O! This Libertarian Movement of Ours… ‘Toids, Layabouts, Freaks…

Ah, this movement of ours. Full of conspiracy nuts, layabouts, dope heads, gun nuts, anti-evolutionists, survivalists, weird diet obsessives, adherents of homeopathy and contrarian health views and fads, “unschoolers,” self-destructive losers, doom ‘n gloomers, activists who get worked up about electoral politics every four years… Ah, me.

I was reminded of this when I stumbled across my 2006 post Omega-Chloride-Redford on my “Plagiarism”, which recounted a bizarre interaction with one James Redford, aka Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega, in which he tried to argue that my view that you can’t get an ought from an is, but you can get an ought from an ought, was due to his “teachings.” Uhhhh, yeah.

As I noted in that post: over on the Mises blog, my post Don’t worry–you don’t exist: Or, why long-range planning is really impossible drew some comments from one James Redford. Now years ago he had written some good things about my theory of rights on some boards or groups. So we had some exchanges. I confess I had forgotten most of this.

In any event. On the Mises blog post he wrote in a comment that he was glad “that some of my teachings have had an effect on you.” I had no idea what he was jabbering about but had a vague recollection that he was some kind of loon or nut. He was insinuating, I thought, that I was using in my arguments something he taught me… and vaguely implying I should have given him credit. I thought this ridiculous and said so; he escalated with attempts at “proving” how I had plagiarized him and was a liar.

So I have refreshed my memory. First, as to who this dude is. I remember now: he has gone in the past, on various boards, as Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He has written before about his various experiences with drugs, and how this has given him insight into the universe, and the “omega point,” some nonsense like this. See, e.g., my discussion of this stuff in my post God-Trips] and in this anti-state thread, where he talks about his “god-trips”. In his article Jesus is an Anarchist, he signs off thus:

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride

Uh, yeah–the Omega Point… direct revelation of Christ via drugs which incude various so-called Levels of so-called God-Trips. Like, wow, man. I think he actually believes this stuff. Another funny comment: in our email conversation in 2000, I jokingly used the term “jelly head” to refer to stoners or those who do drugs, after he started going on about all the revelations he’d gotten from doing drugs. He didn’t know the term “jelly-head,” so I explained:

Jelly head–slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I guess the term implies that you do so many terms it turns the brain to sludge, jelly.

His humble reply? “Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people.” Uhhh, HOkay.

And in His website shows he’s a 9/11 conspiracy nut, too. ¹ And let’s not forget his various handles: Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He reminds me a bit of Per Malloch, another smart young libertarian who also liked my estoppel theory and Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, and who also liked drugs, unfortunately a bit too much–he OD’d in college a few years ago. I wonder how long Redford will be with us. Oh well, at least he’s a “Christian,” so if he OD’s he’ll just ascend to the Jesus Omega Point, I guess, where drugs will be free and plentiful.

Anyway, he wrote in the recent Mises thread:

I’m glad that some of my teachings have had an effect on you. Ergo, your somewhat recent statement of “an ought from an ought.” (Your September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under “How We Come to Own Ourselves.”)

He was referring to my comment there to someone: “I agree you cannot get an ought from an is. I am not. I am getting an ought from an ought.”

Redford is implying I got this from him. Why? Here is something he wrote me long ago (which I had of course forgotten). During one of those conversations he agreed with my Humean point that you can’t derive an an ought from an is; and he said he liked my own theory because in it I derive an ought from an ought. He wrote (back in February of 2000):

One remarkable thing about your rights argument is that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an “ought” from an “is” (which alone is impossible), it derives an “ought” from an “ought”: an “ought” which any objector to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds.

Note that he here was simply agreeing with what my own theory did: that it derived an ought from an ought. Therefore avoiding the ought from an is problem, which I was of course already aware of. (It permeates my arguments; and see also p. 1432 of my 1994 review essay on one of Hoppe’s books (discussing how Hoppe’s argumentation ethics overcomes the Humean is-ought dichotomy; and p. 136 (text at n. 13) of Hoppe’s 1989 A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, which I had of course devoured by the time I wrote my estoppel theory: “In fact, one can readily subscribe to the almost generally accepted view that the gulf between “ought” and “is” is logically unbridgeable. …. On the problem of the deriveability of “ought” from “is” statements cf. W. D. Hudson (ed.), The Is-Ought Question, London, 1969; for the view that the fact-value dichotomy is an ill-conceived idea cf. the natural rights literature cited in note 4 above.”)

Now. I have used “ought from an ought” on occasion, at least in the last couple of years, as I have explained and defended my views on rights, and the problem with the is-ought dichotomy. Did I get the phrase from Redmond? I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that a phrase he used to describe my own theory stuck in my head and bubbled to the surface years later. If so, I would have no problem “admitting” it, as he charges; why not? After all, it’s just a natural way to describe what my own theory does, as he admitted way back in 2000. And although he seems proud that if you google the phrase “ought from an ought” in usenet groups his is the first one mentioned, as if he had some great achievement (in just finding a way to describe why my own “remarkable” rights argument!), as I showed him, if you google the phrase on the web, several uses of it show up, e.g. one in 1973. (Redford’s emphasis on the fact that he has the first use of the phrase on usenet, and that there are only 13 or so in a web-wide google search, is also odd: there are no doubt various ways to word the idea that you can only get an ought from an ought, other than the literal phrase “ought from an ought”, which his and my google search espicked out, so the basic insight or idea or way of putting it is probably out there many more times than that simple one search would show. Not to mention that there are tons of publications not yet searchable.)

Regarding my citing of the 1973 use of the phrase, of course I did not list that to imply that I got the phrase from that source rather than from Redford; but to show that it’s probably a natural way for people to describe this, that many people can either independently come to, or that is floating around out there and occasionally used. I think it’s likely I either read this phraseology in various places, or maybe independently came up with it myself. I mean if you say that an ought can’t come from an is, so you have to start with a presupposed ought (as Hoppe and I both argue, in a sense; even Rand, as I noted before, with her hypothetical ethics), it’s, um, natural to say that you can’t get an ought from an is, but only from an ought. Redford’s attempt grab fame for such an obvious insight is frankly bizarre. If the thought of using that simple phrase to describe my very own rights theory was put in my head by Redford’s email to me back in 2000, whoop de doo. Fine. Who cares?

So, he lists part of our email conversation from 2000 (he, um, saved it, you see [appended below as his site is now down]), to prove I’m a plagiarist and liar. Okay, so let’s recap. I think his “ought from an ought” phrase is a kind of obvious way of stating one good thing about my own rights theory. That, er, I came up with. I think it’s good Omega, er Redford, came up with it. I think many people have. I may have too; or may have remembered it from Redford’s email to me, um, 6 years ago, or maybe from seeing others’ writings on related subjects. I’m even grateful Redford was friendly to my rights theory, but I think it’s frankly bizarre of him to keep score of such minute things and to try to take credit for such a thing, or to accuse me of plagiarism, or lying. On the other hand, I guess there are worse things than being insulted by a self-admitted drug-using conspiracy-theorizing born-again Chloride-Omega Christian with Direct Revelation to God.

Appendix: from http://web.archive.org/web/20091026185507/http://geocities.com/vonchloride/n-stephan-kinsella-emails.txt:

Below is contained the text of the first contact that N. Stephan
Kinsella initiated with me. Below is my reply to him where I used the
phrase "an ought from an ought" to describe what it is that his
estoppel rights argument achieves. But keep in mind that the concept
of deriving "an ought from an ought" is not actually expressed in his
writings of this period, and it would only be on September 8, 2006
that N. Stephan Kinsella would first express this concept and the
phrase (after further correspondence with me, which he again
initiated, in September 2004 where I again used the phrase). (See his
September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under "How We Come to Own
Ourselves," http://blog.mises.org/archives/005577.asp .)

That is to say, even though Stephan Kinsella's estoppel rights
argument derives "an ought from an ought," he did not put it in those
terms or explicity express the concept of it until September 8, 2006,
long after he had had read my email replies to him using the phrase
and its explicit concept, of which he initiated all these contacts
with me from his readings of my usenet postings and Anti-State.com
postings where I repeatedly used the phrase. Nor by saying that am I
crediting him with being the first to achieve deriving "an ought from
an ought," since Hoppe's argumentation ethics is along similar lines
to Kinsella's estoppel rights argument.

Moreover, his recent attempts (in November 2006) to pretend as if my
public postings didn't catch his attention further demonstrates how
disingenuous he is being, as this correspondence which he initiated
on both occations (in 2000 and 2004) shows that he most certainly did
take notice of my public writings on this matter, and was moved
enough by my public postings to initiate contact with me on two
separate occations.

####################

Received: from [216.78.234.1] by web1005.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 23 Feb
2000 20:03:28 PST
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:03:28 -0800 (PST)
From: "Count Lithium von Chloride" <vonchloride@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Estoppel defense
To: "Stephan Kinsella" <kinsella@swbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length:	1199

Dear N. Stephan Kinsella,

I'm sorry that I haven't replied sooner to your
inquiry. No umbrage was intended; it has simply been
awhile since I've checked my email.

Thank you for taking notice of my usenet posts
promoting and defending your estoppel rights argument.
This argument, along with Rothbard's praxeological
critique of all logical alternatives to a state of
full human self-ownership and first-use first-own
original acquisition of exogenous property, puts
hard-core libertarianism on unassailable ground.

One remarkable thing about your rights argument is
that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought
dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an "ought" from
an "is" (which alone is impossible), it derives an
"ought" from an "ought": an "ought" which any objector
to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds.

The estoppel rights argument is very profound and
importaint. Never forget that the future of
civilization itself is at stake. No fallacies are ever
more widespread and grave than economic and political
ones: the conseqences of which are measured in human
carnage and bondage. It is for this reason that
Rothbard's greatness is immeasurable: for he has
created and left to us the intellectual weapons
necessary in which to slay the wreckers of
civilization.

In answer to your question: I haven't as yet met your
acquaintence. By ASC I assume you refer to the
Austrian Scholars Conference? I haven't been to one,
although I would like to some day.

Keep up the good work in elaborating and extrapolating
the Rothbardian model in all its untarnished, radical
glory! Rothbard would be proud. Thank you.

--- Stephan Kinsella  wrote:
> Count, thanks for defending estoppel so vigorously
> on the various forums.  I just saw some of the
> exchange from a few months ago, while perusing
> deja.com.  Do I happen to know you from the ASC or
> elsewhere?
>
> Best, Stephan Kinsella

=====
Æü©®£¿¢æ
§ÄåÇÏÒÑØýÞ
½ª¾¼³¤µ

--Count Lithium von Chloride
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

####################

Below is the second time that I use the phrase "an ought from an
ought" in email correspondence with Stephan Kinsella which he
initiated via a message to me on the Anti-State.com Messenger on
August 07, 2002, 11:06:32 am.

####################

Received: from [209.208.77.165] by web60710.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:49:02 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Count Lithium von Chloride" <vonchloride@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: anarchist
To: "Stephan Kinsella" <Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com>
In-Reply-To: <003501c4983c$5effd220$a3301942@KinsellaLaw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length:	3053

--- Stephan Kinsella  wrote:

> What is your own formulation...? 

Below is my logical derivation of the Nonaggression
Principle:

1.) It is irrational and illogical to expect others to
treat you better than you are willing to treat others.
This is simply the principle of the Golden Rule, and
the Golden Rule as a purely political ethic is
completely congruent with the libertarian
Nonaggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group
of people may initiate the use of force against
another, or threaten to initiate force against
another. Everyone, by definition, objects to others
aggressing against what they regard as their own
property. If such were not the case then, by
definition, such action would not be an aggression but
a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property
titles can be traced back by way of voluntary
transactions (which would thus be consistent with the
Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources;
or (2) in the case in which such resources were
expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or
his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are
deceased, where the first nonaggressor possesses the
resource (which can then be considered another form of
homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into
possession of property which either was not
homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained by
a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the
Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are
obtaining a good by involuntary means from another who
can trace their possession of the resource either to
direct homesteading or through voluntary transactions
leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the
two types given above). Yet, by definition, this
aggressor would not want others to take his property
against his will which he had come into possession of
by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such
property, even if it is just their own body.

2.) Also, one cannot deny the principle of rightful
self-ownership without committing a performative
contradiction. For one must, at the very least,
presuppose one's own rightful self-ownership in order
to be able to argue against the principle. As it may
well be asked: How can one give such an argument if
one does not even believe onself to be the sole
rightful owner of one's very own body (and vocal
chords)? Thus, it is for this reason that the
principle of rightful self-ownership rises to the
level of an inescapable axiom--i.e., that which cannot
be denied without necessitating its use in the denial.
Thus also, it could never be argued that argument is
impossible without thereby committing a performative
contradiction. As well, this logically means that the
principle of rightful self-ownership is only valid as
a per se universal human principle. For A cannot
coherently argue that only he is a proper natural
self-owner whereas others are not. For then B could
"steal" A's argument and use it against him--i.e., if
it is valid for A then it must be valid for B as well.
For as Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had
been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow the
logic of his below argument!): 

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may,
of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same
argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?-- 

"You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color,
then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the
darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave
to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than
your own. 

"You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites
are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and,
therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care
again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first
man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. 

"But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if
you can make it your interest; you have the right to
enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his
interest, he has the right to enslave you." (Abraham
Lincoln, Fragments on Slavery, c. April 1, 1854)

In addition we would not then have a universal ethic
for mankind as such, but instead an arbitrary
ethic--i.e., we would have to posit an unnecessary and
arbitrary additional ethical rationale as to why
rightful self-ownership is not universalizable, and
would thus be violating Ockham's Razor.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian
concept of self-ownership is apodictically true. Nor,
it should be mentioned in passing, does it derive an
"ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought"
from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily
presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

2b.) This same logical principle also applies to
external property (i.e., external from one's body).
Since all virgin land had to be at some point
homesteaded by a first user, one cannot coherently
argue against the properness of this principle for
then the human race could not even exist (and hence
the arguer could not even exist). Thus, to argue
against the homesteading principle would be to
necessarily argue against one's own existence, but the
very act of arguing presupposes one's own right to
argue and hence right to exist (as one cannot argue
without existing). Thus, one arguing against the
homsteading principle would be committing a
performative contradiction.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian
concept of righful ownership of homesteaded resources
is also apodictically true. Nor, it should also be
mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from
an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an
"ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily
presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

> Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I
> guess the term implies
> that you do so many terms it turns the brain to
> sludge, jelly.

Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning
on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people.

> Thanks for the links but I am totally uninterested
> in doing drugs or in New
> age or mystical stuff, especialy drugs, esp. as I
> have a job, and now, a
> family. I see absolutely no merit in centering one's
> life around this stuff
> at all, but of course there are many ways to live a
> life.

Well, what you don't know, you don't know--otherwise
you would know it. But I would rather know than not
know.

Nor was I attempting to get you to so-called "turn on,
tune in, drop out." Remember, you're the one that
asked me about these things, and I merely answered
your questions honestly.

Take care, Mr. Kinsella.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail" target=_blank
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

####################

Below is Stephan Kinsella's reply to my above email (which itself was
a reply to a query he made of me, from contact that he initiated with
me). I failed to respond to Stephan Kinsella's below email, which
ended this set of correspondence.

####################

X-Apparently-To: vonchloride@yahoo.com via 216.109.117.224; Sat, 11
Sep 2004 20:30:51 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [66.216.122.121]
Return-Path: <stephan@kinsellalaw.com>
Received: from 66.216.122.121 (EHLO web1.pjdoland.com)
(66.216.122.121) by mta430.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sat, 11 Sep
2004 20:30:51 -0700
Received: from KinsellaLaw (cs662548-163.houston.rr.com
[66.25.48.163]) (authenticated) by web1.pjdoland.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
with ESMTP id i8C3UQ532275 for <vonchloride@yahoo.com>; Sat, 11 Sep
2004 22:30:26 -0500
From: "Stephan Kinsella" <Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com>
To: "'Count Lithium von Chloride'" <vonchloride@yahoo.com>
Subject: baby ownership
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:31:11 -0500
Message-ID: <001a01c49878$f3455040$a3301942@KinsellaLaw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
In-Reply-To: <20040911234902.48213.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Length: 4680

interesting, and I think we have a lot of agreements (re rights--and
I
was
of course not saying your brain is jelly, just explaining the slang).
Although, I am not quite sure what relevance it is what we
*expect*--i.e.,
predict--others will do. What possible relevance is our prediction of
others' behavior for a normative proposition or theory?

Anyway-- let me ask you this. It seems to me that the bottom line is
that
when two or more people have a conflict over a given scarce resource,
then
to the extent these people are interested in rightness, justice,
goodness--i.e., the fair or just solution-- then (and BTW here, they
have
all already adopted the first ought, so you are right, it is an ought
from
an ought) -- it is obvious that the only solution, as a general
matter,
is
he who has better title, among these claimants, should be recognized
as
its
owner. And it seems also obvious that the better claim is the one
with
an
objective link and/or earlier link to the property. And clearly, this
means
the first possessor, the one who homesteaded a previously unused or
unowned
thing.

I would guess you and I roughly agree so far.

(although in the case where not all of them want a just solution--
i.e.,
at
least one of them does not care if his actions are justified--then he
is
from the point of view of the others, like an animal; just a technical
problem to be dealt with).

In the case of the scarce resource of the body, it seems somewhat
different.
As I have mentioned in some of my previous writing on contract law and
inalienability.  Now I grant you, as between a stranger and myself, I
have a
stronger claim to my body: I have been using it since I existed. He
is
a
latecomer.

But what about your parents. I mean your body was not sitting around
unused
before you homesteaded it. Rather, it was matter part of your mom's
body
that gradually became "you". So in a sense, at some point, the mom
(and
maybe the dad) were the owners of the physical stuff that later
became
stuff
in your body. So the question is, if you are a self-owner, that means
that
at some point the pieces of matter in your foetal body that were
previously
owned by your mother, come to be owned by the fetus/baby. Whenever
this
takes place (conception; quickening; birth; 2 years old, does not
matter;
it's some point), the question is: why does the mother lose
ownership?
Why
is it transferred to you? After all as libertarians we believe you
lose
ownership of something only by voluntarily giving it away, or as some
kind
of punishment or restitution in response to a voluntary criminal act. 

What in your opinion is the reason why ownership of the baby-stuff is
lost
by the mom and transferred to the baby? I can see a few arguments but
they
are not as clear as with alienable (unowned) property. And an
alternative
view is that the title is NOT lost: that parents DO own their kids;
it
just
happens that most parents are decent enough to manumit them.

What say you, Count?

-----Original Message-----
From: Count Lithium von Chloride [mailto:vonchloride@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Stephan Kinsella
Subject: RE: anarchist

--- Stephan Kinsella  wrote:

> What is your own formulation...?

Below is my logical derivation of the Nonaggression
Principle:

1.) It is irrational and illogical to expect others to
treat you better than you are willing to treat others.
This is simply the principle of the Golden Rule, and
the Golden Rule as a purely political ethic is
completely congruent with the libertarian
Nonaggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group
of people may initiate the use of force against
another, or threaten to initiate force against
another. Everyone, by definition, objects to others
aggressing against what they regard as their own
property. If such were not the case then, by
definition, such action would not be an aggression but
a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property
titles can be traced back by way of voluntary
transactions (which would thus be consistent with the
Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources;
or (2) in the case in which such resources were
expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or
his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are
deceased, where the first nonaggressor possesses the
resource (which can then be considered another form of homesteading).
Thus,
for anyone to come into possession of property which either was not
homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained by a voluntary
transaction would thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so
would
mean that they are obtaining a good by involuntary means from another
who
can trace their possession of the resource either to direct
homesteading or
through voluntary transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of
either
of the two types given above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor
would
not
want others to take his property against his will which he had come
into
possession of by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such
property, even if it is just their own body.

2.) Also, one cannot deny the principle of rightful self-ownership
without
committing a performative contradiction. For one must, at the very
least,
presuppose one's own rightful self-ownership in order to be able to
argue
against the principle. As it may well be asked: How can one give such
an
argument if one does not even believe onself to be the sole rightful
owner
of one's very own body (and vocal chords)? Thus, it is for this
reason
that
the principle of rightful self-ownership rises to the level of an
inescapable axiom--i.e., that which cannot be denied without
necessitating
its use in the denial. Thus also, it could never be argued that
argument is
impossible without thereby committing a performative contradiction.
As
well,
this logically means that the principle of rightful self-ownership is
only
valid as a per se universal human principle. For A cannot coherently
argue
that only he is a proper natural self-owner whereas others are not.
For
then
B could "steal" A's argument and use it against him--i.e., if it is
valid
for A then it must be valid for B as well. For as Abraham Lincoln
pointed
out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow
the
logic of his below argument!): 

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may,
of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same
argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?-- 

"You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color,
then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the
darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave
to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than
your own. 

"You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites
are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and,
therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care
again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first
man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. 

"But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if
you can make it your interest; you have the right to
enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his
interest, he has the right to enslave you." (Abraham
Lincoln, Fragments on Slavery, c. April 1, 1854)

In addition we would not then have a universal ethic
for mankind as such, but instead an arbitrary
ethic--i.e., we would have to posit an unnecessary and arbitrary
additional
ethical rationale as to why rightful self-ownership is not
universalizable,
and would thus be violating Ockham's Razor.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian
concept of self-ownership is apodictically true. Nor,
it should be mentioned in passing, does it derive an
"ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought"
from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in
order to
even begin to deny it.

2b.) This same logical principle also applies to
external property (i.e., external from one's body).
Since all virgin land had to be at some point
homesteaded by a first user, one cannot coherently
argue against the properness of this principle for
then the human race could not even exist (and hence
the arguer could not even exist). Thus, to argue
against the homesteading principle would be to
necessarily argue against one's own existence, but the
very act of arguing presupposes one's own right to
argue and hence right to exist (as one cannot argue
without existing). Thus, one arguing against the
homsteading principle would be committing a
performative contradiction.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian
concept of righful ownership of homesteaded resources
is also apodictically true. Nor, it should also be
mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from
an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an
"ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily
presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

> Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I
> guess the term implies
> that you do so many terms it turns the brain to
> sludge, jelly.

Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning
on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people.

> Thanks for the links but I am totally uninterested
> in doing drugs or in New
> age or mystical stuff, especialy drugs, esp. as I
> have a job, and now, a
> family. I see absolutely no merit in centering one's
> life around this stuff
> at all, but of course there are many ways to live a
> life.

Well, what you don't know, you don't know--otherwise
you would know it. But I would rather know than not
know.

Nor was I attempting to get you to so-called "turn on,
tune in, drop out." Remember, you're the one that
asked me about these things, and I merely answered
your questions honestly.

Take care, Mr. Kinsella.

1. Update: see my posts Natural, Positive Law, Tax Evasion, Rituals and Incantations; Rothbard on Conspiratoids; A Rant Against 9-11 Truther Stupidity.[↩]