Is Stefan Molyneux affiliated with Mises.org?

[Redmond]

Who decides when somebody could “coherently assert themselves”? Who gets that power?

Rothbard already mada a claim with regards to Children.

The focus on property rights also provides us with the solution to the thorny problem of when the child can own and regulate himself. The answer is: when he leaves his parents’ household. When he gets out of his parents’ property, he then removes himself from his parents’ property jurisdiction. But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from
under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of selfownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom.

This means that the fundamental tyranny of the parent over the child is not imposing curfews or getting him to eat spinach or preventing cohabitation in the back room; the fundamental tyranny is the current legal power of the parent to seize a child who has run away and drag him back home by force. The parent should, of course, have the right to try to persuade or cajole the kid to return, but he should never have
the right to force him to do so, for that is kidnapping and a high crime that violates every person’s absolute right to his body.

Asserting every child’s right to run-away freedom does not imply, of course, that the libertarian advocates running away; that is purely a question of the individual situation of the parent and child. But we must recognize that inherent in even the best of parent–child relations is an essential “class struggle,” a struggle rooted in the necessary existential fact that the kid is born into an environment created not by himself but by his parents. And even in the best of circumstances, tastes, values, interests, attitudes will differ from every individual to another, and therefore from every parent to every child. In the natural course of events, then, most children will, upon growing up, seek to create their own environment by leaving the parental nest. That is the way of nature, from the animal kingdom to man.

[EdmundCarlyle]

Who decides when somebody could “coherently assert themselves”? Who gets that power?

Customary norms and basic reasonableness. This is only ‘controversial’ because people want to lord over the young. Much like many of your silly questions about the ins and outs of property norms, this is not a real problem that has ever existed in customary societies. Even when people had power over their offspring well into their twenties (Rome) they did not pretend that it was for some reason of incapability of decision making on the part of their offspring. It was because they believed in persons-as-property.

[I_Ryan]

@Edmund Carlyle

The basic conceptual framework of jurisprudence. One can accept ‘to each, his own’ or ‘for each according to…’. If the former, you need a method of rationally identifying and proving one’s own, which must exclude the logically impossible. If the latter it is completely arbitrary, it is strictly speaking not arbitration but reallocation of properties.

What does that have to do with the idea of “the presumption of innocence”?

And the idea of “the presumption of innocence” doesn’t support your idea that it isn’t “justified” to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes, because you haven’t told me what it means to be “innocent”. What if I just say that being innocent means not conflicting with my interests? Well, you need to tell me what “innocent” means, and tell me how we could apply it.

@Edmund Carlyle

As Hoppe has pointed out, if the first person doesn’t legit. own it then who ‘owns’ it is not something one can argue by jurisprudence or history, but is rather arbitrary reallocation.

Why couldn’t it be non-arbitrary reallocation?

And, again, why would we need to carry the idea of “first-come-first-serve” past the “initial dispute for spheres of influence”?

@Edmund Carlyle

As Mises points out, again and again, value is subjective.

What are “values”? How could I observe one of these “values”?

@Edmund Carlyle

Saying ‘I know better than you!’ is hubristic nonsense.

Well, not really.

If somebody wants C, and believes that B would cause C, they want B. But what if it is actually A which would cause C? And what if that is what I believe? Couldn’t we say that I “know better than him”? Couldn’t we say that I know what he should want better that he does?

@Edmund Carlyle

People who don’t believe in managerial, allocative approaches to social order generally will not become politicians.

How does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn’t “justified” to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?

@Edmund Carlyle

Political orders have no test by which to examine their ideologies.

What about how much power they get?

@Edmund Carlyle

Ontological or existential individualism.

What does that mean?

@Edmund Carlyle

Making claims about ‘the group’s’ interest, or the ‘nation’s’ will are ridiculous gibberish.

How does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn’t “justified” to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?

@Edmund Carlyle

Interest which are not contrary to social order itself, i.e., the market economy.

Again, how does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn’t “justified” to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?

@Edmund Carlyle

Status climbing bureaucracies to demonstrate your superiority. I do think this also happens in voluntary circumstances. I think it’s also pathetic here, though not actionable.

Yet again, how does that have anything to do with your idea that it isn’t “justified” to impose your will on somebody else to prevent them from making stupid mistakes?

@Edmund Carlyle

I suggest you read Narveson and de Jasay.

Can you re-state their relevant arguments in your own words?

@Edmund Carlyle

Because illiberal and collectivist doctrines all revolve around managing people and orders that are not worth the attention of a person.

Why wouldn’t they be “worth the attention of a person”?

And how are you in the position to tell somebody what is worth their attention?

@Edmund Carlyle

Shoot them. I’m not interested in anti-social types.

So is it that you don’t think that it is “justified” to impose your will on somebody unless they first imposed their will on somebody else?

@Edmund Carlyle

You have no logical basis for opposing someone’s stabbing you and taking your things.

What would a “logical basis for opposing” something like that even be?

@Edmund Carlyle

these people have no claim to protection.

What would a “claim to protection” even be?

@Edmund Carlyle

I favor social order and believe this is the only framework within which liberties and torts make any logical, consistent sense.

Again, we don’t have your “customary and voluntarist norms” in place, yet you think that they would “best reflect the interest of the individuals involved”. If that isn’t “pretending to know what is better for people than they themselves do”, I don’t know what is.

[EdmundCarlyle]

What does that have to do with the idea of “the presumption of innocence”?

If you ask someone to prove why he shouldn’t be interfered with, you are asking him to prove a universal negative.

Why couldn’t it be non-arbitrary reallocation?

Because all reallocation is based on arbitrary values. You might say that non-reallocative justice is in itself an arbitrary choice, but it is the only one in which jurisprudence is actually meaningful and not fiat.

As for the rest, you are either missing the point or trying to find things which aren’t intended to be there. I am not a moralist after the fashion of Rothbard. Furthermore, attempting to (or expecting) an explication of complex customary legal theory, eudaemonism and social order on a message board is rather silly; and I will not attempt to fulfill such mad demands. You can believe me or not, agree or not, the point is that I advocate strict liberalism which - like Jehovah - ‘is no respecter of persons’.

[I_Ryan]

@Edmund Carlyle

Customary norms and basic reasonableness.

Well, you messed that up when you told me that you wouldn’t stop your young kid from walking into oncoming traffic.

@Edmund Carlyle

This is only ‘controversial’ because people want to lord over the young.

How could it be any other way?

@Edmund Carlyle

Much like many of your silly questions about the ins and outs of property norms

What is an “in” or “out” of “property norms”?

@Edmund Carlyle

this is not a real problem that has ever existed in customary societies

I’m not sure what problem you are referring to.

@Edmund Carlyle

Even when people had power over their offspring well into their twenties (Rome) they did not pretend that it was for some reason of incapability of decision making on the part of their offspring. It was because they believed in persons-as-property.

If it leads to the same action, it doesn’t really matter what words you use to describe what you are doing.

[EdmundCarlyle]

I am not going to argue with you anymore. If you want to be a slave driver, that’s your affair. But I find it personally disgusting and legally inane.

[I_Ryan]

@Edmund Carlyle

If you ask someone to prove why he shouldn’t be interfered with, you are asking him to prove a universal negative.

What about this:

A: Why shouldn’t I interfere with you?

B: Because I’ll kill you.

A: Oh okay, yeah, then I’ll leave you alone.

Looks pretty solid to me.

@Edmund Carlyle

Because all reallocation is based on arbitrary values. You might say that non-reallocative justice is in itself an arbitrary choice, but it is the only one in which jurisprudence is actually meaningful and not fiat.

What does it mean to be “actually meaningful”?

And what’s the difference between “arbitrary” and “fiat”?

@Edmund Carlyle

As for the rest, you are either missing the point or trying to find things which aren’t intended to be there.

Can you explain?

@Edmund Carlyle

I am not a moralist after the fashion of Rothbard.

Did I imply that you were? Or what?

@Edmund Carlyle

Furthermore, attempting to (or expecting) an explication of complex customary legal theory, eudaemonism and social order on a message board is rather silly; and I will not attempt to fulfill such mad demands.

Yeah, I don’t really expect to meet too many people who can substantiate their words.

@Edmund Carlyle

You can believe me or not, agree or not, the point is that I advocate strict liberalism which - like Jehovah - ‘is no respecter of persons’.

I’m not even sure that there’s anything behind your words!

But whatever. Unless this post changes your mind, I guess this is it at least for this chapter!

[EdmundCarlyle]

If I write a book on the subject, I’ll let you know. But as I am not in search of converts, nor a person who has a very high opinion of forums to begin with, I don’t see any profit in continuing.

As far as people not substantiating complex philosophical points which probably involve thousands of pages of theory behind them, this is no failing. It’s a reality about the nature of forum environments, which are maybe a step above chat rooms. If you expect to come to a forum to discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics or natural sciences you are deluded. Try reading, or going to a University, if that is what you want. Forums are only suited for rather high level discussions which presume some fundamental agreement. It’s like a run of the mill high school communist coming in and demanding answers for all his doubts regarding praxeology. He has, quite simply, made a mistake.

[I_Ryan]

@Edmund Carlyle

I am not[…] a person who has a very high opinion of forums to begin with[…]

[…]It’s a reality about the nature of forum environments, which are maybe a step above chat rooms.[…] Forums are only suited for rather high level discussions which presume some fundamental agreement.

It isn’t like it has a character cap.

Seriously, I have no idea where you are coming from here.

@Edmund Carlyle

If you expect to come to a forum to discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics or natural sciences you are deluded.

I have met more than a few people on this forum that I can “discuss deep issues of philosophy, economics, or natural sciences” with, but countless others who throw out a few memes, and then run away when asked to explain themselves.

@Edmund Carlyle

As far as people not substantiating complex philosophical points which probably involve thousands of pages of theory behind them, this is no failing.

Not a great cover.

Look, if you can’t explain yourself, I doubt that there’s anything behind your words anyway.

(It isn’t an accident that you use tons of jargon, tons of big words, and so on. Using plain language would probably reveal that there just isn’t anything there.)

[ClaytonB]

Few people knw this but the original Bellamy Salute to the flag was identical to the National Socialist Salute of the Nazi Party.

Holy shit. Bellamy was a freemason.

Clayton -

[Merlin]

This might give you an idea of why he isn’t pleased with Ron Paul.

http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/09/the-apotheosis-of-ron-paul/

Quite interesting, especially this:

You see, on Planet Paul, big government is fine, provided that government operates at the state or local level, not federal.

In fact, Ron Paul only believes in freedom unrestricted by federal law. When it comes to state and local governments, he fully endorses those governments’ “right” to restrict any number of your freedoms.

It comes as no surprise to learn, therefore, that on a host of other issues, such as the banning of raw milk, marijuana, abortion, same-sex relations, and so on, Paul explicitly advocates majority rule at the state level.

What a total misunderstanding. I am no fan of Ron Paul to be sure, as by his own standard he’s wasting his time, but this is the lousiest, head-in-the-clouds argument against him I’ve ever seen.

[EdmundCarlyle]

What a total misunderstanding. I am no fan of Ron Paul to be sure, as by his own standard he’s wasting his time, but this is the lousiest, head-in-the-clouds argument against him I’ve ever seen.

It’s correct. Ron Paul is not a libertarian or a propertarian. He’s a scheming politician and inconsistent as all Hell; he believes in state power, he just wants it to be the nice mafia. I don’t understand the obsession a bunch of supposed libertarians have with this professional scoundrel.

[Angurse]

Making claims about ‘the group’s’ interest, or the ‘nation’s’ will are ridiculous gibberish.

Aren’t customary norms (power to assert) formed out of group interests? If its a customary norm in my community to stop children from walking into busy streets I’m justified in doing so. Or is that gibberish?

[EdmundCarlyle]

No, customary norms arise out of individual dispute resolutions.

[Angurse]

No, customary norms arise out of individual dispute resolutions.

Disputes require more than one person (groups).

[liberty_student]

@Edmund Carlyle

He doesn’t ‘get the word out’. He diverts resources from real libertarian projects to his inane authoritarian schemes and political jockeying, he produces a perverted pseudoliberalism which 1) produces a false view of liberalism and 2) attracts people who are anti-liberal to the libertarian movement. And I think that it goes without saying that if the biggest spokesperson for your liberal movement is a career politician then maybe you need to seriously rethink your strategy and what sort of people you want to be appealing to.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or ignorant about economics.

[EdmundCarlyle]

I can tell you’re trolling.

[Laughing_Man]

[Conza]

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, not only does Edmund Carlyle needs to get a grip on reality & adopt a strategy that isn’t full of fail & strawmen, it seems there are others here that do too.

Edmund Carlyle needs to understand that attacking a man who has done more for liberty than pretty much anyone else alive (by changing hearts and minds - bar maybe Rockwell via the Institute) isn’t exactly a good use of ones time, and kind of reeks of sadism. Pathetic. The movement needs more people like Ron Paul, and less people like you.

[EdmundCarlyle]

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist,

Except when he’s not, like every day when he votes for anti-abortion, immigration restrictions, endorses local state’s rights to outlaw flag burning and the centralizing document that created this monster to begin with. You’re the one that needs to get a grip on reality, if you believe a pork barrel rolling white nationalist high level government employee is an anarchist of any kind.

Edmund Carlyle needs to understand that attacking a man who has done more for liberty than pretty much anyone else alive (by changing hearts and minds - bar maybe Rockwell via the Institute) isn’t exactly a good use of ones time, and kind of reeks of sadism.

Claims which I reject utterly. Ron Paul and his so-called revolution have done nothing but muddy the waters and waste money on fruitless attempts to reign in a mafia through evil and unworkable methods.

I don’t have anything against Paul personally, I’ve never met him, but he has no business calling himself a libertarian.