(note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 )
[Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?
Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst
Why would we give the government such power?
Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other.
And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.
Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst
Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential.
Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential.
NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)
- Science and Natural Law (Necessity)
- Military(defense) and Militia
- Judiciary(dispute resolution) and Sheriff
- Treasury (store) and Auditors
UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION)
The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning:
– Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association)
– Finance, Banking, (hypothesis)
– Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory)
– and Consumption. (law)
The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction.
– Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision).
PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT)
Academy (education production),
Government (commons production),
Hospital (healthcare production)
Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst
As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it…
So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences.
My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂
Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst
Are you trying to profit from your espousal?
Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books
In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst
1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful.
2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted?
3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony?
4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness?
If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution.
Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs).
THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS
The Costs of Truth
The Truth is Expensive
Lies and Opportunity Costs
The Cost of Teaching Truth
Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts
Truth is Enough