Enlightenment Defended

A brief statement of Lester's five-step libertarian philosophical theory The main philosophical problem is that most libertarians don’t have an explicit theory of liberty. Consequently, for instance, they can’t explain how some property rights fit liberty while others don’t. This theory aims to make explicit the philosophical theory that is entailed by libertarianism. This is done by distinguishing five steps that other libertarians usually conflate to varying degrees. Note that liberty is conceptually about the absence of some sort of constraint on something. But interpersonal (or social) liberty is about the absence of some sort of constraint on people by each other. First, therefore, we must ask: in what way—at its most abstract—do we want other people not to constrain us? We want them not to initiate constraints on our preference-satisfaction. This is libertarian liberty-in-itself. Second, how do we theoretically solve the obvious problem of clashing preferences in practice? When “the absence of initiated interpersonal constraints on preference satisfaction” (initiated impositions, for short) is not fully possible, then this can only be maximised in the most plausible way. Third, what are the practical implications of applying this abstract theory? In a state of nature, applying it gives us three prima facie rules of maximal liberty-in-practice: 1) initial ultimate control of one’s body, 2) initial ultimate control of one’s used resources, and 3) consensual interpersonal interactions and resource transfers. Any other rules would typically initiate more interpersonal impositions. Fourth, how do these practical implications relate to property? To institutionalise these practical rules as legally enforceable property rights is an additional logical step. Thus, we see that property, even self-ownership, is only the fourth step rather than the first (let alone an axiom). Fifth, where do normative rights, morals, and values fit into the positive libertarian system? They are a further separate issue. Thus, they are only the fifth step rather than the first (let alone an axiom). There is an important secondary, epistemological, problem. This is that most libertarians are justificationists (or foundationists) rather than critical rationalists. But that will not be discussed here. ———Dr J. C. Lester https://www.meste.org/ojs/index.php/mest/article/view/1279 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Leviathan-Libertarianism-without-Justificationism/dp/1908684089

Dr J C Lester, the author of Escape from Leviathan, talks about his New Theory of Liberty. (part 2 of 3). Enlightenment Defended interviewed him.

Dr J. C. Lester, author of Escape from Leviathan, on his New Theory of Liberty. Interviewed by Enlightenment Defended.

"Brilliant, Beautiful, and Crucially Important." Professor Paul Levinson. Savour this deep dive into the philosophy behind the events and movements of our times. It is the first episode of 7 in the serialisation of my documentary. The documentary views the enlightenment in terms of Karl Popper's evolutionary analysis of knowledge. This episode sets the stage for understanding why political correctness and woke ideology is anathema to the possibilities of progress, which is a matter of the growth of knowledge through solving problems. All life is problem-solving. Problems in all spheres are solved by various analogues of conjecture and refutation. Many competing guesses are made, and this is followed by the weeding-out of those guesses that don't match an appropriate standard. Problem-solving and error correction is at the core of the growth of all knowledge, from the simple amoeba to Einstein's breakthroughs in science. And this growth of knowledge is at the core of the enlightenment. However, woke ideology and its regressive henchman, political correctness and identity politics, are constraining this fundamental process of open conjecture and refutation. Featuring David Deutsch FRS and Professor Paul Levinson. Narrators: Lulie Tanett & Edward Crumblehulme.

(Talk at Oxford Karl Popper and Hayek Society.) Persuasion is a logical task. You have an important message to transmit to the year 2070. Your message at its origin time T1 must match in information content your message at its destination time T2. Even grand persuaders are constrained by this ruthless logical continuity.

We are defending the enlightenment. International relations specialist Dr Roger Townshend, Poet and theologian Alex Brocklehurst, and philosopher Dr Ray Scott Percival take a deep dive into the Afghanistan crisis and place it in broad historical perspective. Talking Points: 1. The wider impact of the crisis. 2. The relationship between the Taliban and the terrorist groups of Al Qaeda and others. 3. Occupying foreign cultures by force is incompatible with Enlightenment Values. 4. China and Russia. 5. Withdrawal: A Defeat or Advance for Enlightenment? 6. Spreading Liberty by Force is confusing and self-defeating. 7. Media: Mainstream Media versus more perspectives through the new media. 8. Noam Chomsky. 9. Strategic thinking undistorted by ideology or Media Agendas: the congruence of the ancient wisdom of Sun Tzu and the state-of-the-art thinking of professor Robert Pape. (See his book Dying to Win.) 10. A Crack in the Mainstream Media: some elements started questioning the occupation, but then closed ranks, resuming an imperialistic narrative.

We are defending the enlightenment. Undistracted by the ephemeral political tides of our times, poet and theologian Alex Brocklehurst, international relations specialist Dr Roger Townshend and philosopher Dr Ray Scott Percival rev up the conversation and take a deep dive into the crisis, placing it in broad historical perspective. Talking points: 1. Leading by example and peaceful argument —methods compatible with the enlightenment. 2. The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. 3. Terrorists as rational (but highly immoral) actors. 4. The state-of-the-art thinking of Professor Robert Pape. 5. Isolationism. For an account of terrorism and fanaticism within the wider issue of human rationality/irrationality see my book The Myth of the Closed Mind.