(FB 1552607161 Timestamp)
by James Fox Higgins
I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful.
So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in.
Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies.
At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others.
But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises).
We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation).
You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.