tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6354879416054486086..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Medieval Libertarianismbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-35599848146983933022018-07-16T08:05:56.637-07:002018-07-16T08:05:56.637-07:00Hi Richard
Great to hear from you here at BM...Hi Richard <br /><br />Great to hear from you here at BM's. If ever you'd need assistance re: Frank van Dun's work in Dutch (>English), please let me know.<br /><br />-Sag. (Richard)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28411752518816955562018-07-15T23:11:27.758-07:002018-07-15T23:11:27.758-07:00Storey here, author of the original article. Many ...Storey here, author of the original article. Many thanks for your interest and for contributing. I am currently writing my second book on the legal philosophy of FvD so please keep in touch -- my email is: richardjastorey@gmail.comRichard Storeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10177675212618944301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20811972849872826372018-07-10T16:15:18.988-07:002018-07-10T16:15:18.988-07:00Bionic,
Perhaps you are over estimating my intell...Bionic,<br /><br />Perhaps you are over estimating my intelligence or at least my ability to communicate but I am certainly not playing games, I'm trying to understand.<br /><br />As I understand this discussion, on my July 9, 7:27pm post, (above in this thread) I suggested that there was a difference between the genius of developing the concept of Non Aggression and the abilities of others to accept it.<br /><br /> The paragraph which you extracted that one line from was : <br />" I am not disagreeing that the concept could have only been developed in the Christian Western culture (although I have no real knowledge of this) but I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it, while still retaining their "culture", as long as property rights and the NAP were superior."<br /><br />You then replied in your July 9, 8:46 pm post: (first quoting me)<br />"...I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."<br /><br /> - "2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess. "<br /><br />This is what confused me as I was referring to the creation of the NAP in the 1970's. In re-reading this I should have stated "I am saying that once (the NAP) developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."<br /><br />I don't believe that my lack of a clear statement or my follow up request for clarification, should lead to your accusation of me "playing games" and certainly not the accusation of "not being an honest actor".<br /><br />Having said that, this is your property Bionic and I totally respect that, so if you would like me to withdraw from commenting on your blog, I most certainly will. No need for incorrect insults to achieve that, although I do apologize for my lack of education and my ability to properly articulate my thoughts and very much appreciate your tolerating my questions and point of view, which you have never failed to answer or post. <br /><br />Tahn<br /><br />In re-reading my above response, I really believe that I am not to to the level of thought and conversation which is evident here. Thank you Bionic for everything.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82233219632983303322018-07-10T14:53:43.106-07:002018-07-10T14:53:43.106-07:00Tahn, you are too intelligent to be ignorant of th...Tahn, you are too intelligent to be ignorant of the conversation that has taken place here over the last several years.<br /><br />What game is it that you keep playing here, because I do not believe you are an honest actor?bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79508200660984899912018-07-10T09:09:07.116-07:002018-07-10T09:09:07.116-07:00"2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anyt..."2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess."<br /><br />Bionic, Perhaps I was not clear or misunderstand you, either of which is quite possible.<br /><br />My understanding of libertarian history, esp. concerning Professor Rothbard, dates back only to the 1970's or so. This would be less than 50 years since conceived and has spread quite rapidly since, not 2000 years.<br /><br />TahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10891473852049666772018-07-10T04:17:00.814-07:002018-07-10T04:17:00.814-07:00Here is "Zomia":
http://bionicmosquito....Here is "Zomia":<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/03/anarchy-unknown-ideal.html <br /><br />You will see that this was written more than six years ago and well before I began on this medieval journey.<br /><br />Also, given what I remember of it, it doesn't work for my quest: keeping in mind that it has been, obviously, a long time since I read the book, it was an anarchy "against" something (primarily the Han Chinese, as I recall), not so much "for" something; mostly describes a way of life of the periphery, in a land little desired and inaccessible - in other words, anarchy almost by default and life on the edges. I don't recall anything about a law that might be described "libertarian."<br /><br />Unlike the west, with the overriding and long lasting medieval culture grounded in the Germanic and Christian, the overriding and long lasting culture in the east was the Chinese; most definitely not libertarian.<br /><br />In some ways, it was the land that no longer exists: "anarchic" only because a state hadn't yet built a railroad yet to reach it. We might describe, in varying degrees, many aboriginal peoples in a similar way. Western Europe was reachable by all of the powers of Western Europe, yet retained this “libertarian” law. <br /><br />As to “would I live there”? Heck, I wouldn’t want to live in 1250 in Western Europe either – but my answer is obviously influenced by all that I am today. The more relative question: was there “law” that allowed man “liberty” and would I want to live under it? In Europe, the answer was clearly yes; in Zomia, I found no such “law” – and whatever the answer, Zomia was peripheral to the larger society.<br /><br />So, yes, in Zomia they lived in some form of anarchy; in Western Europe, the LIVED it. The first was almost by default, the second was actively defended.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77815468338813502492018-07-10T01:31:15.721-07:002018-07-10T01:31:15.721-07:00Hi Tahn (ATL)
Silly me! Seems my axiom includ...Hi Tahn (ATL) <br /><br />Silly me! Seems my axiom includes two people now ;) Where I was delighted to disagree with you, it now appears that it was ATL all along. Thank you for putting me straight.<br /><br />And indeed the last part of my comment really did apply to the point you have been making here at BM's, so not all of my effort was off target. Before I get back here to try and answer your question, there's one more addition to make, a FYI for both @ATL and you.<br /><br />I say this because i.m.o. it can not be stressed often enough, that Rothbard's NAP was based on his historical rendering of "individual natural rights" - a deviation from the medieval Natural Moral Order - in which he implicitly involved the post-Reformation individual. He then proceeded to strip even the <i>"Arminian"</i> Protestant residue (but a very important one!) of Locke away, and this natural rights distortion led to the formulation of his 20th C. libertarian theory, starting from the NAP (but ultimately not founded on it). <br /><br />So with this in mind one simply can not argue the case of "the NAP" being present in medieval society, because the type of human was firstly a product of the Reformation, and with the Reformation removed by Rothbard, the type of "individual" involved became even more artificial. That's why the NAP is a thoroughly sanitized and secularized construct, fit for abstract individuals, which unsurprisingly tends to stimulate visions of universal applicability. All on paper.<br /><br />-Sag.<br /><br />N.b.: @BM, at the LvMI; article titled "Is Libertarianism utopian?"; In the comments section, someone mentioned an Asian "stateless" culture/tradition called <i>Zomia</i> when I asked him to provide a non-Western libertarian example. Seemed like a variation on the Amish option. Asked him if he wanted to live there. He said no, but that it was beside the issue. Oh, well.. Perhaps something for your cross-cultural quest outside Western Civ.? Not convincing though i.m.o.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58911021709584981262018-07-09T20:46:56.245-07:002018-07-09T20:46:56.245-07:00"...I am saying that once developed, other cu..."...I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."<br /><br />2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-9996152756960639462018-07-09T19:27:22.994-07:002018-07-09T19:27:22.994-07:00Bionic,
As always, I thank you for your historic... Bionic,<br /><br /> As always, I thank you for your historical knowledge and for correcting mine. <br /><br />Am I wrong in perceiving that there is a difference between a culture that can discover and then articulate a concept but then having that concept "ignite" and spread to others that were perhaps unable to conceive the initial idea but could perceive that the concept was a good and valid one, that would benefit them and then implement it? <br /><br />Did not Christianity develop in a culture very different to that of the many places it spread?<br /><br />I am not disagreeing that the concept could have only been developed in the Christian Western culture (although I have no real knowledge of this) but I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it, while still retaining their "culture", as long as property rights and the NAP were superior. <br /><br />However, my main point was in hoping that the libertarian community could develop a catch phrase that could ignite people the way that "Every mans home is his castle" did. Is this classic phrase so very different from the concept of property rights and the Non aggression Principle? <br /><br />I am saying it poorly.<br /><br />Tahn Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27011204019582385202018-07-09T18:31:07.844-07:002018-07-09T18:31:07.844-07:00"The Magna Carta (I think) ignited a people b..."The Magna Carta (I think) ignited a people by the simple concept of "Every mans home is his castle"."<br /><br />This concept was ignited long before the Magna Carta or any other written constitution. It was ignited in a people with a specific culture - one that didn't think in terms of the NAP, but in terms of liberty. <br /><br />It existed in England before the Norman invasion in the 11th century, and the Magna Carta was only required because of this invasion - when William II invaded the island and claimed all land was his.<br /><br />You are looking in the wrong places for "ignited" ideas. Why didn't such liberty "ignite" elsewhere around the world, and sustain itself for a millennia? <br /><br />All these universalist libertarians (who wanted to ignite, but didn't?) and ten thousand years of recorded history, and no other society organized in such a manner for any meaningful period.<br /><br />Just curious.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79801494110789735772018-07-09T15:36:55.859-07:002018-07-09T15:36:55.859-07:00Hi Sag,
I always enjoy your posts as it gives me...Hi Sag,<br /><br /> I always enjoy your posts as it gives me an opportunity to look up new words or phrases I am unfamiliar with, not that I will remember them but I find it interesting. Among them this time was "approximation argument" and "deracinated". <br /><br />However, since I didn't mention pagans in my post and ATL did, I perceive that you were addressing ATL, in your last post above, except perhaps for the part where I "believe" (I don't want to present an "ipse dixit" ;-) that the NAP is applicable to all societies and cultures worldwide.<br /><br />I do believe this. <br /><br />Show me a people, of whatever culture or nationality, that does not believe that they have an innate right to life, to their property and to the results of their honest toil? Show me a people who believe that someone else has the right to murder them, rob them, kidnap them or molest their families. Show me a people who believe they don't have a right to be secure in their homes? Oh, I'm sure there are many who have learned to accept such atrocities because they are not strong enough to prohibit them but they believe.<br /><br />I also believe that these feelings are universal among mankind, not a result of a particular culture. I mentioned previously the concept of "mala in se" versus "mala prohibita". "Mala in se " is explained by Wkipedia as something that "most people" believe is wrong, such as those I listed above. This universal belief in the right to life, liberty and happiness, is why I am convinced that most people and cultures would readily accept property rights, protected by the Non Aggression Principle, if they could be made to understand what it would do for them. Convincing statists is another matter of course, as most do not want to give up power.<br /><br />This is what I see as the major problem, spreading the understanding of libertarianism (free markets, property rights and the NAP) and more importantly, how to implement them into their societies, without it being perceived as a threat to their culture in general. LvMI has done a remarkable job of exploring all the variable and intricate details of the philosophy but I feel that more could be done to spread the actual basic concept, in plain language of the benefits. <br /><br />I realize that there are some who do not believe the concept is workable or if it was, would not actually be a benefit to Humanity but I believe both. Maybe the argument should be re-framed from "Non Aggression" to something like "Should anyone have the right to subject yourself and your family to robbery, home invasions and kidnapping, when you have harmed no one?" or something similar. The Magna Carta (I think) ignited a people by the simple concept of "Every mans home is his castle". That's the kind of meme we should be creating and spreading, IMHO. <br /><br />We should encourage succession and private communities based on private property and non aggression but it took a genius in the form of Professor Rothbard and others to formulate the concept and expecting others to work out a similar philosophy on their own is asking too much. Perhaps it did take an enlightened Western culture to formulate the concept but once it is put into a simple language, I believe that all humans everywhere would embrace it. <br /><br />Sag, let me ask you. "Should anyone have the right to subject yourself and your family to robbery, home invasions and kidnapping, when you have harmed no one?"<br /><br />TahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27249636588493048822018-07-09T11:27:01.980-07:002018-07-09T11:27:01.980-07:00Hi Tahn
Sure, always happy to disagree with you...Hi Tahn <br /><br />Sure, always happy to disagree with you. That's how we progress in the end, right?<br /><br />So here's your assumption and it's not entirely inaccurate:<br /><br /><i>"I'm sure Sag will disagree with me, but I believe their political success (or freedom) was due in large part to their approximation of the NAP"</i><br /><br />Your first sentence is right no matter what, since I have an axiom myself: <i>always start by disagreeing with Tahn</i> ;)<br /><br />But I think the disagreement is a bit more subtle. Forget about debatable points as to "how large a part," or the false dichotomy you seem to introduce between the Church on the one hand and Germanic "pagans" on the other etc. That's small beer as we say over here in our little Dutchie swampland.<br /><br />No, I could in fact travel a long way in your company and the <i>approximation argument</i> wouldn't be reason for us parting ways in the end. Reason would be that this "embedded NAP" as I would describe it, is something read into a culture of many centuries past. From medieval tradition/culture to the NAP however, is a one way street. And that's were we part ways, since you seem to argue that a deracinated/ deculturalized universally applicable (how?) NAP can or should be introduced in whatever cultural surroundings. I say it can't be done, because NAP outside of the libertarian test-tube is nothing, and besides I'm not at all sure it <i>should</i> be done (BM covered that, so I won't elaborate).<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71695952322658564472018-07-09T10:45:38.419-07:002018-07-09T10:45:38.419-07:00Thank you ATL,
I have added that to my reading l...Thank you ATL,<br /><br /> I have added that to my reading list, although I am convinced that voluntary, exchange via a free market is the absolute best method of allowing all to prosper and I also believe the Welfare State is both immoral and inefficient, except in keeping people depending on the state, to their detriment.<br /><br />Tahn Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-68309040631234799472018-07-09T09:55:00.062-07:002018-07-09T09:55:00.062-07:00Tahn,
"I was unaware of the Pareto principle...Tahn,<br /><br />"I was unaware of the Pareto principle"<br /><br />See Murray's essay, 'Toward a Reconstruction of Welfare Economics'<br /><br />“What [Lionel] Robbins actually accomplished was to reintroduce Pareto’s Unanimity Rule into economics and establish it as the iron gate where welfare economics must test its credentials. This Rule runs as follows: We can only say that “social welfare” (or better, “social utility”) has increased due to a change, if no individual is worse off because of the change (and at least one is better off). If one individual is worse off, the fact that interpersonal utilities cannot be added or subtracted prevents economics from saying anything about social utility” - Rothbard<br /><br />"Therefore, the very fact that an exchange takes place demonstrates that both parties benefit (or more strictly, expect to benefit) from the exchange. The fact that both parties chose the exchange demonstrates that they both benefit. The free market is the name for the array of all the voluntary exchanges that take place in the world. Since every exchange demonstrates a unanimity of benefit for both parties concerned, we must conclude that the free market benefits all its participants. In other words, welfare economics can make the statement that the free market increases social utility, while still keeping to the framework of the Unanimity Rule" – Rothbard<br /><br />https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-51272305735948524552018-07-09T09:24:02.926-07:002018-07-09T09:24:02.926-07:00Tahn,
"I would respectfully venture that the...Tahn,<br /><br />"I would respectfully venture that these "laws" approached the NAP but did not totally equate with it"<br /><br />You nailed it. I was drawn to the Middle Ages because of its stateless libertarian-ness, and as Bionic often says, it was the longest, most significant period of quasi libertarian society the world has ever known. I'm sure Sag will disagree with me, but I believe their political success (or freedom) was due in large part to their approximation of the NAP (regardless of their motivations), as evidenced by kings having to provide solemn oaths to their subjects and by these subjects swearing oaths to obey the king on the condition he holds to old and good custom.<br /><br />The right of resistance, whether from the Church or the Germanic pagans, is a recognition of the desirability or naturality of law approaching unanimous consent. The NAP is simply a universal guide for life by consent.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10341498839865568562018-07-08T17:32:12.439-07:002018-07-08T17:32:12.439-07:00LOL Bionic, I am a dreamer.
I dream of a day wh...LOL Bionic, I am a dreamer.<br /><br /> I dream of a day when everyone treats their neighbor as they themselves want to be treated. I dream of a day when peace and harmony rules the world instead of war and conquest. I dream of a time when property rights are respected and non aggression is the law of humanity.<br /><br />And yes, I dream of ways to accomplish this, without force but by example and voluntary compliance.<br /><br /> As Jefferson said, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." But we must study the past, to know which dreams to pursue.<br /><br />I am a dreamer Bionic and I feel fortunate and blessed to be a dreamer of freedom, rather than an architect of tyranny.<br /><br />Just because I dream, doesn't mean the dreams can't come true.<br /><br />Thank you for the compliment Sir. I am honored. <br /><br />Tahn<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69500449941090921372018-07-08T16:16:28.110-07:002018-07-08T16:16:28.110-07:00"If it requires a tyranny to impose it, then ..."If it requires a tyranny to impose it, then it is not by definition, "Non Aggression" nor a free society."<br /><br />Without a tyranny to impose it, you will never have "The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all..."<br /><br />You are a dreamer. Nothing wrong with that.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44809085448567323612018-07-08T16:13:43.339-07:002018-07-08T16:13:43.339-07:00Victor, these various foundations and think tanks ...Victor, these various foundations and think tanks with assets in the hundreds of millions or billions are unable to solve this riddle, and you dismiss this with a "yeah yeah."<br /><br />And libertarians wonder why few people take them seriously.<br /><br />As to your comments regarding science and reason during the Middle Ages, the situation was not so simple.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28166831402263776062018-07-08T13:37:24.910-07:002018-07-08T13:37:24.910-07:00Victor
"The direct experience of the world...Victor <br /><br /><i>"The direct experience of the world as divine, commonplace in the Medieval Era, is long gone."</i><br /><br />Not sure about this emphasis on "enchanted" or "sacred" <i>experientialism</i> (sounds like the William James protestant portrayal of religion). Anyhew, the most prominent view of the world in medieval times was that of a world created by a reasonable being, and thus intelligible by (partly) reasonable <i>creatures</i>. The medieval age of Reason, so to speak, and in certain parts of Europe the age of "Libertarianism."<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15454765894736777882018-07-08T13:11:22.101-07:002018-07-08T13:11:22.101-07:00"Imagine the level of tyranny required to bri..."Imagine the level of tyranny required to bring this about."<br /><br />I see a group of free and independent people, united in defending a common principle (property rights and Non Aggression) as "Freedom" rather than tyranny.<br /><br /> If it requires a tyranny to impose it, then it is not by definition, "Non Aggression" nor a free society. <br /><br />TahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42349856544646775252018-07-08T13:00:41.196-07:002018-07-08T13:00:41.196-07:00"The application of the Non Aggression Princi..."The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all, may have a better deterrent on tyranny, at least I hope so."<br /><br />Imagine the level of tyranny required to bring this about.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71188276233228450102018-07-08T12:45:58.935-07:002018-07-08T12:45:58.935-07:00Hi Sag,
I am not speaking for ATL, who needs no ...Hi Sag,<br /><br /> I am not speaking for ATL, who needs no one to speak for him, imo but since I agreed with his statement above, I will defend it.<br /><br /> He clearly stated "Without the NAP, "or a conception of law approaching it", culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny."<br /><br />I have not read (or remembered) Bionics summary of the exact principles involved in the medieval period of law, except that they were "old and good", based on customs and the king could enforce law but he could not create them.<br /><br />I would respectfully venture that these "laws" approached the NAP but did not totally equate with it, such as in the major requirement that the NAP applies equally to ALL. That may be one major reason why the medieval laws did not "stand up to the tyranny" of the nation state. The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all, may have a better deterrent on tyranny, at least I hope so.<br /><br />Bionic, please forgive me for not having a more complete grasp of exactly what the old and good laws and customs were. I will keep reading.<br /><br />TahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22620138758385797472018-07-08T12:16:11.262-07:002018-07-08T12:16:11.262-07:00Yeah yeah youre right. Big corporations deal with ...Yeah yeah youre right. Big corporations deal with this problem by bidding up the price of good CEO's. Or good CEO's vie for control of companies which have lost their way. Apple nearly failed after it threw out Jobs. Jobs eventually returned and eventually launched iPhone. While nothing is certain in free market free enterprise society incentives act to get things right and put thing to right when they go astray. <br /><br />With regards to fostering a noble and ennobling transcendent vision of life, for experiencing in life the sense of being in an enchanted and sacred realm which evidently was commonplace in Medieval Europe - that may no longer be possible in modern society. In fact that is the real reason the Church opposed the publicizing of Galileo's sun centered universe. The Church correctly anticipated that a world re-ordered in scientific terms would make it impossible for the world to be experienced in sacred terms. All we have now is a profession of faith. Protestantism has become the spectacle of publicly proclaiming you have faith the world is divine. The direct experience of the world as divine, commonplace in the Medieval Era, is long gone. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16241595832117672392018-07-08T11:26:45.227-07:002018-07-08T11:26:45.227-07:00Hi ATL,
This is exactly the point..
"With...Hi ATL, <br /><br />This is exactly the point..<br /><br /><i>"Without the NAP, or a conception of law approaching it, culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny."</i><br /><br />..among many other gripping issues, were the discussion here at BM's really gets interesting.<br /><br />I'd say that there was no NAP in sight in the stateless societies of medieval Europe. There was however something we might describe as <i>Medieval Libertarianism</i>. I wouldn't describe that culture as "just a sack of flesh". <br /><br />And standing up against the designs of tyranny was achieved pretty well back then, only with another backbone than the NAP, as described in the article.<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33576698469986014422018-07-08T10:37:55.003-07:002018-07-08T10:37:55.003-07:00ATL,
First of all, I would like to thank you for...ATL,<br /><br /> First of all, I would like to thank you for your many posts and references, in which I have learned much and "almost" always agree with. In regards to the question of "proportional punishment" especially your link to Kinsella and "A Libertarian Theory of Punishment", with which I generally agree.<br /><br />I also concur with your statement "The NAP is the skeleton and the culture is the flesh and blood. Without culture, the NAP is just a pile of lifeless bones. Without the NAP, or a conception of law approaching it, culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny. "<br /><br />I would add however that the NAP and "Property Rights" is the skeleton...." The combination, imo, is essential as one seems incomplete without the other. I'm "pretty sure", from your previous posts, that you also believe this. In fact I see the NAP as the safeguard of property rights and not the whole of libertarian philosophy.<br /><br />I respectfully disagree though that "I'm convinced that proportional punishment is derivable from the NAP." I cannot see any method or ability to reach that conclusion, without extreme mental and ethical gymnastics. <br /><br />In relation to your quote that "The NAP ( and property rights) is the skeleton and the culture is the flesh and blood...", I believe this fits with Bionics statement, with which I totally agree that ;<br /><br />"It (proportional punishment) will be derived differently in different cultures, and what will be acceptable in one cultural tradition will be deemed unacceptable in another while both may be not inconsistent with the NAP."<br /><br />This seems irrefutable to me and I thank both of you for providing the dialog which allowed me to reach this determination. This has also helped me to "believe" that Property Rights and the NAP, can be successfully utilized by "most" cultures in today's world to establish freedom.<br /><br />Bionic, what a wonderful community you have here. I often feel like I am a fly on the wall at a MENSA convention. Thank you for your time and commitment in providing such an experience!<br /><br />Tahn <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com