A Linguistic Analogy

Sebastian Ortiz

Allow me a few motile ejaculations: Non-aggressive libertarianism — by implication all forms of small government republicanism such as minarchism heretofore shall be understood as aggressive libertarianism — is a superior system of governance vis a vis every other by analogy as Ilaksh[1} is a superior language vis a vis every other language. Similarly the requirements for their feasible applications are of comparable difficulty.

What is to be noticed is how the objection of difficulty of execution has no bearing on the inherent superiority of the system. Insofar as there be a defined objective of law and order in the context of political organization and insofar as precise, effective communication can be identified as the purpose of language both anarcholibertarianism and Ilaksh stand out as superior by their internal logical coherence. Prof. Hoppe has noted the discrete, meaningful, categorical nature of language as a common social construct along the lines of Piaget and other social scientists. However true that might be the positive, intentional, design-based nature of pure — which is to say non-aggressive— libertarianism as a strictly logical system is what sets it apart from natural — historically emergent and extant — forms of governance, putting it in the same category as mathematics and Ilaksh.

To further use an analogy let us ponder the English language as a general lingua Franca of business, trade and commerce but also as the primary language of (classical) liberal ideas; in support of this case note how Mises and Hoppe both native German speakers felt it necessary to write in English. Now consider (classical) liberalism as a historical precursor to non-aggressive libertarianism and the natural manifestation of the closest approximation to meaningfully true freedom that has emerged in the natural concatenation of human forms of governance.

What strikes one as obvious is that the artificial, semantic preciseness (in its definitions) and internal consistency(in its predicated logic, derived from foundational axioms or non-contradiction) and realism is the element that makes anarcho-libertarianism or non-aggressive libertarianism superior to the naturally occuring forms of governance in the same way that the system of arithmetic as an artificial construct is a superior form of quantity calculations than the underdeveloped rudiments that preceded it.

No matter the difficult of implementation it is this logical clarity and ultimate foundation in the epistemological-ontological realism of our faculties that shows non-aggressive libertarianism as a constructed system as superior despite its current lack of occurence in history. Just as the phonological system of Ilaksh is grounded in real human precedents of tonality and other observed forms of elocution libertarianism is grounded on irrefutable premises about human cognition, action and the real world. For the purposes of communication therefore Ilaksh is a more perfect medium in spite of not having arisen from any particular human community just as non-aggressive, theoretical libertarianism is a more perfect form of political organization and governance by virtue of its internal coherence to the end of the protection of property and person than any extant form of historically occurring political organization, classical liberal, aggressive libertarianism (minarchism) included.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil#Ilaksh

7 thoughts on “A Linguistic Analogy

  1. Axel,
    The article states a case, makes the case and concludes. There’s not a lot of switching topics of skipping logical steps. AFAIK the argument is that internal coherence is to this language as it is to libertarianism and so they are perceived as superior by the OP in the face of a lack of widespread adoption.

  2. This is the first article I’ve ever read which has a Flesch Reading Ease of zero. It has a very similar feel to articles produced by the Postmodernism Generator. I do hope that Mr Ortiz is joking!

  3. I liked the parallelism. An important difference is that the acceptance of anarcholibertarianism requires a lot of resistance to statist illusions, and it doesn’t require much learning. Therefore its network effect can become even more powerful (once we have critical mass, ie once we can go without an intellectual vanguard) that the most widely adopted language.

    Adopting a new language is expensive: if I get to a village and do not understand the local language, I’ll be in trouble until I learn it. But if I come from a statist society and arrive to Ancapistán, I will be able to adapt quickly (if that’s what I want) even if I’ve never heard of anarcholibertarianism.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s