Jordan – Shooting a person isn’t an argument – that’s the point. Hoppe presupposes ethics are decided by argument. Since there are ethical systems that offer no argument or destroy argument, his formulation is not *necessarily* true because the “presuppositions” can simply be avoided.

Further, the idea that “ownership” applies *equally* to all people is another hidden assumption. A tyrant could offer an argument like this: “I own everything and you own nothing; dissenters will be shot”. If anyone dissents, the tyrant “proves” he owns everything by killing that person.

JIMB

“I don’t think justice is a derivative of another principle. I think justice is the starting point. IT is the axiom, everything else follows.”

Well, you, then, are missing the point. We all want to live (we who chooses life), but justice by itself is not a starting point in an ethical system as different people have different versions of the concept of justice.

There exist an axiomatic justice and that is the libertarian one, but it is a derived concept from the basic principle of self-ownership or life.

The concept of justice is also what is supposed to be proved and cannot, therefore, function as a starting point.

Now it is very late here in Sweden. Good night!

Björn

JIMB–

The only way to justify an act is to argue it. The fact you can ignore argument in no way disproves this fact. You can choose to not seek out justification of your act if you choose, but that does nothing to absolve you of it.

Also, your tyrant scenario fails–for one, the very fact that a person can resist ownership shows that they have self-ownership. Secondly, it is non-universalizable, so it fails the classification of ethics.

I’d suggest a re-read of Hoppe’s theory (as well as his defense and rebuttals, also see Murphy/Callahan and Kinsella’s discussion of this) without such a quick dismissal as these counterarguments are discussed.

I’m a bit confused here, we already know from history that tyrannies have existed and slavery has been a standard of living for many people throughout history hence a society based on those two ideas do work. There’s seem to be a bit of a problem with some people confusing ethical behaviour with physical behaviour and presume because it’s unethical people won’t do it or profit from it.

TLWP

“I’m a bit confused here, we already know from history that tyrannies have existed and slavery has been a standard of living for many people throughout history hence a society based on those two ideas do work. There’s seem to be a bit of a problem with some people confusing ethical behaviour with physical behaviour and presume because it’s unethical people won’t do it or profit from it.”

Yes true we live despite of all interventions and some people even gain. No one is arguing against this. If I smoke I might live too despite of this habit, but I do not live “because” of it. That is the very essence of the difference and what you should focus on.

This example of smoking might not be so clear case, though, as smoking might prolong the life of some humans. But I assume that you understand the principle.

The time is here in Göteborg 8:30 in the morning. Chicago time is 7 hours earlier. So now you Americans are sleeping. I hope that you are having “sweet dreams”! Please do not let government interventions disturb your dreams. After all we live and even prosper despite of them.

Björn

TLWP

So you are an Australian! That is nice. I guess it is more difficult for me to spot that. Americans can probably do it quite easily. I have noticed that you use the word “inasmuchas” etc. I thought what is that? Maybe that was a sign? I have my dictionary Babylon:

http://www.babylon.com/

It is very good! Quite expensive though, but worth it! Just click on a word and it will be translated to Swedish.

Don’t you think that most of the posts here are made by Americans? I don’t know?

Yes the internet is really wonderful!

Björn

Jordan – It doesn’t fail the universality test: if you are the strongman, you are the owner. If not, you are not. That holds true for “all people”.

“The very fact that a person can resist ownership shows that they have self-ownership.”

You seriously conflate the definition of “self-ownership” with a moral code: self-ownership means “the mind controls the body”. That is all it means. It implies nothing about morality. You need an additional element.

AK:

“Not true. One can justify it to onesself in thought.

Thought is not argument, no matter what Hoppe claims.”

Hoppe says this:

“In fact, in producing any proposition, overtly or as an internal thought, one demonstrates one’s preference for the willingness to rely on argumentative means in convincing oneself or others of something; and there is then, trivially enough, no way of justifying anything, unless it is a justification by means of propositional exchanges and arguments.”

JIMB:

I’m not conflating self-ownership with a moral code. Simply echoing Hoppe’s argument that in order for anyone to make an argumentative justification (as all ethical proposals must be), that person must employ scarce (rivalrous) objects to do so. If a strongman declares himself the ruler, and he seeks to justify this, he implicitly recognizes the validity of others’ self-ownership rights and their concomitant rights to homestead scarce goods and employ them in argument.

He is certainly able to make a claim that he is the ruler, but there is no way to justify this claim without implicit contradiction.

TLWP

“Björn Lundahl I think you’re right there’s no such word as ‘inasmuchas’ but rather ‘in asmuchas’.”

Sorry, I did not want to criticise your use of the word. I would never do that. I thought it might you being an Australian that was the reason for you using it.

Björn

(I feel like I’m repeating myself here so maybe it’s time for me to step away)

TLWP Sam–

I can say “every post to this discussion is false”. Nothing prevents me from saying such a thing or attempting to prove it, but ultimately it is a logical contradiction (i.e., how could that statement be true if it is in fact a post to this discussion?). So it is with the strongman–he may make an argument to justify his actions, but by making the argument he is contradicting himself, thus his argument is unjustifiable.

For further elaboration, please read Hoppe.

Hoppe says this:

“In fact, in producing any proposition, overtly or as an internal thought, one demonstrates one’s preference for the willingness to rely on argumentative means in convincing oneself or others of something; and there is then, trivially enough, no way of justifying anything, unless it is a justification by means of propositional exchanges and arguments.”

Yes, exactly. In order to make his theory work, Hoppe equates thinking with arguing. One of the flaws in his theory.

AK

Jordan – The presuppositions *are not axiomatically necessary* thus the entire chain of reasoning fails, and further, other presuppositional systems can be presented and there is no real way to decide between them.

The strongman doesn’t make only a *claim* that he is the owner, he in fact *is* the owner as he asserts his will by brute force as surely as you exert your will against “your arm” and, by libertarian theory – you own it!

And so, if all the (remaining) citizens say “the Strongman is the owner of us all” it even fits all the Hoppean criteria you present, yet it is completely at odds with the libertarian concept of morality!

Now just how can this so-called theory be contraindicated by facts if it is apriori? And if the presuppositions can simply be changed or ignored willy nilly, how does this create a *necessary* ethics?

Jordan, Your response makes no sense. The strongman is a fictional example (although it has real-world counterparts) demonstrating the arbitariness of the Hoppean formulation; it has nothing to do with forcing us to act one way or another in the discussion.

You can exclude others from doing what you don’t want done with your body ultimately only by force. If you have lost the power of exclusion, you *cannot* self-own if any aggressor decides they own you. You can see the obvious circularity here where ethics is determined simply by *what happens* rather than by *what should be the case*.

This hugely weakens the libertarian case. Because if ethics is *what happens* then it has no grounding at all in facts that determine what is better or worse. Far from enhancing our understanding of human action, it destroys it!

The approach to ethics should have some grounding in facts which present better and worse as *facts*, not an attempt to use apriori reasoning where it does not exist.

Normative principles

A pure free market is based upon the axiomatic principle “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else”.
This is the very principle which the courts and the legal system should follow.

How do we know that this principle is an axiomatic principle?

I quote from the book “For a New Liberty”, written by Murray Rothbard, page 45:

“THE CENTRAL THRUST of libertarian thought, then, is to oppose any and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired. While individual and gangs of criminals are of course opposed, there is nothing unique here to the libertarian creed, since almost all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property”.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty3.asp

So, generally, all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property.

Above statement is an answer why the principle is an axiomatic one. But this is not the only reason. There are rational ones as well.

Life as a value is an axiomatic value that no one in a debate logically can deny as this value is the very condition for the debate and the participators existence.

I quote from the book “The Ethics of Liberty”, written by Murray Rothbard, page 29:

“It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality). In reply; we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation. Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom”.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/six.asp

This is also confirmed with Ludwig von Mises statement in his book, “Human Action”, page 11:

“We may say that action is the manifestation of a man’s will.”

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp

Which principles are an objective condition for preserving the human race and human life?

To objective examine if something is a condition for something else, we have to mentally grasp a state of things, where the supposed condition doesn’t exist anywhere and at all.

For example, if we suppose that the existence of oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race, we grasp a state of things, where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere on earth. If we would let some oxygen exist somewhere on earth, then we couldn’t make a valid conclusion. We wouldn’t know if oxygen were a condition for preserving human life. To make a valid conclusion we have to grasp where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere and at all. Under this condition we can, naturally, conclude that no human life would exist. We can, because of this reason conclude that oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race. We can also conclude that when we objectively examined as we just did, if oxygen was a condition for preserving human life, we would be bound to take under consideration the whole reality and not only some parts of it. We wouldn’t let oxygen exist somewhere on earth, because if we had done so, we wouldn’t have grasped the effects, under consideration, to the whole situation (the whole reality), and our conclusion would therefore have been invalid.

We can only make one choice, either we take under consideration some parts of reality or we take under consideration the whole reality. Reason and logic tell us that if we take under consideration the whole reality, this will reflect the truth, because we can’t consider anything more absolute and perfect. This procedure is an axiomatic procedure.

Is “the principle of physical violence” a condition for the preservation of the human race?

To examine this principle under consideration of what has already been said about the procedure of finding out conditions, we have to grasp a state of things where the principle of none physical violence doesn’t exist anywhere and at all. If we let some people live by the principle of none violence, a procedure which we have just discarded, then we wouldn’t make a valid conclusion. Logically we are bound to let all people live by the principle of physical violence. Because of this fact the human race and life would immediately exterminate.

We can therefore conclude “that the principle of physical violence” is a condition for the preservation of human extermination and that “the principle of none physical violence” is the condition for human preservation.

We can also conclude, that human life wouldn’t exist, if the principle of “not to have the right to use threat of physical violence” didn’t exist.

If we grasp a state of things where this principle doesn’t exist, anywhere and at all, everyone would be threatening everyone else. Nobody would be able to live and fulfil their needs and dreams. Action to preserve ones life would be an impossible mission.

Not anybody would dare to act because if this anybody did, someone would always be threatening this anybody. A perfect static situation would occur and the human race would immediately exterminate.

Our conclusion will therefore be that “the principle of threat of physical violence” is a condition for the human extermination, and “the principle of none threat of physical violence”, is a condition for the preservation of human life.

As life is an axiomatic value which we want to preserve, it is also logically true that we axiomatically want to preserve the principle which is a condition for life, namely “the principle of none physical violence (including not to have the right to use threat of physical violence)”.

Let us now examine if “the right to steal” is a condition of the preservation of human life.

If we want to define what objective theft is, we will have to define property rights, based on an axiomatic Justice.

If we consider what has already been said in this document, we can also understand that an axiomatic Justice is those principles which are a condition for the preservation of the human race. Unjust are those principles which are a condition for the preservation of the human extermination.

Just property rights are, therefore, those property rights which are conditions for the preservation human life. Unjust are those property rights which are conditions for the preservation of human extermination.

In order to survive, man cannot live alone in an environment which is free from physical violence. To survive and prosper man has to use his reason and energy to transform nature into useful things. Man lives and prospers because he is a creative animal.

We can therefore conclude that creation in itself is a condition for the preservation of the human race.

We can therefore conclude that Just property rights are those rights which preserve man’s creative efforts.

In order to define these property rights we will have to grasp a state of things when man, for the first time, enters this world of ours. This because we want to define original property rights based on Justice. In order to define property rights based on Justice, we don’t want either to be deluded by existing potential unjust property rights. Only, in a state of things where no man, yet, has owned anything, we don’t take the risk of being deluded.

When the first man, for example, broke a branch and made himself a bow, the title of property of this creation was also his. Why does the title of the property (the bow) belong to this man? Because man is a purposeful agent and if man doesn’t own his original creation and the results of his actions, he won’t act.

Let us examine if the last statement is objective and true.

We examine and grasp a state of things, in accordance with the mentioned procedure to examine objectively if something is a condition for something else, through not letting the examined principle be existent anywhere at all.

We grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere at all: “the originators right to the objects which he through action, has created”. Everyone would be stealing anyone’s creation and the human race would immediately exterminate.

This proves that man is a purposeful agent and when his motivation exterminates, he stops acting at once.

This is also the objective reason why theft is a condition for the preservation of human extermination, and that the principle of none theft, the originators creation in accordance with the above reasoning, is the condition for the preservation of human life.

Let us now define Justly owned property rights to land.

Man doesn’t create land but he acts and creates on, in and out of land.

Also here we examine a state of things when man for the first time, enters this world. When, then, the first man enters the untouched land, and creates by action on or in or out of land, then this part of the land which he has now touched, belongs to him. Why the first man? If the first man doesn’t have the property right to this part of the land, nor does individual number two, three, four, five etc have the right to the land, and while they are waiting for the last man who hasn’t yet entered this world, man will quickly perish.

If we grasp a state of things, where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all (this objective test is, of course, in line with our reasoning about such a procedure for finding out a condition for something else):

“When someone creates by action on or out of land, then this part which he has now touched belongs to him”.

This would mean that everyone would be stealing anyone’s Justly owned land, that is as soon as someone starts creating by action on or in or out of land, someone else would have the right to the land in question and the human race would immediately exterminate.

We can conclude that the condition for the extermination of the human race is to preserve the principle “the right to steal the land which the first man has touched and created on or in or out”. Our conclusion will also therefore only be that the condition for the preservation of the human race is that no man ever should have such a right.

Why must anybody own anything?

In accordance with our objective test to find out if something is a condition for something else, we grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all:

“The existence of property rights”*:

In a world without any property rights nobody would be able to do anything, since nobody has the right to control anything. Not even themselves (see below about property rights in your own person).

This question is not only a contradiction it is also silly. You ask a question which means that you control yourselves (natural disposition), that is owning yourself (see below the excellent writing of Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).

Ownership itself is, therefore, an objective condition for the preservation of human life.

Now, then, we haven’t ended our definition of Justly owned property rights until we have analyzed the right to make contracts. We will have to examine the right to make contracts, because, sooner or later the owners of Justly owned property will trade with each other. Sooner or later disputes will occur among the trading partners and then, we will have to know, the rights the trading partners have to the property and which the dispute among them is all about.

Some economist argues that the Justification for the right to make contracts is that the right promotes economic prosperity.

It is true that most of us want economic prosperity, but this is not an axiomatic Justification for the right o make contracts. “Economic prosperity” is not an axiomatic value. As we want to be objective, this argument is not good enough.

Some individuals argue that trading partners have an “agreement” and this is the reason why contracts should be legally binding. Why should such an agreement be legally binding if one of the partners wants to change his mind? Why shouldn’t we respect such a change of man’s will? Why should an earlier manifestation of a man’s will be considered proper and Just and a later manifestation of a changed will be regarded as improper and unjust? Where is the objective Justification? Where is the logical point of view? To argue that the trading partners “knew what they got into and that is why “agreements” should be legally binding”, is, of course, nonsense. It only proves that agreements are artificial constructions which haven’t anything to do with axiomatic principles founded in the nature of things.

The Justification for binding contracts is not that they are “agreements or for that reason are contracts”, but for the reason that we can derive, because of them, Justly owned property titles. “The right to make contracts” is not a right in itself which can objectively be defended as such, but is an expression which symbolizes the interpretations to derive Justly owned property rights and if theft has been done or not.
This is the title transfer theory of contracts, see also Murray Rothbard´s excellent book “The Ethics of Liberty”, chapter 19:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

On what base can this interpretation be related to contracts and Justly owned property titles? This we can conclude because of the reason that contracts only confirm exchange of original Just titles to property (in accordance with above definitions of original Just titles to property), that is the transferring of Just property titles between the trading partners.

The reason that a property title will be transferred from one person to another is that the original property owner has renounced his Justly owned property title to be transferred to another person, and we can only, because of this, make the interpretation that the property title has been transferred. In other words, it is the renunciation of the Justly owned property title in itself, which is the very cause to the ending of the original property owner’s title to the property and the transferring of the title to the new owner, which the original property owner has renounced his property title to.

Logic and reason tells us what has been renounced and transferred, in fact, also is renounced and transferred. For what has been done cannot be undone.

Logically a man cannot renounce his right to self-ownership, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will) and he will still be so even if he has “tried” to renounce his natural self-ownership to another person. He cannot renounce something which is a biological and physical fact of his very own life and which will never, as long as he lives, leave him.

In other words, we cannot interpret with the help of reason that the supposed slave’s natural self-ownership has been transferred to another person which the supposed slave has tried to renounce his self-ownership to.

We can therefore conclude that this fact of natural self-ownership, always, logically, neutralizes every attempt to renounce it.

Another logical confirmation of this fact is that when we in this document concluded that none physical violence and none theft preserves human life, we wouldn’t make such a conclusion if we didn’t control our minds and bodies. We wouldn’t be able to make such a conclusion, since we wouldn’t control ourselves and either would life exist, in a state of things, when everyone had the legal right to fully use his self-ownership, that is, in other words, in a state of things where physical violence and theft is none existent at all.

In regard to what has now been said we can conclude that it is objectively true that every man is a Just property owner in his own right. Because of this, slave contracts should not be legally binding, as their existence is only a” legalization” of physical violence. If we would neglect this fact, we would violate the principle of self-ownership and be using physical violence and also, because of this, violating the condition for the preservation of human life.

It is true that the possibility to make contracts and to trade is the very foundation for specialization and spurs creative processes which accounts for a very large part of man’s creative efforts. To “legally” hinder the enforcement of contracts and therefore also trade, would not only mean extreme poverty, but also death to most individuals on earth.

The enforcement of contracts, in accordance with our definition, we can conclude, is the condition for preserving these creative processes among individuals. Other definitions of contracts, which are only some sorts of agreements, (really, only different grades of slave contracts) should not, as have been pointed out, be legally binding. These illegitimate contracts include only those destructive seeds that violates the condition for the preservation of the human race, namely the “principle of none physical violence and none theft”, and because of this fact alone, they don’t include those productive processes which account for a very large part of man’s creative efforts.

We have now ended our definition of Justly owned property rights.

We have established that human life is preserved by the condition “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”.

Our conclusion will therefore be that the principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is synonymous with our definition “that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”.

We can establish that the absolute and perfect condition for the human extermination is the none existence of the principle “that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”, and we can also conclude that the absolute and perfect condition to preserve the human race is the none existence of any violations.

Isolated violations of the principle are therefore absolutely perfect, destructive actions which undermine the condition and the preservation of the human race, since the very existence of these destructive actions deviate from the absolutely perfect condition for the preservation of the human race.

As life is an axiomatic value which we want to preserve, it is also logically true that we axiomatically want to preserve the principle which is a condition for life, namely “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” or in other words,” that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”.

Alternatively, an axiomatic end (human life) is preserved by an axiomatic mean (“that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”).

As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we chose living, we cannot either, logically, deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean.

If we take under consideration what has been concluded in this document, we can also conclude that another meaning of the principle of none violations, is that the principle also brings an absolutely perfect opportunity for the survival of human life. This means that the principle brings a totally perfect opportunity for the survival of all human beings.

As it is true that the principle is a totally perfect condition and a totally perfect preservation of human life, it also logically follows that the principle brings a totally perfect opportunity for the survival of all human beings.

This can also be proved by the fact that everyone’s violation of the principle (total physical violence and theft) brings an absolutely perfect impossibility for the survival of any human beings.

In the “philosophical debate” Liberty, as all values, is seen as a subjective value. This opinion may seem as a confirmation of the reality. There are vast political values. Liberty seems to be only one of these subjective values. But it is a superficial believes.

The reason for this is that we have established that everyone’s violation of the principle brings an absolutely perfect impossibility for the survival of any human beings. This means that we all would be, by objective means coerced to die that is objectively coerced to not “value and wanting to preserve our own lives”.

Isolated violations of the principle are totally destructive because they totally undermine by objective coercion our possibilities and opportunities to “value and wanting to preserve our own lives”.

Ethical conclusions in this document, I believe, are in agreement with some ethical conclusions that the giant Hans-Hermann Hoppe has done.

Please read some of his excellent writing from the book “The Ethics and Economics of Private Property”:

http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf

And to:

ON THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION OF THE ETHICS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY:

http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf

Principles derived from the ethics concluded in this document, are exposed in the masterpiece that I have already mentioned and that is “The Ethics of Liberty” written by Murray Rothbard, please read his book:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Remarks:

“All human beings act by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings. We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human.”

Murray Rothbard, “Fundamentals of human action” (praxeology)

An axiomatic Justice

In the political debate all political parties proposes some different ends (values or goals).

These ends or, alternatively, values are subjective such as “building more motorways”, “women’s liberation”, “social equality”, “social security”, “prosperity”, “making America great again”, “combating inflation”, “joining the EU” etc.

To accomplish those goals there are also debates on how to achieve them (debates about the means). The means are almost always subjective i.e. the ends can be achieved in different ways.

To realize an axiomatic Justice I have chosen, in my above essay “Normative principles”, life as a value as an end by itself.

I have also shown that this end “life as a value” or alternatively, human life, is preserved objectively by the mean “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”.

As this objective mean (none aggression) preserves an axiomatic value (life) and as this mean is derived from an axiomatic value, the whole system is an axiomatic system. This is the system that only can therefore be, logically and axiomatically, defended.

The final result is: “an axiomatic end is preserved by an axiomatic (or an objective) mean”.

Alternatively, the principle which objectively preserves and defends human life (in accordance with an axiomatic procedure for finding this out, see above, normative principles) is the principle of none violations. The meaning of none violations is just “none”.

As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we choose living, we cannot either, logically deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean (none violations).

If we want to find out an ethic based on rationalism or if we want to be “scientific” we must play by its rules by defining and defending a rationalistic conclusion and nothing else.

*Property rights are here defined and meant to be the factual ability of an individual or collective to control the use of property and not the legal rights to property.

Björn Lundahl

The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.

Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With their reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.

You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.

The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they cease to exist.

My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.

In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.

Björn Lundahl

RogerM

I have already answered that.

Björn

But in all fairness freedom means ‘do you want ever you want do’. If I was to guess for every ‘good freedom’ there was a ‘bad freedom’ then to say ‘do whatever you want provided you don’t impose yourself onto others’ cuts down a person’s right to freedom by 50%. Furthermore to say ‘a proof of a good freedom is that everyone can pursue that freedom (enslaving others isn’t a good freedom because it’s infringes others freedom but also everyone can’t be a master (who’d be the slave then?))’ implies some sort of justice system in which people CAN morally coerce other people who engage in ‘bad freedom’ into facing some sort of consequence. Otherwise saying people shouldn’t engage in ‘bad freedoms’ but then again a victim is alone in defending themselves (unless someone else volunteers their services) strikes me as uncomfortably Hobbesian.

Human Action:

“While all other animals are unconditionally driven by the impulse to preserve their own lives and by the impulse of proliferation, man has the power to master even these impulses. He can control both his sexual desires and his will to live. He can give up his life when the conditions under which alone he could preserve it seem intolerable. [p. 20] Man is capable of dying for a cause or of committing suicide. To live is for man the outcome of a choice, of a judgment of value.”

Björn Lundahl