[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't know that government [in general] has become more tyrannically inclined but it has certainly become more capable of imposing tyranny, but that has nothing to do with culture or philosophy, that's all due to technological advancement.

Technology has made it easier; but the size and scope of government started in "representative governments" long ago. The sheer amount of taxes, bureaucracy, and regulations in such nations is simply absurd. If the founding fathers knew what representative government would lead to; they wouldn't have fought the revolution.

It's not fair to blame reason for lies, sophistry, and manipulation. Those are the enemies of reason. The most abusive forms of government since the Enlightenment can't really be considered reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Reason has always guided us toward liberty, gulagism, fascism, imperialist crony capitalism, these are all products of madness.

I don't blame reason, but I do blame those who claimed to be basing their claims on reason rather than faith, or who disparaged faith as being the basis for tyranny. History has shown them not only to be hypocrites, but failures in regards to their claims.

That the proper use of reason happens to more align with those who never claimed it as their ultimate standard; namely the religious, is simply a delectable little irony of history in my opinion, but I would never say its a flaw in reasoning itself.

Bear in mind, I came into this thread as a mediating position between you and @SolarCross as I think your little spat on here is somewhat simplistic and counter-productive; since the three of us are probably the only three "generally pro-liberty" guys on the forum.

I would say the pseudo-rationalists and pseudo-skeptics have given us equally illegitimate government to their religious forbears.

I would hardly call it equal, the 19th and 20th centuries created regimes with totalitarian powers that an Anglo-Saxon King could not have even conceived of, not in his wildest dreams. The "free" countries of this world have more control of the day-to-day lives of the citizenry than any previous regime in history before the advent of the revolutionary age.

Not when you make the distinction between reason and sophistry.

Agree, once again, my post DID agree with you that reason should be the basis for determining political legitimacy. I NEVER said otherwise.

I am only noting the historical irony on the matter.

Well reason can be applied to faith(faith seeking understanding) and genuine faith is ultimately self-authenticating but faith is not predicated on reason and does not proceed on reason. Faith is in the heart, not in the head.

I would still say this is a bit simplistic; I would even argue that faith is the precondition of reason; Credo Ut Intelligam. BUT once again, the point is that all worldviews have unproven presuppositions; the religious are not unique in this; and this does not make them less "reasoned" per se.

I would say the laws of logic are self-evident and that logical contradictions are inconceivable so logic isn't even remotely a matter of faith.

But logic's universal nature is a metaphysical question where an appeal to logic to answer it would be circular by definition. Hence, if the answer is axiomatic or transcendental, then it is an appeal to an unproven, but necessary, presupposition. Which is my point; faith works in the same manner; its an unproven presupposition for the religious. This does not mean that such cannot be demonstrated, as axioms can be demonstrated, they just can't be "proven."

My worldview rests on self-evident axioms and rational skepticism.

Well, if it rests on axioms, then it rests on faith of some kind; as axioms are by definition unproven, though necessary, assumptions.

Similarly, transcendental arguments seeks to demonstrate the existence of something as being a precondition for intelligibility; a manner of claim that is more or less arguing that some things are demonstrated as true in virtue of their universal necessity.

Hence (as an example), if God's existence were necessary for human thought to be intelligible; that would be an argument claiming that faith in the existence of God is a necessary precondition to reason. An argument like that would of course strongly disrupt the neat dichotomy of "faith" v. "reason."

Indeed, my own argument for God's existence is technically a type of transcendental argument; as my proof demonstrates that the Trinitarian God's existence is necessary for even the process of bare sensation to be intelligible.

My point in bringing that up is not to get into that argument specifically, but only to say that basing your worldview on unproven necessary assumptions is not to posit something fundamentally different than a faith-based position which argues for faith being the basis for reason as St. Augustine long ago argued and as many Christian apologists have maintained for over a millennia.

[Sivad]

Technology has made it easier; but the size and scope of government started in "representative governments" long ago. The sheer amount of taxes, bureaucracy, and regulations in such nations is simply absurd. If the founding fathers knew what representative government would lead to; they wouldn't have fought the revolution.

That has more to do with the complexities and interconnectedness of modern life, a lot of bureaucracy and regulation wasn't necessary in a sparsely populated pre-industrial world. If you look at the theocratic monarchies that have survived into the modern era you find a quite a bit of bureaucracy and regulation so that's not unique to representative democracy. And I doubt even a modern libertarian society would have less taxes or regulation, they would just come in different forms and be enforced by different means. The advantage of a libertarian social order is that people and not special interests and managerial elites would be in charge of society and would have the freedom to determine their own destiny.

I don't blame reason, but I do blame those who claimed to be basing their claims on reason rather than faith, or who disparaged faith as being the basis for tyranny. History has shown them not only to be hypocrites, but failures in regards to their claims.

Unchecked power is the basis of tyranny, it doesn't matter to me how it's justified. Some justify tyrannical policies on religious grounds and some use junk science, it's all sophistry.

That the proper use of reason happens to more align with those who never claimed it as their ultimate standard; namely the religious, is simply a delectable little irony of history in my opinion, but I would never say its a flaw in reasoning itself.

It is ironic that those who champion science and rationality are some of the most irrational dogmatists in all of human history but the reality is those people are religious fanatics, they just practice a secular form of religion.

Bear in mind, I came into this thread as a mediating position between you and @SolarCross as I think your little spat on here is somewhat simplistic and counter-productive; since the three of us are probably the only three "generally pro-liberty" guys on the forum.

I don't think that guy is pro-liberty, I think he's just a fascist.

I would hardly call it equal, the 19th and 20th centuries created regimes with totalitarian powers that an Anglo-Saxon King could not have even conceived of, not in his wildest dreams. The "free" countries of this world have more control of the day-to-day lives of the citizenry than any previous regime in history before the advent of the revolutionary age.

I can't really disagree but the point was theocratic monarchies are completely illegitimate, there's no way to rationally justify that form of government.

But logic's universal nature is a metaphysical question where an appeal to logic to answer it would be circular by definition.

It's not even conceptually possible to question logic. If you're questioning logic you're basically asking if inconceivable absurdities are possible and that's just incoherent.

Well, if it rests on axioms, then it rests on faith of some kind; as axioms are by definition unproven, though necessary, assumptions.

If the axioms are self-evident then how are they unproven?

[Victoribus Spolia]

That has more to do with the complexities and interconnectedness of modern life, a lot of bureaucracy and regulation wasn't necessary in a sparsely populated pre-industrial world.

I suppose my rebuttal to this is that Roman beaurcracy, taxation, and infrastructure was non-industrialized but still exhibited a great detail of complexity and could itself be quite onerous in its instrusive character. Indeed, the same symptoms of financial insolvency in the latter empire only further their parallel to the modern system. By contrast, the medieval period was completely different to the Roman order it replaced in this regards; especially when we get to the 11th century.

My point is that the social contract has given us the totalitarian democracies, socialist, and fascistic regimes we have now become accustomed to, but these systems are by no means mere conditions of our "modern era" or "technology," for their scope and financial burden can also be seen in the Roman system from the late Republic through the Imperial system and let us remember that many of the social contract theorists of the renaissance and enlightenment were explicitly trying to revive these "republican, democratic, and imperial notions of state" from antiquity and were doing so OVER-AND-AGAINST the systems of governance that prevailed during the middle ages.

I do not see this as a coincidence and I think the fruits of the enlightenment we are now experiencing were all too predictable given the history of the western Roman Empire and a simple understanding of how human nature works (praxeology).

Unchecked power is the basis of tyranny, it doesn't matter to me how it's justified. Some justify tyrannical policies on religious grounds and some use junk science, it's all sophistry.

Agree.

It is ironic that those who champion science and rationality are some of the most irrational dogmatists in all of human history but the reality is those people are religious fanatics, they just practice a secular form of religion.

Agree.

I don't think that guy is pro-liberty, I think he's just a fascist.

Who? @SolarCross? Nah, the guy used to be an ANCAP like me and is still a minarchist as far as I know. From my interactions with him he just feels that a "Third-Way" mechanism is often necessary to secure liberty against certain threats.

This position is becoming popular among some in the Libertarian-Right wherein they feel that in order to stop communism, allying oneself with fascists might be necessary. Hence, why some have taken Hoppe's arguments in favor of removing communists from private property and turned it into a Pinochet meme (which isn't anything Hoppe has personally argued for). The Pinochet argument is simply that we might have to embrace authoritarianism to safeguard liberty in the long run because of just how evil communism is (this was basically the same view of the U.S. Gov during the cold war).

SolarCross's sig is a case-in-point regarding his position on that matter; however, if you look at the threads he has started over the last month or two, they are very libertarian in their worldview.

so whether you realize it or not, SolarCross is definitely on our side of aisle, so-to-speak. We have plenty of gulagists we could be fighting on this forum without bickering amongst ourselves over minutia.

This all being said, I personally prefer the method of Agorism over-and-against the Pinochet-Method as the only consistent form Libertarian political action; especially as an ANCAP. I am starting to see no real basis for revolutionary libertarian action in supporting statism, any statism, EVER; however, there are still plenty of issues in this area I have to think about further.

I can't really disagree but the point was theocratic monarchies are completely illegitimate, there's no way to rationally justify that form of government.

Yes, I don't think there is much here we actually disagree on; though I could argue devil's advocate on behalf of theocratic monarchies quite effectively if need be, BUT since I already waste my time on here WAY too much arguing serious positions, I really don't want to waste MORE TIME in defending views that I don't actually hold to anymore unless you REALLY want me too.

It's not even conceptually possible to question logic. If you're questioning logic you're basically asking if inconceivable absurdities are possible and that's just incoherent.

Obviously, but my point is that the very framing of such an argument for logic's universal character is going to be circular.

That is not a criticism, that is simply how certain issues in epistemology work; they are irreducible in that no argument can be made for them as they are the very thing upon which argument itself rests.

If the axioms are self-evident then how are they unproven?

You are answering your own question; if they are self-evident they don't need to be proven.

Likewise, I am not pulling this out of my ass, axioms are defined as unproven in logic; however, this does not mean they cannot be demonstrated as being axiomatic; which is different.

The same thing can be said for faith (and is said for faith by Christian apologists). The point being that faith and reason are not strict dichotomies as non-religious systems have unproven presuppositions just as religious ones do, and such unproven assumptions (even if being unproven) can still be demonstrated. That is all I am saying.

[Sivad]

I suppose my rebuttal to this is that Roman beaurcracy, taxation, and infrastructure was non-industrialized but still exhibited a great detail of complexity and could itself be quite onerous in its instrusive character. Indeed, the same symptoms of financial insolvency in the latter empire only further their parallel to the modern system. By contrast, the medieval period was completely different to the Roman order it replaced in this regards; especially when we get to the 11th century.

My point is that the social contract has given us the totalitarian democracies, socialist, and fascistic regimes we have now become accustomed to, but these systems are by no means mere conditions of our "modern era" or "technology," for their scope and financial burden can also be seen in the Roman system from the late Republic through the Imperial system and let us remember that many of the social contract theorists of the renaissance and enlightenment were explicitly trying to revive these "republican, democratic, and imperial notions of state" from antiquity and were doing so OVER-AND-AGAINST the systems of governance that prevailed during the middle ages.

I do not see this as a coincidence and I think the fruits of the enlightenment we are now experiencing were all too predictable given the history of the western Roman Empire and a simple understanding of how human nature works (praxeology).

That's a solid rebuttal, I'll have to think about that and get back to you.

Who? @SolarCross? Nah, the guy used to be an ANCAP like me and is still a minarchist as far as I know. From my interactions with him he just feels that a "Third-Way" mechanism is often necessary to secure liberty against certain threats.

This position is becoming popular among some in the Libertarian-Right wherein they feel that in order to stop communism, allying oneself with fascists might be necessary. Hence, why some have taken Hoppe's arguments in favor of removing communists from private property and turned it into a Pinochet meme (which isn't anything Hoppe has personally argued for). The Pinochet argument is simply that we might have to embrace authoritarianism to safeguard liberty in the long run because of just how evil communism is (this was basically the same view of the U.S. Gov during the cold war).

Yeah, that's the same load of shit the gulagists spread around to justify their authoritarianism. Aligned with fascists is fascist and anybody on board with fascism is no libertarian. It is not possible to gulag our way to liberty.

This all being said, I personally prefer the method of Agorism over-and-against the Pinochet-Method as the only consistent form Libertarian political action; especially as an ANCAP. I am starting to see no real basis for revolutionary libertarian action in supporting statism, any statism, EVER; however, there are still plenty of issues in this area I have to think about further.

If gulagism becomes an immanent threat I have no problem answering that threat with violence but what I won't do is support an authoritarian regime, that's just not an option. It's give me liberty or give me death not give me liberty or give me a despotic terrorist regime.

Yes, I don't think there is much here we actually disagree on; though I could argue devil's advocate on behalf of theocratic monarchies quite effectively if need be, BUT since I already waste my time on here WAY too much arguing serious positions, I really don't want to waste MORE TIME in defending views that I don't actually hold to anymore unless you REALLY want me too.

I'm not really interested in pursuing it but I wouldn't mind seeing a brief argument if you ever feel like posting it.

Obviously, but my point is that the very framing of such an argument for logic's universal character is going to be circular.

That is not a criticism, that is simply how certain issues in epistemology work; they are irreducible in that no argument can be made for them as they are the very thing upon which argument itself rests.

You can't prove logic with logic, it's just self-evident by the fact that it's impossible to doubt. Self-evidence isn't circular, it's just inescapable truth.

You are answering your own question; if they are self-evident they don't need to be proven.

They're not proven or presupposed, they're discovered.

Likewise, I am not pulling this out of my ass, axioms are defined as unproven in logic; however, this does not mean they cannot be demonstrated as being axiomatic; which is different.

They can't be proven with logic but that doesn't mean they're just presuppositions.

The same thing can be said for faith (and is said for faith by Christian apologists). The point being that faith and reason are not strict dichotomies as non-religious systems have unproven presuppositions just as religious ones do, and such unproven assumptions (even if being unproven) can still be demonstrated. That is all I am saying.

I do agree in a way in that faith is self-authenticating, the experience of faith confirms the reality of the object of faith. But to me that goes way beyond reason and into a far more profound mystery.

[SolarCross]

Yeah, that's the same load of shit the gulagists spread around to justify their authoritarianism. Aligned with fascists is fascist and anybody on board with fascism is no libertarian. It is not possible to gulag our way to liberty.

I am not a fascist* and neither was Pinochet. Beyond being a good catholic and a soldier I don't think he really had an ideology at all hence why after he was called upon by the senate to defend the country from Allende's unconstitutional actions he quickly ran out of ideas on what he should do as dictator but when he did he didn't solicit the opinions of race supremacists or big gov state idolaters (actual fascists) but instead he listened to libertarians like the Chigago Boys.

Locking up humans is not a pretty thing but there is scarcely anyone that doesn't think we should "gulag" some people such as kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers. By the 1970s of Pinochet's day it was already pretty clear that ALL communists were even worse than the worst criminals. If imprisoning and even executing kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers is justifiable then so it is justifiable to do the same to commies. It is just self and collective defence.

*not in the literal sense of the word anyway but obviously the leninsts here basically call everyone a fascist who isn't an orthodox leninist but let's face it they basically lie about everything and they even basicaly like the actual self-identifying fascists because when it really comes down to it there isn't much difference between a fascist and communist.

[Potemkin]

I am not a fascist* and neither was Pinochet. Beyond being a good catholic and a soldier I don't think he really had an ideology at all hence why after he was called upon by the senate to defend the country from Allende's unconstitutional actions he quickly ran out of ideas on what he should do as dictator but when he did he didn't solicit the opinions of race supremacists or big gov state idolaters (actual fascists) but instead he listened to libertarians like the Chigago Boys.

Locking up humans is not a pretty thing but there is scarcely anyone that doesn't think we should "gulag" some people such as kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers. By the 1970s of Pinochet's day it was already pretty clear that ALL communists were even worse than the worst criminals. If imprisoning and even executing kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers is justifiable then so it is justifiable to do the same to commies. It is just self and collective defence.

*not in the literal sense of the word anyway but obviously the leninsts here basically call everyone a fascist who isn't an orthodox leninist but let's face it they basically lie about everything and they even basicaly like the actual self-identifying fascists because when it really comes down to it there isn't much difference between a fascist and communist.

But Pinochet himself did not hesitate to collaborate with kiddie fiddlers whenever it was convenient for him to do so. For example: Paul Schaefer.

[SolarCross]

But Pinochet himself did not hesitate to collaborate with kiddie fiddlers whenever it was convenient for him to do so. For example: Paul Schaefer.

Yeah by the same token the pope and I must be on first name terms because I once made a donation to oxfam who may or may not have collaborated with a catholic mission at one time in some part of the world. Let's face it you are probably a kiddie fiddler yourself given that at some point in your life you have probably, knowingly or unknowingly, shaken hands with one; there are a few of them around after all.

[Potemkin]

Yeah by the same token the pope and I must be on first name terms because I once made a donation to oxfam who may or may not have collaborated with a catholic mission at one time in some part of the world. Let's face it you are probably a kiddie fiddler yourself given that at some point in your life you have probably, knowingly or unknowingly, shaken hands with one; there are a few of them around after all.

Looks like I touched a raw nerve. Lol.

[SolarCross]

Looks like I touched a raw nerve. Lol.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not a fascist* and neither was Pinochet. Beyond being a good catholic and a soldier I don't think he really had an ideology at all hence why after he was called upon by the senate to defend the country from Allende's unconstitutional actions he quickly ran out of ideas on what he should do as dictator but when he did he didn't solicit the opinions of race supremacists or big gov state idolaters (actual fascists) but instead he listened to libertarians like the Chigago Boys.

Pinochet was not a fascist. He was a right wing authoritarian. He “liberated the economy”, but jailed actual people.

Locking up humans is not a pretty thing but there is scarcely anyone that doesn't think we should "gulag" some people such as kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers. By the 1970s of Pinochet's day it was already pretty clear that ALL communists were even worse than the worst criminals. If imprisoning and even executing kiddie fiddlers and axe murderers is justifiable then so it is justifiable to do the same to commies. It is just self and collective defence.

A commission investigating torture of political prisoners during Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship has delivered a report that includes the cases of 87 children 12-years-old and younger, some of whom were tortured.

President Ricardo Lagos has received the Valech Commission report, which has been led by Sergio Valech.

"In the list that has been handed to us there are 87 children under the age of 12," Mr Lagos said.

The report says most of the children had been jailed with their parents and some of them reported having been tortured.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-06-02/ ... rt/1583742

12 year old kids are worse than pedophile rapists and murderers, according to your apologist tactics.

*not in the literal sense of the word anyway but obviously the leninsts here basically call everyone a fascist who isn't an orthodox leninist but let's face it they basically lie about everything and they even basicaly like the actual self-identifying fascists because when it really comes down to it there isn't much difference between a fascist and communist.

If he had been an actual fascist instead of a money grubbing mass murderer, he would have probably been less harmful.

[SolarCross]

[SSDR]

That controlling, shaming Pinochet guy is not a fascist. He is far worse than a fascist. He is a pro American money lover who is so far from the realization of the heart.

To be controlled by a family oriented economy that lets strict owners do whatever they want to their workers, an oppressive Catholic church who does whatever they can to shame, oppress, and lie to the masses so that they are too shamed and scared to rebel, to live under a puppet state of the Americans, and to be under a dictator who commits lots of tariff crimes doesn't sound acceptable to me. I don't know who is less acceptable to me, Pinochet or that fucking Francisco Franco shit.