4.2-Construction · Uncategorized

Tips on Strict Construction


Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you.

What I’ve seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration.

But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all.

It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error.

So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation.

Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first-principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes.

It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgments.

Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s