/lit/ - Literature

>>11702061
>Arguing requires limited freedom, not total freedom
This is pure conjecture on your part. Can you justify this?

>Argument is not an implicit acceptance of homesteading
Yes it is. By arguing in the first place, you implicitly accept at least some kind of property rights, in that agree that you own yourself, and that whoever you're arguing with owns himself as well (otherwise, why argue with him?). Further, you implicitly agree that there must be property rights in other means, not just in one's own body; otherwise, you'd have to content yourself with starvation, intense weather, etc. Further, upon agreeing to property rights in external means, there are only two options: a first-come-first-serve basis, or total collective ownership of everything. Were you to accept the latter, nothing could ever be done, because you'd need every other latecomer's permission (i.e. everyone else in the world) to do anything with anything else, which is an untenable system. Ergo, the Lockean theory of property (homesteading and voluntary exchange) is the only viable option, if you accept property rights at all, which you implicitly do by arguing in the first place.

I strongly recommend you read the original article, if you want to understand AE as Hoppe originally formulated it.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf

>>10415431
Leaving aside even the gathering of that information (and what exact information is necessary), I have yet to see a single proposed algorithm for how to use that information.