• LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    Today, 11:10 AM
    You're thereby stating that your own ethical propositions are purely irrational, nothing more than an ęsthetic preference, such as one who happens to prefer one flavor of ice cream over another. Yes, I have quite noticed this about you, i.e., regarding your whim-worshipping inconsistency. In that, I agree with you. However, if God exists--and He does--then whatever His Will is is objectively correct, since it is logically impossible that the infinite sapient intelligence could make an error. Indeed, God is nothing more and nothing less than Logic Itself, i.e., the Logos--but therein is infinite everything. It is therefore logically impossible that God could be anything other than perfectly logical, for then that would mean that God is not-God, which is a violation of the Law of Identity. Almost all of modern world society has been inducted to some extent by their respective governments into a completely misanthropic and nihilistic antitheist Weltanschauung, a Godless worldview of eternal death. It is the sine qua non of the serial-killer ethos. Even nominal mass-Christianity has been to a large degree inducted into this worldview by buying into the God-haters' mendacious propaganda regarding there being a conflict between science and religion. But it is a lie: for ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God's existence has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. As Prof. Noam Chomsky correctly observed, the so-called New Atheists are themselves quite religious. They worship a God, but their God is the state. (Note that Chomsky himself is guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, but nevertheless, despite his many faults, he does sometimes make penetrating observations.) Their objections to others' religions, especially Christianity, is simply nothing more than attempting to eliminate their competition. However, as Chomsky also astutely noted, the New Atheists' religion is by far the most bloody and murderous religion to ever exist. Eliminating God in the 20th century didn't make the governments more liberal; instead, it simply removed any higher notion of truth to which those governments were expected to abide. The state made itself God.
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:59 PM
    All the articles and books I cited in my originating post of this thread because they are objectively correct regarding their main theses. Further, I have extended the analysis regarding the apodictic correctness of libertarian rights theory even beyond that of Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. See also my following works: * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB . * James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf .
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:49 PM
    See my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. * James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20170721194538/http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , https://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm . On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis. * James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20170721194830/http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , https://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw . For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    08-01-2020, 11:40 PM
    It is logically impossible for government to be a general benefit to society, and hence governments are unavoidably incompetent if that is the desired goal. Government does not bring order to society, but rather disorder. Government is anarchy in the sense of societal chaos. Instead, it is the market which brings order and harmony to society, and to the extent that it is allowed to operate, it does so despite government, not because of it. For an apodictic proof of this per *wertfrei* economics via demonstrated preference, see the following article by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: * Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956), https://cdn.mises.org/On%20Freedom%20and%20Free%20Enterprise%20Essays%20in%20Honor%20of%20Ludwig%20von%20Mises_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 , http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255. What Prof. Rothbard shows in the foregoing citation is that it is logically impossible that government could be a general benefit to humanity, for the reason that government by definition operates on initiatory violence via its coercive regional monopoly on control over the law and via coercive wealth-extraction, and hence per demonstrated preference its victims of coercion reveal that they would have preferred that said compulsory transactions not have taken place. And due to the incommensurability of different people's subjective value scales, it is not logically possible to say if the beneficiaries of state violence gain more subjective value than its victims lose. Whereas on the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and hence each party to an exchange reveals per demonstrated preference that, *ex ante*, they prefer what they are transacting to receive over that which they are to give up. Thus, transactions on the market are mutually beneficial, in that each party to a transaction must expect to gain in utility.
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    08-01-2020, 11:21 PM
    "" 'T is strange,--but true; for truth is always strange; Stranger than fiction; if it could be told, How much would novels gain by the exchange! How differently the world would men behold! How oft would vice and virtue places change! The new world would be nothing to the old, If some Columbus of the moral seas Would show mankind their souls' antipodes.
    13 replies | 2463 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-30-2020, 02:17 PM
    A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being. As physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 , pp. 89 ff. .) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat. Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences. Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god sense, but also in the capital-G God sense. Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.
    0 replies | 72 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-14-2020, 12:03 AM
    For what my position is on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, see my below articles. My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory, political theory, economics, sociology, evolutionary psychology, epistemology to history. * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB . * James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf . * James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442546UTKUJCKYNM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0115-06/archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf .
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-13-2020, 10:08 PM
    If I limited myself to only citing people I agree with completely, then the only person I could cite would be Jesus Christ. All the articles and books above I cited because they are objectively correct regarding their main theses. I haven't read great deal of Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's more recent works, so I don't presume to be a chronicler of every word that he has ever written or spoken. But from what I've read of him, he's one of the principal defenders of the Nonaggression Principle. Yet if cracking open a few of Prof. Hoppe's papers is too much of a horror upon your mind, then fret not, for I've come to lend assistance. As I have extended the analysis regarding the apodictic correctness of libertarian rights theory even beyond that of Hoppe. For the details on that, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. * James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , https://web.archive.org/web/20170721194538/http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , https://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-13-2020, 12:10 PM
    Hi, RonZeplin. What relevancy do you think this song has to anything contained in my above post?
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-12-2020, 10:37 PM
    He did make the "pull it" statement. The 2002 PBS documentary in which Larry Silverstein makes that remark puts his comment in the context of World Trade Center 7. Although defenders of the US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory are liable to say he misspoke. "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."--Larry A. Silverstein, leaseholder of World Trade Center 1, 2, 4 and 5 since July 16, 2001, from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero (Great Projects Film Company, Inc., 2002), https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337570/ . That quote of Silverstein from America Rebuilds is contained in the following videos: * "9/11 - Did You Know: Larry Silverstein", Lauren Robb ( youtube.com/c/LaurenRobb ), Sept. 5, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlE8iIa5OUs . Mirror: "9 11 - WTC7 - Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT'", Shaun Gibson ( youtube.com/c/ShaunGibson ), Mar. 1, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU . Mirror: "WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gave order to 'pull' Building 7", Kristian Hudgins ( dailymotion.com/KristianHudgins ), https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2q06r8 . For those who would like irrefragable physicochemical proof that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job by deep-state elements of the US government--i.e., via the use of large quantities of thermite in the case of the collapse of the three destroyed World Trade Center towers--see pp. 75-84 of my following article:
    4 replies | 670 view(s)
  • LexEtLibertas's Avatar
    07-12-2020, 09:35 PM
    Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense: * Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24, https://cdn.mises.org/rampart_summer1965_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6ZvAbaX8z , http://www.freezepage.com/1447053835DURFWXQOPM . Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, DC: Libertarian Review Press, 1974), https://cdn.mises.org/Egalitarianism%20as%20a%20Revolt%20Against%20Nature,%20and%20Other%20Essays_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6XfwvbslB . * Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 1: "Defense Services on the Free Market", pp. 1-9 in id., Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; orig. pub. 1970), https://web.archive.org/web/20040720094416/http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , http://www.freezepage.com/1447054194BCBULVTSAX . * Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52, https://cdn.mises.org/14_1_2_0.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ . * Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46, https://cdn.mises.org/9_1_2_0.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5ve485kNf .
    17 replies | 775 view(s)
No More Results
About LexEtLibertas

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
56
Posts Per Day
0.02
General Information
Last Activity
Today 11:20 AM
Join Date
09-11-2013
Referrals
0
Home Page
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
No results to display...
No results to display...

08-05-2020


05-15-2019

  • 01:00 PM - Hidden

05-12-2019

  • 10:25 PM - Hidden
  • 09:46 PM - Hidden

05-30-2018