Your Wish is Granted.

[a_platonic_charisma]

@JackSkylark

Yes, Rothbard advocated a libertarian legal code, so perhaps that is the typical Austro-Libertarian position. In fact, I find myself supporting that over an “unbridled polycentric law”.

Since I see that most people do not hold the “NAP”, and would rather demand certain things to be criminalized while other things perhaps not (which would be in violation of the NAP), that demand would be supplied in a “polycentric” legal code.

Although I support a libertarian legal code, I also support a “polycentric” legal system. Or, a system of competing courts.

I would think that almost the sole purpose of a libertarian legal code would be the NAP; to set out a few laws that are to be respected by all. Beyond that, from what little of Rothbard I know, he did propose a polycentric law system to deal with the rest, so your views seem to be in agreement with Rothbard’s.

My issue is that I don’t think it is conceivable to create a constitution that can stand the test of time. For that reason, it would need to be amendable. And once it can be amended, the majority have an easy access point to add other laws into the libertarian legal code of the constitution. I see an amendable authoritative legal code as the first step on the road back to statism.

And this says nothing of the insurmountable problem of arranging a constitution that the whole population agrees with. Why bother with a constitution? Are the supposed benefits really worth the hassle?

[banned]

@a platonic charisma

just that I find myself far more in line with the consequentialist libertarian writings than the deontological.

Consequentialism is a normative ethical theory. You’re not evading making a moral/ethical argument if you defend your position from it.

@a platonic charisma

Relating that back to this thread, the typical Austrian view, it seems to me at least, is that the NAP is so important that one can not risk not having it in a constitution.

Please don’t confuse Austrianism with libertarianism. The NAP is a libertarian concept and the argument against having it in a constitution is that most people, when they say constitution, mean social contract which not many libertarians find logical or legitimate.

@a platonic charisma

but I find that possibility to be a lesser evil than having an in-built constitution that is inevitably susceptible to majority amendments.

And what makes this outcome “bad”? What qualifies something as “lesser evil”?

[Conza]

@Ixtellor

Conza,

My theory: When I write things you disagree with you see it as “trollish, dumbass, leftist, statist, moronic, liar, or told to “get out””(All things I have been called on these forums), and when I write things you tend to agree with, you see me as being rational and reasonable. The truth of the matter, is that I attempt to be civil and rational, and my only purpose for posting is get answers to my questions in a way that hopefully leads to logical conclusions.

No. When you write stuff that you know emphatically will be inflammatory, just like this thread: Self Evaluation and Libertarianism. It’s blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain, it is trolling. All you do is drive bys. You start a thread, get your ass handed to you, never respond, then move on and start some other thread. And when you do stick around, you just respond to the posts that offer the least resistance, or you think you’ve been able to see some floor in. The rest is ignored.

The closest I have come to “trolling” is when I made the blanket statement of “group-think” and all hell broke loose. (calling me a troll or any ad hominan attack you can think of = OK, me suggesting your a group of people who think the same way = over the line) and the fact I accused you of being a racist. Now that you are aware that 88 is the universal symbol of Nazi’s and Aryans, which I will assume you were unaware of, is it unreasonable for a person to make that ‘mistake’ that because you have the classic universal self-identifying Nazi symbol in your name? If I was going to join a childrens forum and I was born in 69, I would probably leave it off my tag. “GoodTimes69” has a certain connotation.

Not close. It was.

I don’t care what you accuse or call me… just don’t use fallacious insanity as a substitute for a real, actual, rational and logical response to the argument. You attacked me instead by setting up a strawman. Hardly intellectual honesty, wouldn’t you say?

Once again though, it seems all you do is respond to my highlighting these issues. You are still, yet to this day - respond to any of the argument’s put forward, even simply comment on them. Not a trace. Eh, whatever.

[freedom_seek]

The title of this post is “Your wish is granted”. Wishing that secedes is like wishing for a 2005 Used Chevy Cobalt. If you are going to wish, then wish to be GOD or wish for unlimited wishes or an infinitely escalating orgasm.

People are limited, finite, and contingent. Everything about me is constrained in some way. I am X meters tall. I am Y years old. I am Z temperature. Wishes are about removing limitations. Wishes with limitations are silly. What I want are poems without words. Let me think the “thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls” to quote Shakespeare.