankind, and the reason why it is wrong for government, or anyone else to impose their so-called 'morals' or laws on them.
In addition, it is not just morals which libertarians object to, but love. It is not possible for a libertarian to be a Christian, just as it is not possible for a Christian to be a libertarian. I am not even sure if Ayn Rand permits her ideal types to love. Self-interest doesn't sound very emotionally engaging. A libertarian has no need of any love except self love, a Christian has an obligation to love all. The two are incompatible.
John Harris's article is here and worth looking at.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/1/10.full

[trish]

The libertarian argument fails because the decision by the parents to deliberately neglect the child, prevents that child from developing the very sense of self-worth and value which is fundamental to the 'self-interest'Interesting point.

[Jamie Michelle]

"The parallel postulate does not involve a performative contradiction in its denial" and yet it was long claimed to be a true synthetic a priori proposition; i.e. substantive and self-evident. We now know clearly it is not such an animal. Hence is remains true that if such animals exist, humans (Rothbard for example) cannot be trusted to recognize them. To remedy this problem I see you've added a criterion you neglected to mention before now. The substantive, self-evident claims upon which libertarianism is based are performatives. In libertarianism I suppose these take the form of promises, deals, contracts and agreements. The act of making a promise is a performative (according Austin). And promises can be synthetic (or substantial). And though promises can be kept or broken, they aren't usually thought of as true, let alone true a priori. So how are some performatives to be recognized as synthetic a priori truths and others not? If the truths of libertarianism are a priori, why doesn't everyone recognize them as such and accept them as true?

Hi, Trish. Actually, what I stated is that by merely denying a proposition one is using the truth of certain propositions. For example, one who argues that argument is not possible thereby contradicts themselves. For more on this, see my following article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

[Jamie Michelle]

[QUOTE=Jamie Michelle;1391131]

Hi, Stavros. Your above claims are the logical fallacy of bare assertion.
--I did not go into a detailed argument, that is true, but I did provide links to extensive critiques of Rothbard, so it was not entirely 'bare assertion'.

Prof. Rothbard is correct on his explanation regarding parents' objective-law responsibilities vis-à-vis children. No legitimate law can compel positive action, but rather legitimate law consists solely of the prohibition of aggression...
However, in cases where the child cannot simply ask others for help, the parent should make known to others if practicable the abandonment of their child, as otherwise this would effectively be forcible starvation, i.e., the secreting away of a child too physically immature to seek help.
--What is so chilling about your defence of this argument is that you probably believe it. If parents did stick a notice on the door saying 'We are no longer feeding little Johnny' you must also agree it would be a violation of 'legitimate law' for anyone to open the door, forcibly if necessary, to feed little Johnny, and they could be arrested and charged with breaking and entering, and so on. This argument works because you refuse to apply any concept of morality to the situation, so that the moral decision by a stranger to feed the child is abhorrent to you, ...


Not so. Refer to my prior statements on this issue.



... and yet your manifold declarations of your Christianity in previous posts must surely impose on you an obligation to feed that child, if only as an act of love, the very love that Jesus asks you express to your equals at all times, and in this case specifically to the child in need.
Ask yourself, seeing that sign on the door: What would Jesus do?

Blackmail indeed is not a veridical objective-law crime, since the blackmailer is simply offering the blackmailed party not to reveal information about said party. Thus, the blackmailed party is actually better off at least having the option to choose whether he wishes information about himself to be made known than had the would-be blackmailer simply chosen to reveal the information or sell it to others (such as to the press)--as the blackmailed party can always just turn the blackmailer's offer down, in which case the blackmailed individual is in no worse position than had the blackmailer simply, e.g., gone to the press to begin with. But more to the point, blackmail in this sense involves no aggression against the person or justly-acquired property of another, and hence simply fails to be an objective-law crime.
--This is absurd, because the law, like economics, is not an objective reality in the sense in which we understand gravity, or light, or trees. ...


If that were so, then anything you have to say on this matter is nothing more than verbal diarrhea on your part. Either objective morality exists or it does not.



... The law expresses rules and values determined by society over many years, even centuries, and much as you might disapprove of it, blackmail is considered a crime -and I somehow doubt you would be taken seriously if you went on tv to argue the 'Rothbard defence'. If blackmail involves the disclosure of information stolen from the victim, say, photographs, which were stolen when a private dick entered premises to seal, isn't that a crime? ...


You see, that wasn't so hard, Stavros. Now you're starting to get it. Yes, theft of justly-owned property is an objective crime.



... And if a married man is photographed in a public place kissing another woman (or a man for that matter) what business is it of the blackmailer's in the first place? Does the intention to extort money from the victim not constitute a violation of any of his rights? Does the victim have rights?

The study of economics has emerged historically and for you or Rothbard or any of the others to claim some privileged access to 'objective truth' is meaningless when truth, like the language we use to describe it, is socially determined, for otherwise we would not be able to function as individuals in social networks. ...


Again, if that were so, then anything you have to say on this matter is nothing more than verbal diarrhea on your part. Either objective economics exists or it does not.



... We would be wandering around semi-naked and grunting. Your insistence that individualism is the natural condition of humankind is strange and in historical terms simply wrong, the correlation of it with laisse-faire economics, anarcho-capitalism call it what you will, is wishful thinking.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else debating the merits of anarcho-capitalism, or any other form of capitalism, or communism, or social democracy, but the point surely is to engage in debate not be hectored from the sidelines by someone who insists before the debate begins she is right. That isn't debate at all.

Veridical economics (i.e., Austrian School economics) and veridical legal ethics are based upon axioms which themselves are unavoidably true: they are basic a priori axioms, i.e., true synthetic a priori propositions; or, propositions which cannot be denied without necessitating their use in the denial. That is to say, any attempt to deny the truth of said axioms would necessitate presupposing their truth in the denial. Their nature is such that their denial is in principle no different than one who argues that they cannot argue--anyone who so proceeds is contradicting themselves in the very act of the denial. For more on the nature of such true synthetic a priori propositions, see App. B: "Basic A Priori Axioms", pp. 7 ff. of my following article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

[Jamie Michelle]

"There are situations that occur in which a parent would not be able to abide by such a law no matter how much they wanted to, such as during a famine"

A very pathetic excuse. Who could write a law flexible enough to account for exigency? A third grader perhaps?

Parents have a responsibility to feed their children to the extent they are capable and have the resources to do so. Otherwise, they have a responsibility to turn to an organization that can assist in providing for their children.

To avoid the difficulty of planning for contingency we should advocate the starvation of children?

This is already taken care of in my original statements within this thread on this matter. Your problem is one of not reading closely enough and assuming too much.

Per my statements on this issue, obviously if the ability and will exists within a society to provide for a given set of children, then those children will be provided for.

If such ability and will does not exist within a given society, then such children will not be provided for whatever positive laws may be in place.

[hippifried]

Libertarianism isn't about some bogus notion of "property rights", & doesn't attempt to create a fantasy anti-social unnatural world based on "self interest". Libertarianism & egoism (ala Ayn Rand) are not the same thing at all, irrespective of the constant egoist attempts to rewrite the dictionary. Without that separation, these arguments are vacuous.