(from an exchange)
[W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?
Are you trying to make the argument that a minority prescription cannot produce a revolution?
Or that a majority is needed to force political change?
Or that treating information as s commons such that truthful speech is required just as we have done in courts to limit religious speech?
Or that it would be better to continue to permit pseudoscience and propaganda and deceit than to constrain it?
Or that houses where we conducted truthful exchanges in the production of commons would not be better than corporatism, special interests, class warfare, race warfare, party warfare, fed by media complicit in propaganda?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking.
The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness.
There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era.
So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth.
First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will.
So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors?
Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others?
In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person?
Except to perpetuate immorality?
Truth built the west. Truth can restore it.
(A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)