## Friday, January 23, 2009

### Against Punishment - Even Nonviolent Punishment

I want to apologize that I misrepresented BrainPolice's position on punishment. I generally agree with his opinion in punishment. I view punishment as a "pragmatic measure to deter crimes that psychopaths plan to commit." While I do regard that the current statist society constantly misapplies punitive measures, I do believe, that even in anarchy, punishment must exist to deter certain crimes. I disagree that boycotts, as promoted by Stephen Molyneux (pages 118-119), stands as an effective measure to deter crime.

I disbelieve in the "indoctrination of children" and the "operant conditioning" pseudoscience promoted by the behaviorist school of psychology. In fact, I oppose punishment more than even the most radical detractors of corporal punishment. I differ from them because I do not only oppose corporal punishment, but I oppose all types of punishment inflicted on children (unless the child psychopathically committed a crime). I view punishment as an irrational act, and it suffers from agent-principle problems. Children can easily avoid being punished from their parents, just like how some drug dealers can avoid being kidnapped by the state.

I do not hold a Freudian view, as in Stephan Molyneux and Danny Shadar, that childhood experiences primarily determine the behaviors in adult life.

## Tuesday, January 20, 2009

### Limitations on Self-Defense

In response to BrianPolice's view on self-defense, I posted my view on self-defense below:

Previous posts related to this topic include The Fallacies of Moral Subjectivism and Subjective Property

I will articulate my view below:

Some individuals will use strawman arguments against those who oppose deadly force when trespassing, as "anti-victim" or "anti-defense." They often misinterpret the definition of "punishment," so they will see the libertarian law of proportional punishment as promoting aggression. Too often, they conflate "punishment" with "self-defense." Punishment, however, is defined as the commission of deterrence only after the crime has commissioned; while self-defense is the use of force when a crime is commissioning. Thus, libertarian law does not forbid imposing "unproportional" force in the situation of self-defense.

Detractors of the libertarian law of proportional punishment argue that since value is subjective, no one can accurately determine the "proportional" compensation. However, as we will argue that property boundaries are also subjective, so these arguments presents a straw-man.

The law of proportional punishment can be better rephrased as the compensatory damages should be proportional. The law of proportionality, however, does not give any limit on the amount of punitive damages.

However, whether a "crime" has occurred or not is also subjective, but not to the extent of valuation. For example, if an individual mistakenly recognized one's house as a shopping store; he will come in; but the owner of the house will shoot him in the certain cultural context, if some walks up in the person's yard or walkway; the owner of the house does not have the right to kill him, since in the social context, yard's and walkaways leads to his door, in order to communicate.

Self-defense, unlike punishment, does not follow the proportionality law. The owner has the right to use deadly force against the aggressor; if the aggressor's knows that he is intentionally being mischievous and is harming you.

If the individual knows that he is intentionally being mischievous, and knows the risk that the owner might shoot him; but then aggresses your property anyway; then shooting him is certainly justified.

If an individual places a sign in front of his property that said "all trespassers will be shot," then it is possible that someone might still think that they are permitted to walk up in his walkaway or yard, to communicate with to owner. Individuals who do not know how to read English are more likely to ignore the sign. Even if the warning is very obvious to the common man, what if a colorblind person didn't notice the sign?

But it depends on the intentionally of the aggressor. If an robber uses his unloaded gun against you, the aggressor is clearly being intentional in this situation; so it is justified to shoot him.

However, suppose a random individual who is confused walks in your lawn; the individual might think that he is on commonly-owned property. Thus, the homeowner does not have the right to use deadly force against him.

If someone "breaks in" the house by breaking doors or windows, you clearly have the right to use deadly force; as the aggressor is clearly being intentional, as he destroyed your property.

Suppose you own a house, that has automatic doors, and has large windows that show a large variety of goods inside it. With both of these, your house displays the common features of a shopping store. Many individuals who look at your house would, according to the appearence, confuse your house with a shopping store. If the "shoppers" go inside your house planning to buy stuff; you do not have the right to shoot them; because the look and feel of your house resembles too much like a shopping store, thus displaying an "implicit contract" granting any individuals to enter.

Thus, it is too subjective if such "implicit contract" allowing individuals to enter exists. Suppose an individual grows up in a different culture that permits individuals to step on your front yard. When he moves to a different society with a different culture that does not tolerate anyone walking on the front yard, he will likely be shot. Suppose an individual that does not know English misinterprets your building as some public resort so he enters. He, too, will likely be shot.

Thus, we have proved that property boundaries may potentially have subjective interpretations.

Everyone has the right to self-ownership. Thus everyone has the right to die. So if an individual enter's another property and assumes that the risk that the homeowner will shoot him at self-defense, the homeowner can shoot. But due to vague property boundaries, no one can be sure if the individual is behaving mischievously.

So we will have a "common law" that establishes and objectively defines these boundaries.

We will have different arbitrators, because due to cultural and social differences, not all arbitrators are typically suited to judge within different cultural standards of aggression. For example, if some cultures define "hate speech" as a form of aggression, and some other cultures that that does not consider it as aggressive; different societies will construct different variants of common law that defines specific cases such as "hate speech" as aggressive or not.

Different versions of common law will define the "implicit contract" of the shopping store, as exemplified above. This will deter the arbitrary interpretation of subjective interpretations of aggression, thus will make individuals have greater confidence.

For example, if the common law approves the use of deadly force against merely trespassers walking on the front yard, then very few people will walk outside, in the fear that they will unintentionally step on someone's property and the owners will use deadly force against them. Therefore, a common law system will spring up in anarchy that forbids deadly force, in the case of trespassing when no greater threats or aggression is involved, to make people less worried of unintentionally stepping another's property.

Let us assume that a contract exists between the store owner and a shopper that permits the store owner to use of any force, or, in different case, if the aggressor fully knows that he is behaving aggressively, and he clearly understood that he will have risk if the crime has commissioned. Thus, following this logic, the store owner can legitimately use deadly force against individual who steals bubble gum, if the robber clearly knows that he will be facing serious consequences including being shot. However, too often the bubble gum theft occurs unintentionally, thus it will likely increase fear, and might make some avoid shopping in stores anymore. Also, it might be the case that the shopper brought his own gum to the store, so the store owner might mistakenly confuse their bubble gum with his. This will further instill fear, so individuals will likely avoid doing any action that might be misinterpreted by others.

A solution to these problems implying risk is to propose a common law specifying the property boundaries, the legitimate amounts of force in each given situation, and the agreeing in the amount of compensation in the event of property torts. Without common law defining, or "de-subjectifying" the values of various goods, proportional compensation and punishment is not possible. Common law is the solution to objectively definine the boundaries, the cultures (see the walkway example) and standards to judge the "implicit contract," so individuals will not be subject to various interpretations of boundaries and rules defining fraud. In addition, because the individual voluntarily agrees on a legal system that they chose themselves, this will solve the cultural problems and will not confuse the non-English speakers. At last, the legal system in an ararchic society will be competitive, and the individual may choose to live in societies enforcing any laws as he wishes.

The distinction between property damage and no property damage cannot be justified. The value of property and coercion is valued subjectively. Thus, it is impossible to objectively tell whether property damage has occurred.

Some people would consider that flying an airplane above some land is coercion and some would consider air pollution damage.

Suppose if one throws away some stuff that "looks" useless. However, the owner of the product have the knowledge of it, thus have the ability to estimate the value. The owner of the product sees it as highly valuable. Thus, that would cause conflict.

If an owner decides to leave a highly valued object outside, he is implicitly accpeting the risk of some person in a parachute landing there, some bird landing there or some airplane crashing in the object. Thus, the best way to prevent conflict is to protect the object, such as building a wall or moving it inside a house. Since value is subjectivly, it is very important to protect some objects that is subjectively valued important. Otherwise, the court might value the object lesser.

Another effect of applying this logic is proportional punishment. If a parachuter lands on the important object and breaks it, he does not deserve to die. Instead, he should offer compensation. Anyway, the owner of the object is implicitly accpeting the risks that are more likely to happen such as birds and crashing airplanes.

But if the owner puts the object inside a building or builds a wall, the intruder deserves much more servere punishment for breaking in.

Humans assume many biases, such as the assumption that every person owns the space directly above the land. However, this is false. One can fly airplanes or build houses that overlap them. These are legitimate only if they are not directly damaging property. But due to subjectivity, there is no clear line to define.

Suppose one surrounds a fence around someone's house to block them so they can starve to death. This is illegitimate sometimes and sometimes legitimate.

So commonly-agreed laws would form in an anarchist society to prevent such things. Voluntary associations would form to prevent them.

## Monday, January 19, 2009

### Libertarian Labeling and Stereotyping

The last time I commented on Polycentric Order, I decided to do a critique of the "vulgar libertarian" concept. When I saw the term "vulgar libertarian" showing up on many of their previous posts, I eventually decided to give a shot on my objection to the term. After posting my criticism, the audience reacted furiously, winning the "troll of the year" awards. I think that I deserve the blame for not expressing my intentions clear enough.

Since then, in the midst of the confusion, at the risk of losing my prized, and patient, subscribers of my blog, I decided to overcome the miscommunication. The deteriorating post quality here, as you all may know, presents a significant barrier to rational understanding.

From time to time, we post these little, obnoxious, "anarcho-semantic" ramblings. This time, we will attempt to "solve" the mysteries of the "left"-libertarian game.

This article contains seven different sections, with each section devoting to an entirely distinct motive. To start the article, we will focus on our introductory section with FSK's comment that I did never reply. Second, we will investigate the logical fallacies that David Z. and BrainPolice have put in action. Third, we will began a rambling section discrediting the "troll." Fourth, we find an amazing confusion in BrainPolice, as well as other market anarchists, has attempted to "refute." Fifth, we will show that I am not paranoid in believing that some of the "left"-libertarians have played Devil's Advocate into conspiring a propaganda show. Sixth, we will argue that I am more "left" than even of the most vocal "left"-libertarians on the net. And finally, we will analyze the confusions between different libertarian circles.

## You cannot arbitrarily interpret the non-aggression principle

FSK has posted in the past few months about the state.

Violent protests are a waste of time, because the State has superior resources. Violent protests create sympathy for the State, and violent protests are a violation of the Non-Aggression principle.

I disliked FSK's statement. I commented claiming that no one can interpret the non-aggression principle. FSK responded that "You are a troll" without any given explanation.

I criticized his statement because, as said above, that no one, can "interpret the non-aggression principle." It is impossible, to "interpret" the non-aggression principle, because it begs the question. To determine if an action constitutes aggression, one should define if the action constitutes an aggressive act or not. It is circular reasoning to "interpret" that a violent overthrow contradicts non-aggression principle, while at the same time the non-aggression principle defines defensive overthrow of the state as non-aggressive.

You can only define actions that falls into aggressive and non-aggressive types, not interpret these actions.

Let us say if some consider libel and defamation as aggressive acts. They will therefore interpret the non-aggression principle incorrectly, claming that libel and slander as aggressive acts. In order to resolve that, you have to define the non-aggression principle to tolerate libel and defamation. Murray Rothbard defined slander as a non-aggressive act in his Ethics of Liberty.

There exists multiple interpretations of whether a violent overthrow of the state constitutes an aggressive act. Some would say no, arguing that it is justifiable to use defensive violence to overthrow the criminal organization. They argue that it is their right to self-defend the statist aggressors, in proportion to the damaged they caused. Some others would say yes, it contradicts the non-aggression principle, since they interpret the non-aggression principle differently.

In summary, FSK should have defined that the non-aggression principle forbids aggressive overthrow of the state, not the other way around. It is circular reasoning if you did the latter.

## I am not a "Vulgar Libertarian"

Let us say that you showed an argument to me. If I criticize the accuracy of a few specific details in your argument, you might apprehend that I reject the general idea of the argument. But I will respond to you that rejecting to specific parts, such as specific facts and inaccuracies of an argument, does not imply that I reject the "general idea" of the argument. You might, however, see my rejections of the specific parts of your argument, as strawmans to the "general idea." We will call this behavior the "double-strawman fallacy."

I have experienced the double-strawman fallacy in many cases. At one time, David Z. posted an example of the monetization of debt, showing the value of the dollar falling down. I responded to a specific factual inaccuracy, that the consumer price index (CPI) does not accurately represent the valuation of the dollar. David, however, thought that I rejected the "general idea" of his argument that the value of the currency has gone down. So he deleted my comment. But due to the double-strawman fallacy, David thought that my criticism of the CPI made me reject the "general idea" of the whole blog post, in which I actually believed the opposite.

Let us go back to BrainPolice's blog. I responded to his usage of "vulgar libertarian" in his most recent article at that time, because I get confused over his definition of "vulgar libertarian." BrainPolice used the term "vulgar libertarian" in his post entitled Positive and Negative Liberty:

BrainPolice said: In this context, a libertarian can consistantly [sic] advocate concepts such as mutual aid and cooperative management. This usually devolves into vulgar and thin libertarians denying the reconciliation vs. neo-artistotileans [sic] and left-libertarians defending such a reconciliation.

I do not know how BrainPolice defines the term "vulgar libertarian." I critiqued his usage of the term "vulgar libertarian." I did not mean to criticise his whole statement quoted above, only his usage of the term.

BrainPolice used the double-strawman fallacy when he criticized my "vulgar libertarian" statement. When I respond to BrainPolice questioning the definition of the term, BrainPolice assumed that I disagreed with the "general idea," of the statement, that "mutual aid and co-ops are consistent with libertarian legal theory." Just because I questioned the "vulgar libertarian" concept, it does not mean that I oppose his overall statement. In fact, I recognize the right for anyone to mutually aid one another and to form co-ops, and I even believed that co-ops may sometimes benefit the workers.

## Am I a "Troll"?

I do not understand trolls. I do not understand how some individuals will purposefully make "false claims" to "provoke" responses. I do not understand why the "troll" will waste his time writing posts to provoke responses.

Usually, most of the people who are identified as "trolls" are not actually trolls. They did not intended to cause conflict, nor did they intended to post false information. Most of the time, the ones who accuse others for trolling will disagree with the "troll's" opinions so strongly that the troll seemed to intentionally make false claims. Even if the "troll" is just sharing his honest opinion on something, when others disagree with his opinions so strongly as "fringe," the other people will get an illusion that the "troll" is really intentionally making "fringe" statements, just because they disagree with his opinions so much. This occurs frequently. For most of the time, I see many people getting identified as "trolls" when their opinions are just "fringe." The trolls are just sharing an opinion that the majority of the users disagree. If there is no opposition party or some defenders of the fringe opinions held by the "trolls," even a small minority can convince everyone on the message board that he is a troll.

Neither do I understand how some will get "offended" by messages posted by "trolls" or messages that seemed to contain errors. Why wouldn't the individual simply ignore the messages posted by "trolls" if they do not want to get offended? I do not understand how just some text displayed on a computer monitor will get people offended.

Additionally, I do not understand how the "troll" likes to "mischievously" "force" others to respond to the message. If the "troll" thought that he is actually being "mischievous," then wouldn't he just feel guilty of "abusing" everyone else? Wouldn't his guilt encourage him to not "troll" on message boards anymore?

An objection to the above statement is that he is just a "psychopath" who does not feel empathy or guilt for his actions, so he can mischievously "provoke" responses continuously. This argument seems a rightful objection, since in reality there are some people who behave like that. But in my experience, the vast majority of the cases of accusing others for being a "troll" is wrongfully convicted. The "troll" is just sharing his opinions that happens to be "fringe" for the majority of the users, and when there are no opposition party or defenders of his "fringe" opinions. Therefore, the "troll" who is honestly sharing his opinions will get wrongfully convicted simply because the majority disagrees with him.

But there exists some objections to the above statement. Some will say that they can tell whether a troll is "indeed" behaving "mischievous" or not. However, as we discussed above, many individuals have an illusion that the troll is being "mischievous," merely when they strongly disagree with his opinions. Often, people mistakenly see a person as behaving "mischievous" or intentionally "provocative" simply when we disagree with his opinions. We call this cognitive bias the "dissident-troll bias."

Due to "collective reinforcement" of everyone on the message board, the one posting "fringe opinions" will more likely to be identified as a "troll," simply because more people are disagreeing with the "fringe opinions".

My point is that "trolls," are wrongfully convicted in the majority of the cases. Anyway, let us go back to the topic.

I cannot even discern the reason why would anyone spread "fringe" ideas around the web in the first place. It does not work, others will ignore the messages, and it wastes the time of the person.

## BrainPolice on "Economic Rent"

When I criticized the market anarchists' assumption that "economic rent" will fall to zero, BrainPolice replied using the red herring fallacy. Red herring fallacies are common when debating with someone else using words that have multiple definitions. In fact, BrainPolice fell on exactly that. He did not even know what "economic rent" means. The terms "economic rent" and "rent" mean completely different concepts. BrainPolice got confused with "economic rent" with "rent," so he interpreted my statement as "market anarchists oppose rent." He preceded, as usual, to refute that claim.

BrainPolice thought that I was criticizing Benjamin Tucker's prediction that rent (in the non-economic sense) will fall to zero. However, I was actually writing about economic rent, not rent.

If you look up "economic rent" in a dictionary, you will find the meaning similar to the "return on investment" from a capitalist's deterred time preference.

To prove this, Benjamin Tucker had actually rejected economic rent. Market anarchists also seemed to have a incorrect view of economic rent. They predict that non-entrepreneurial income earned by firms will fall to zero. While market anarchists correctly reject that rent would fall to zero (in the non-economic sense), they seemed to have a confusion on economic rent, as the mutualists did.

Homesteading abondoned property according to the Lockean theory is logical, but many self-identified market anarchists support some kinds of "homesteading" that might cause shortages. For example, they may oppose rent for some kinds of land and apartment buildings. Their belief is based on historical examples of feudal societies steal in the disguise as "rent."

Feudal societies do not compete so they can collude to set rent. But due to today's many land owners, it is almost impossible to form a cartel to set a high rent price.

However, in non-feudal societies, land should not be "homesteaded" while paying rent. If the society prohibits rent, then the owners would not offer the service in the first place. For example, if apartment rent is prohibited by "homesteading", then investors would not have the incentive to build apartments for people in the first place. "Homesteading" an apartment is a form of rent control, so it would cause shortages.

If people are freely to "homestead" arbitrary land, numerous questions arise. How much land should they homestead? If they mixed their labor with large pieces of land, should they allow it. What is the maximum of land can they possess? They can "cheat" by homesteading" large amounts of land by just using their low quality labor. Thus, no land is available.

Land, like other resources, are a natural resource. Therefore, they are limited to constraints. In order to perform the best use of land, land should not be "stolen" to allow marginal utility.

Murray Rothbard has proved that the price of rent equals the value of the good divided by the natural interest rate. For example, one rents a good priced at $1000 per year and the natural interest rate is 5%, then the actual price of the good is$1000/0.05 = $20,000. This is an effect of entrepreneurs. If an entrepreneurs see that he can build an apartment at$20,000 and later get $1000, he might do it. But his decision is based on other stuff. It is equivalent that if he knew that he can also invest in a bank at interest by lending$20,000 and receiving $1,000 one year later as interest (at a rate of 5%). If his estimates that his interst from investing in apartments is greater than$1000, he would invest in apartments, and if it is the other way around, he would invest in a bank.

Going back to the apartment example, would a person actually pay $20,000 than rent$1,000 per year? They are equal, and the person can choose to buy it at $20,000 then sell it later or pay$1,000 per year.

If that person is poor, he would actually borrow $20,000 from a bank at 5% interest to buy that apartment. He has to pay back$20,000, plus the 5% interest, which totals $21,000. Thus, lending from a bank to buy the apartment and renting the apartment$1,000 every year costs the same amount of money.

Utimately, abolishing rent would leave the poor person without an apartment because he does not want to take the risk of borrowing that much and/or if the bank does not approve the loan.

Thus, it appears that the self-identified market anarchists do not understand the relationship of interest and rent.

Another consequence of "homesteading" land is the lack of knowledge. If an entrepreneur is buying unused land to build a football field, would he allow others to steal? If the field is unoccupied, others would pollute it. What if he dumps garbage on unused land to prevent theft? That would encorage them to malinvest such as polluting the land to prevent theft or building extreneous houses on land to prevent intrusion.

David Z., had refuted the market anarchist misconception that non-entrepreneurial corporate income is "unnatural." At my blog comment to BrainPolice, I was just trying to make similar criticisms about the market anarchists' objection to economic rent, as David Z. did.

It was actually my fault that I did not define "economic rent" at the time of my writing. I should have defined "economic rent," since lots of individuals do know what "economic rent" is. Anyway, however, I correctly claimed that the market anarchists' object to economic rent.

## I am not Paranoid

I have a long-time suspicion that the "left"-libertarians are trying to redefine capitalism and anarcho-capitalism to the way they want it to mean. When I criticized BrainPolice of attempting of doing this, he said that I was wrong.

Anarcho-Mercantilist said: I see BrainPolice and Brad Spangler attempting to redefine anarcho-capitalism as a vulgar, conservative, political and feudalistic plutocracy. BrainPolice tried to deceptively redefine anarcho-capitalism by writing an article that emotionally associates anarcho-capitalists with conservatives. That trademark tactic did not work for me. I still consider myself as an anarcho-capitalist.

BrainPolice said: Nonesense. [sic] Your continual attempt to portray me and others as engaging in a propaganda campaign when we are merely logically extending libertarian principles is a joke.

If the "left"-libertarians aren't truly trying to run a propaganda campaign, then why do they claim that we should normatively redefine capitalism and anarcho-capitalism as a fascist, plutocratic, and paternalistic theology? Why should redefine the terms, when we can use them as-is, as in the dictionary definitions?

Why do the "left"-libertarians go through all of this? (I do not mean all "left"-libertarians):

...and so on...

All of these above links have articles written by people who want to normatively change the definitions of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and the rest of the terms that they dislike. They do not give any explanation of why we should adopt theses new definitions for these terms. The best that they can argue is to go through some historical and ancient definitions of these terms. The historical meanings, however, have since changed since then. So is now proper to use these according to the dictionary definitions.

If the "left"-libertarians say that we should normatively do that, and in this case, redefine the terms, then they are handling them as trademarks. They are exactly doing what the trademark owners do: they want to redefine and "purify" the definitions of these terms to what they want to mean. All trademark redefinitions are, indeed, propaganda campaigns. So it is illogical to argue that redefining capitalism isn't a propaganda campaign, while doing this with trademarks is propaganda.

I liked B.K. Marcus' observation that capitalism is historically defined as the "private ownership of the means of production." Most dictionaries, and including Karl Marx, basically define capitalism that way. The anti-capitalists oppose capitalism simply because they oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Iain McKay, the main author of An Anarchist FAQ, even defined capitalism the usual way, as the "private ownership of the means of production." McKay posted on Usenet that private property will result in huge disparities of wealth.

It is also strange that the "left"-libertarians like to use the term "free market" when at the same time they object "capitalism." The term "free market" has just about the same meanings and connotations as "capitalism." I do not understand why they go contrary on these two terms.

This is proof that most of the anti-capitalists simply oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

## I am more on the "left" than the "left"-libertarians

If I used BrainPolice's definition of "vulgar libertarian," then paradoxically, I am much less "vulgar" than most of the self-identified "left"-libertarians.

For example, IMHO, David Z. seemed to have more "vulgar" personality than me. For example, David Z., a "left"-libertarian, acted like a "vulgar libertarian" when he unconsciously defended the U.S. health care system by denying that U.S. already has socialized health care. Even though he opposes the U.S. health care system, he did never mention the corporatist privileges of the U.S. system. He denied that the U.S. already has socialized health care in his blog post.

I posted a critique of the "vulgar libertarian" concept, as promoted by "left"-libertarians', on another one of my blogs at Proprietary Anarchy. It seems as though the "vulgar libertarian" concept has no meaning to it, since the "left"-libertarians call me as a "vulgar" libertarian when they, themselves, have more "vulgar" tendencies. Therefore, I was curious on how the "left"-libertarians define "vulgar libertarian." So I asked BrainPolice to define the term "vulgar libertarian." But according to his definition, I am, indeed, less "vulgar" than most of the "left"-libertarians.

IMHO, I am also less "vulgar" than John Petrie. John once "defended" the recession as a "natural" "correction" on a blog post. But the recession isn't any "correction" at all. The recession would not occur if the state suddenly became abolished. Therefore, this "recession" isn't a "correction" of the economy, but is caused by continuous taxation and regulation of the economy. If the state suddenly vanished, this recession will turn into the largest economic euphoria in history. But the criminal orginization currently hampers the potential boom into a recession. So there isn't anything "natural" about this. I have already discussed about this in my 15 Mistakes by Austrian Economists post.

I have also refuted John's prediction that the collapse of the U.S. auto industry is "natural". I commented that the auto industry will expand in a free market, because there would be no taxation and regulations that hamper the expansion of the auto industry. Even if the state currently privileges the auto industry, auto industry will expand even more of the state is abolished. This is because there will be no criminal levels of theft and barriers to entry for potential automobile manufacturers in a free market. Because individuals will also be at least five times richer in a free market, individuals would buy more automobiles that would expand the industry. (By 'auto industry', I mean the auto industry in general, not the Big Three cronies.)

These is one reason of why I object to identify myself as a "left"-libertarian. The "left"-libertarians join alliances with the anarcho-collectivists. The "left"-libertarians arrogantly claim that I am more "vulgar" than them, even when, as shown above, that this is entirely the opposite.

If you want to see how should the terms "left" and "right" be defined, then go look at the article called Normative Semantics of Left and Right. This article actually defended the "left" if you used the term "left" correctly. But I still do not identify with the "left" because I reject the whole political spectrum.

Because no formal definition of leftism and rightism exist, people often criticize the other wing using the equivocation fallacies. Left-wingers criticize the right-wing's cultural conservative stereotype when the right-wingers criticize the left's economic stereotypes. They do not even argue about the same thing. Often, the left and right will randomly switch the definitions of the terms to mean one of the above stereotypes, and result in a confusing, convoluted argument with no concrete definitions of the terms left and right.

The real way to avoid the equivocation fallacy, as suggested by Overcoming Bias, is to taboo your words. For example, instead of saying "I oppose capitalism," we can do it in a better way such as "I oppose the private ownership of the means of production." Instead of uttering "I oppose 'left'-libertarianism," I can say "I oppose allying with the libertarian socialists" or "I support the legal possibility for the existence of corporations in the anarchistic legal system."

Kevin Carson misinterpreted my position about the legality of corporations in a free market:

Carlton Hobbs recently challenged the tendency of mainstream libertarians, free marketers and anarcho-capitalists to favor the capitalist corporation as the primary model of ownership and economic activity, and to assume that any future free market society will be organized on the pattern of corporate capitalism.

I did never regard that the corporate legal entity would function as the predominant model in anarchy. I do, however, defend the legal possibility of such legal entity existing in the free market. Actually, I envision an anarcho-capitalist society as radically different than the current fascist state.

I predict that self-employment and small enterprises will function as the predominant business model in anarchy. The median worker will earn five times more wealth, especially without the interventions such as the apprenticeship system, regulations, legal barriers, and extortion. Many workers will become so much wealthier that they can afford to invest their own capital. In a free society, the prevalence of authoritarian management will shrink to virtually nonexistent. Workers will have greater autonomy, and will have a working environment similar to independent contractors. I speculate that interest rates will fall, and innovation will greatly increase.

Semantic disagreements do play a role in every branch of science, not just in political ideologies. The anarcho-capitalists and mutualists would have more in common if we had resolved many of the semantic barriers. This does not, however, mean that anarcho-capitalists should defend, support or even ally with mutualists. Not even close. My opinion is that semantics do play at least some role.

Some "left"-libertarians get "offended" by the word "capitalism" because some mutualists, who ally with Rothbardian "left"-libertarians, oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Brad Spangler did indeed conspire a propaganda show when he advocated "General Semantics" to make definitions more appealing those who oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I hope this is the last time I make a post on semantics. This is getting tiresome! Let us refocus our energies in countering the real enemy: the state. Forget about this conflict, and let's start our agorist revolution!

## Friday, January 16, 2009

### The Messy Definitions of "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing"

On the web, libertarians occurrently conflict with each other on the definitions of a few terms. We observed that these conflicts start from the mistaken and confusing definitions of the terms left-wing, and right-wing. We, in attempt to revolve this conflict, normatively propose more consistent definitions of these two terms. While no definitions of these terms accurately reflects the historical usage, our normative approach will in attempt to solve this problem by devising the original definition, along with a brief historical analysis on how the definitions changed its meanings today.

Libertarians and agorists mistakenly label themselves as revolutionary or leftist. This leads to great problems, and frequently cause confusions of the terms left and right. Unlike our previous attempts, we decide to find non-empirical definitions of the terms. This will, therefore, provide a consistent resemblance of the terms. We, in attempt to clarify the definitions, wrote a series of arguments formulating consistent definitions of radical, revolutionary, left-wing and right-wing.

The first section starts in distinguishing between the terms radical and revolutionary. In this section, we will refute the common misconception of the synonymy of these two terms. In the second section, we will devise simpler and more consistent definitions of the terms left and right, building up on the conclusions in the first section. Additionally, we will analyze the common mistakes and confusions of the terms, especially pertaining to the minarchists and the agorists. In concluding the argument, we will propose a fourth section, dealing with the historical mix-up and the origins of the confusions. Lastly, we will provide an appendix exemplifying the application of the newly defined consistent terms, while refuting the popular misconceptions of the meanings of these terms.

## The Terms Radical and Revolutionary

Popular opinion often conflate the terms radical and revolutionary. While, on the surface, these terms appear similar, a we will argue that a significant distinction exists.

We notice that the terms left-wing has similar ideas as in radical and revolutionary. In order to isolate the distinguishing attributes from each of these three terms, we must find concise definitions for each of these terms.

We will use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to define the terms right-wing and left-wing.(webster-left) In contrast to other dictionaries, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary appears more historically accurate. We justify this from its accurate entry on the definition of mercantilism.(webster-mercantilism)

According to the commonly-accepted definitions, right-wing means status quo or status quo ante. Left-wing means radical.

The terms status quo and status quo ante, which appears as opposites of the revolutionary and radical. However, we find this as false. To demonstrate this, we will argue that there can exist revolutionaries that support the status quo ante. We will use Burkean conservatism, the traditional form of conservatism, to prove this.

Those who oppose the American Revolution and the French Revolution, labeled Burkean conservatives, opposes radical change. Burkean conservatism adores experience as one of the primary tenets of its reformist philosophy. It claims that experience, or historical implementations, demonstrates the feasibility of the ideology. Therefore, Burkean conservatism only accepts ideologies successfully implemented in real-life. A past or the current implementation of the ideology demonstrates the feasibility of the ideology. They advocate certain status quo or status quo ante of the ideology implemented.

Thus, we can consistently define right-wing as the status quo or the status quo ante.

Karl Hess', in attempt to devise the terms left and right, labeled Joseph Stalin as right-wing. We will, below, refute that claim.

Authoritarian socalists do not want to revert to the status quo or status quo ante. The ideologues claim its ideology as radical because it continuously tries to invent innovative solutions to implement a workable version of communism.

As we showed theory as much more important than implementation,(TheoryAndImplementation) we should view intent much more important than the result. We could all agree that the result of communism pertains to the status quo and the status quo ante, since all implementations of communism results the same old failure.

But the intent of communism, as an ideology, pertains to its radicalness and opposes the status quo and the status quo ante. Communists want to implement new workable versions of communism resembling nothing to the historical attempts of communism. Therefore, we should define communism as opposing the status quo and the status quo ante.

We had argued that the theory or intent, not the implementation or result, determines the fundamental attributes of any philosophy. Because of the radical intent of communism, we must classify communism as left-wing, as in the above sense.

Right-wing means the status quo or the status quo ante. Left-wing means radical ideas.

Therefore, we should not claim left-wing authoritarianism, in the radical authoritarianism sense, as an oxymoron.

Both of the terms, even formally defined, contain ambiguity. The left-wing originally meant the opposition to the status quo. The left-wing includes the counter-revolutionary authoritarians and the radical revolutionary authoritarians.

However, an ideology labeled as radical does not necessary imply the ideology as revolutionary. Two types of radicalism exist: the revolutionary type and the reformist type. Radical reformists tend to hold radical intentions and principles, but does not necessary support drastic revolution in practice. Contrastingly, radical revolutionaries tend to support radical intentions and drastic revolution in practice.

These two terms, however, tend to get conflated, since the terms radical and revolutionary often gets associated. Those who have radical beliefs tend to support revolutionary means to achieve it, and those who support revolution tend to hold a radical opposition to the status quo.

But we should emphasize that we should not view two these two terms, radical and revolutionary, as necessary correlated. Some radicals oppose revolution, and some revolutionaries do not hold radical beliefs. The political anarcho-capitalists and the democratic socialists hold radical views but oppose revolution. Conversely, the counter-revolutionary reactionaries and the theocrats support revolution but do not hold radical views.

By the above conclusions, we have found a more consistent and concise definition of radical and revolutionary.

• The term radical means philosophies whose intent support ideologies not implemented in the past or in the current situation. It therefore opposes the status quo or the status quo ante, the defining ideas for right-wing.
• The term revolutionary means those who favor direct and immediate methods in implementing the ideology in practice, as opposed to politics or reformism. The term revolutionary does not necessary correlate with radicalness or left-wing ideology.
• The term left-wing, if defined consistently, merely means a synonym for radical.
• The term right-wing, if defined consistently, merely means a synonym for the status quo or the status quo ante.

## The Terms Left-Wing and Right-Wing

We could formulate the left-wing and right-wing versions of libertarianism. The right-wing libertarian supports the status quo ante, or the old model of classical liberalism implemented after the American Revolution. The left-wing libertarian opposes the status quo and the status quo ante, therefore opposes the American Revolution and all of the quasi-libertarian societies implemented in the past. The left-wing libertarian supports radical notions of libertarianism never implemented in the past, and denies that any currently-existing society as libertarian. The left-wing libertarians, for example, denies Medieval Iceland or Somalia as libertarian societies.

We should emphasize that the term left-wing, a synonym for radical, does not necessary imply revolutionary. Hence, the left-wing libertarian, by definition, may support reformism.

Coincidentally, some of the self-identified "left"-libertarians, such as Kevin A. Carson, Roderick T. Long, and Charles Johnson, actually do support reformism.(TheLeftLibertarianStrategy)

We should also discredit the term radical right or right-wing radical as an oxymoron. Right-wing means a philosophy based on the status quo or the status quo ante. The term left-wing means the opposite. Left-wing philosophies does not base on the status quo or the status quo ante. Left-wing philosophies bases on innovative, radical ideas not implemented in history. Therefore, the term radical right has the two words meaning opposites.

Most of the self-identified "agorists" actually do not, by themselves, practice agorism. We can label them as theoretical agorists. Theoretical agorists include David Z., FSK, and others in the "left"-libertarian spectrum. Theoretical agorists frequently impose guilt trips on other theoretical agorists for not practicing agorism, even that they, themselves, do not practice agorism in the first place. While most self-identified "agorists" do not practice agorism, they do have the same radical beliefs as the practical agorists. Hence, we can label both the theoretical and the practical agorists as radical libertarians.

However, we cannot label the theoretical agorists as revolutionary libertarians. The theoretical agorists do not practice direct action, but impose guilt trips on others for not practicing agorism. The practical agorists, in contrast, do practice agorism. So we can only label the practical agorists as revolutionary libertarians, not the theoretical agorists.

In summary, we should label theoretical agorists as non-revolutionary libertarians and label practical agorists as revolutionary libertarians. But we can label both the theoretical and practical types as radical libertarians.

## "Left"-Libertarianism and Politics

Historically, the agorist movement classified anyone who supports reformism or political methods as right-wing. The "left"-libertarians often claim that radicals, by definition, must oppose politics. We will discredit this.

Some libertarians may have radical intentions and may strongly oppose the status quo, but resort to using political methods and reformism anyway. They believe that reformism and politics can bring about this process, without revolution.

As we often conclude that using reformism and politics does not change anything other than the status quo, the result or implementation appears to coincide with the right-wing, a term meaning the status quo.

However, the determination of the philosophy depends on its intentions more than the implementation. A "left"-libertarian may strongly oppose the status quo but resort to political methods and reformism. Because the "left"-libertarians intended to exert radicalness, radical political libertarianism falls in the left-wing.

We should note that political libertarianism does not necessarily oppose the left, so there may exist political libertarians that may fall in the right.

Similarly, as discussed above, some right-libertarians support a non-political counter-revolution to go back two hundred years ago. But these libertarians, even if they oppose politics, do not fall in the left, since they oppose radicalism.

## Problems with Secularism and Traditionalism

A secularist can have traditional beliefs, since traditional values does not require religion. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines left-wing as supporting secularism.(webster-secular) Therefore, in order to classify a person as having left-wing beliefs, he or she must hold radical (but not necessary revolutionary) ideas, and also support secular values. As we see secularism, by definition, as compatible to traditionalism, the secular left, by definition, does not necessarily oppose traditionalism.

Similarly, a traditionalist attempts to believe in traditional values, such as morals, ethics, and religion. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines right-wing, in addition to supporting the status quo or the status quo ante, as espousing traditionalism.(webster-traditional) But, as showed above, traditionalism does not necessitate religion. Concepts generally associated with traditionalism include hierarchy, authority, patriotism, nationalism, paternalism(paternalism-def) and religion.

So according to the above argument, both the left and the right both may hold traditional values. The left and the right only differ by religion, not tradition.

## Leftism, socialism and economic interventionism

Prior to Karl Marx, both of the minarchists and the economic planners identify themselves as socialists. However, as the Marxist movement enlarged, the definitions changed. Because the Marxists had always referred socialism to economic planning, socialism got associated with economic planning, and then the denotation of socialism has changed to only represent economic planning.

Marxists oppose religion and support economic planning. Therefore, the term left-wing, after the Marxist movement, had become to mean something resembling Marxism, with the opposition to religion with the support for economic planning. Contemporary dictionaries define left-wing as a secularist, economic interventionist ideology, possibly due to the Marxists' identification with the left.

However, we should simply reject the terms left and right as package-deals. The left does not really support revolution, and many of the "left"-libertarians, as said above, support reformism. As argued above, the left also does not oppose traditionalism. The population has redefined left-wing as supporting socialism and economic interventionism, mostly of the Marxist movement. It makes the terms left and right as watered-down propagandistic euphemisms.

## Appendix: Authoritarianism Example

We will briefly use the term radical and revolutionary to demonstrate the usage of these two terms. We will use authoritarianism as the example.

Two branches of authoritarianism:

• Revolutionary authoritarianism
• Anti-revolutionary or status quo authoritarianism

### Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Two branches of revolutionary authoritarianism:

• Counter-revolutionary or status quo ante authoritarianism
• Radical (innovative) revolutionary authoritarianism

Since all these two support revolution.

### Anti-Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Examples (in an anarcho-capitalist POV):

• The U.S. Republican Party
• The U.S. Democratic Party

### Counter-Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Some authoritarians propose the status quo ante, by revolution. Also called counter-revolutionary authoritarianism and status quo ante authoritarianism.

Examples (in an anti-minarchist anarcho-capitalist POV):

• The counter-revolution reactionaries
• Theocracy
• Monarchism
• Paleocensarvatism
• Ron Paul conservatism

### Radical Revolutionary Authoritarianism

Some authoritarians do not propose to go back to any time period. They wish to implement an innovative version of authoritarianism that does not exist in the past.

Examples:

• Jacobin
• Stalinism
• Maoism
• Troskyism
• Nazism
• Fascism

## The Historical Meanings of "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing"

• The original left-wing understood as those who sat on the left side of the parliament and right-wing who sat on the right side. Because there is only one dimension, no one can be arranged optimally.
• The original left-wing composes of Democratic-Republicans, who oppose social, religious and military intervention and opposes spending. Supports states' rights.
• The original right-wing composes of Whigs, who were religious and support social, religious and military intervention and supports spending. Opposes states' rights.
• President Abraham Lincoln has defined the right-wing to support social and religious interventionism.
• Since the election of Woodrow Wilson, the left-wing has and supported social intervention such as prohibition.
• Since the elections of Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, the left-wing has supported military intervention and the right-wing has opposed military intervention.
• The elections of Herbert Hoover and FDR had defined the left-wing the pro-spending party and the right-wing as the anti-spending party.
• The Barry Goldwater campaign and the Civil Rights act in the 1960s made right-wing religious as the Southern Democrats distrusted the Democratic party for supporting it. The right-wing has redefined to support social interventionism.
• The Ronald Reagan campaign has defined the left-wing to oppose spending and the right-wing to support spending, all at the same amount of economic interventionism.
• Ronald Reagan has defined the left to support environmentalism and the right to oppose environmentalism.
• The two Iraq wars has defined the left-wing to oppose military intervention and the right-wing as military interventionist. The energy issue has defined both the left-wing and the right-wing to support environmentalism.

These events caused the vague notions of the left-wing and the right-wing as we use today.

How would the myriad political ideologies fit in just a one-dimensional spectrum? The political spectrum is not defined that way, the definition has induced from the empirical arrangement of French parliament. Groups of individuals sat next to each other in a way, while constrained by the one-dimensional parliament, to reduce tension between their neighbors. Because of the spatial closeness of the neighbors, the left-right spectrum forces one to join alliances with neighbors. The left-right spectrum arbitrarily forces a diverse array of ideologies to jam into a one-dimensional spectrum.

Many left-libertarians, particularily the ones who have a membership of Alliance of the Libertarian Left, would cite Karl Hess' or the left-libertarian's definition. However, his does not promote a solution because his inductive definition does not reflect the dynamic political spectrum. Words such as "left-libertarian" and "right-libertarian" seem vague.

## Ramifications

No political "spectrum" can measure the "similarity" of one's ideology compared to others. The two-dimensional political spectrum is not an improvement over the one-dimensional one. To give an accurate representation of one's political views, it would require thousands of dimensions. But with thousands of dimensions, it would become impossible to compare your results with others. You cannot simply "match" your thousands of dimensions with another's thousands. Doing so would not give accurate results, since the more dimensions you match does not necessarily mean that you have closer views to him. The "dimensions" of the political spectrum are also picked arbitrarily, so it will give biased and "unmatchable" results.

A solution that we propose is neither left nor right. It is a simpler axis, one that Kel Weaver has proposed. It is simply anarchist or non-anarchist.

No definition of left-wing and right-wing that encompasses all its usages exist. Criticisms of leftism or rightism pertains to a specific stereotype listed below.

 "Leftie" stereotypes anti-capitalism anti-corporation anti-corporatism anti-propertarianism anti-racism anti-religion blank slate class conflict collectivism cultural determinism dialecticism economic interventionism egalitarianism environmentalism equality forced integration group rights majority rule moral relativism multiculturalism nurture over nature pacifism pluralism political correctness polycentrism radical feminism religious intolerance reverse discrimination secularism social determinism tabula rasa tolerance welfare state Right-Wing stereotypes anti-democracy authoritarianism capitalism colonialism conservatism cultural conservatism elitism family values fascism feudalism fundamentalism genetic determinism inegalitarianism inequality intolerance landlordism militarism monarchism monocentrism monoculturalism nationalism nature over nurture neo-Lockean theory of property paternalism plutocracy pro-corporation pro-corporatism protectionism psychological nativism religion social hierarchy social order status quo ante status quo traditionalism traditionalist authoritarianism uniformity warfare state

Because no formal definition of leftism and rightism exist, people often criticize the other wing using the equivocation fallacies. Left-wingers criticize the right-wing's cultural conservative stereotype when the right-wingers criticize the left's economic stereotypes. They do not even argue about the same thing. Often, the left and right will randomly switch the definitions of the terms to mean one of the above stereotypes, and result in a confusing, convoluted argument with no concrete definitions of the terms left and right.

I responded to the series of comments at Polycentric Order.
Cork said: Does it make any sense for left-libertarians to bash Hoppe but praise Proudhon, when the latter is far more culturally conservative?

Brainpolice used the term "left" in the sense of cooperative property rights, not to mean culturally liberal. He has posted a video defining "left" and "right." Cork replies to Brainpolice without understanding what he had meant.

Cork said: I don't want to give the impression that Proudhon is all bad, just because he had some nutty beliefs on cultural and political issues. For a proto-socialist, he was decent and relatively libertarian (well...at least in theory). He has some excellent quotes.

Brainpolice did not define "left-wing" and "right-wing" to distinguish cultural differences, he used them to distinguish economic differences, an in this case, property rights. He used "left-wing" to mean those supporting "loose" property rights and "right-wing to mean those opposing the "loose" property rights held by mutualists.

Brainpolice said: Furthermore, how can we possibly forget Gary North, who openly advocated a Christian theocracy as an anarcho-capitalist model? So spare me in your attempt to act like the libertarian right has some kind of highground.

BrainPolice has, once again, used the equivocation fallacy. He equivocated the term "right-wing" to represent theocracy, when he previously used the same term to represent those who "oppose" mutualist property rights.

Thus, I do not identify myself as either "left" nor "right," because the usage of these term often sprang up equivocation fallacies.

Scott said: Cork is clearly trolling.

Affixing the adverb "clearly" in this sentence not necessarily affirm accuracy of the predicate. Many individuals often abuse the word "clearly." For example, Statists will say that "the tax evader has clearly harmed people," "We clearly need a State," or "the drug dealer has clearly committed a 'crime'."

I oppose labeling, using, or calling yourself, or any other, as "left," "right," "anti-left" or "anti-right." This will instigate confusion. For example, by "anti-left," do you mean you oppose their economic stance or oppose their cultural liberalism? Well, the self-described "leftists" will interpret your statement as opposing both. Therefore, they will call you a "right-libertarian," and a culturally conservative bigot. The discussion will go on and on and go in a convoluted circle.

As shown, the usage of the terms "left" and "right" leads to equivocation fallacies. Therefore, we will propose eliminating all, each as every, instance of "left" and "right."

As similar in E-Prime, the term "to be" can easily get misused. Let us look at the similar case in E-Prime:

In principle, if not in practice, we agree that in some instances one could use forms of "to be" (in its auxiliary, existence, and location modes) without causing appreciable "semantic damage". Even so, most English teachers would agree that most of us overuse and misuse the verb, and that even a 75% reduction in its use would improve our writing and speaking skills. But why go to the extreme of trying to eliminate it totally? Because for better or worse, it looks like only an all-or-nothing approach to this problem works successfully. De Morgan, Santayana, Korzybski, and many general semanticists have warned against misuses of the verb like the "is" of identity, yet they continued to misuse it themselves!

So even if we carefully attempt to carefully use "left," it can easily get misused. For example, we identified four different definitions of "left-libertarianism":

• Charles Johnson defines "left-libertarianism" as "thick" libertarianism muddled with feminism and other cultural values, as supposedly shared by the Democratic Party. However, Johnson did the "hasty generalization" fallacy in doing that.
• Brainpolice defines "left"-libertarianism as cultural liberalism with anarchistic economics. However, on a YouTube video, he mysteriously redefines "left" and "right" as an economic spectrum.
• FSK defines a "left"-libertarian as an agorist.*
• Brad Spangler defines left-libertarianism as a revolutionary type of libertarianism and while opposing "vulgar libertarianism." This implies that left-libertarians must advocate mutualism or neo-mutualism.

We defined "left"-libertarianism a long time ago and many replied that we did not represent all "left-libertarians." I do not represent all of them because we defined "left-libertarianism" differently.

All statists, minarchists included, propose aggression on others. Statists only tinker with the Leviathan and parliamentarianistically waste their energies with political compromise.

The terms left-wing and right-wing are highly vague, and no definition exists. They are highly contextual, and can have completely different meanings hinging on the speaker's ideology and alliances.

## Bibliography

\begin{thebibliography}{9}

\bibitem{webster-mercantilism}
Anarcho-Mercantilism over Market Anarchism.
2008.
\emph{Anarcho-Mercantilist}
\url{http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/2008/10/anarcho-mercantilism-over-market.html}

\bibitem{webster-radical}
Radical.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical}

\bibitem{webster-revolution}
Revolution.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution}

\bibitem{webster-left}
Left.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left}

\bibitem{webster-right}
Right.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right}

\bibitem{webster-secular}
Secular.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular}

\bibitem{webster-traditional}
Traditional.
2009.
\emph{Merriam-Webster Online.}
\url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditional}

\bibitem{TheoryAndImplementation}
We will discuss this in another article.

\bibitem{TheLeftLibertarianStrategy}
The Left-Libertarian Strategy
2008.
\emph{Anarcho-Mercantilist}
\url{http://anarcho-mercantilist.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-libertarian-strategy.html}

\bibitem{paternalism-def}
Multiple, confusing definitions of \emph{paternalism} exist. In this case we mean to aggress others for their own good."

\end{thebibliography}


On FSK's blog:

If you're on your own blog, ignoring or calling out trolls is usually sufficient. For example, "[anarcho-mercantilist]" (see above) describes himself as "anti left-libertarian". If that's your philosophy, then why are you trolling here? If you believe that agorists are full of ****, then why are you wasting time reading this?