 Hey everyone, so I would like to do a reading today. Oh, no a reading of Stephen Consola's estoppel a new justification for individual rights, he's a patent lawyer out of Houston, Texas and I did interview him recently I've been trying to better understand the non-aggression principle by you know reading a number of different interpretations and justifications for it and libertarian ethics in general So I'll go ahead and start up Introduction Add an e to the word stop and dress it up a little and you get estoppel an interesting common-law concept estoppel is a principle of Equity or justice which is invoked by a judge to prevent or estoppel a party for making a certain claim if the party's prior actions Are in some sense inconsistent with making such a claim and if another relied on such prior actions to its detriment For example suppose your neighbor hires a painter to paint his house But the painter mistakenly comes to your house and starts painting it you see him doing this and realize the mistake the painter has made But instead of stopping him and telling him of his mistake you wave at the painter and allow him to finish Hoping to get a free paint job Later the painter asks you to pay him your fuse. He sues You for the price of the paint job as a defense you claim that you did not have a contract with the painter Which is true at this point However, the judge might say that you are he stopped from making such a claim that you did not have a contract Because it's inconsistent with your prior action of letting the painter continue painting your house and because the painter in Good faith relied on your actions to do this to his detriment You will not be heard to claim that there was no contract since you are prevented he stopped from urging that defense You will lose the lawsuit and you have to pay the painter Since you acted as if you did have a contract you cannot be heard to deny this later on You are a stop from denying it as Lord Koch stated the word East Apple is used Because a man's own act or acceptance stop it or close it upon his mouth to a ledge or plead the truth This legal concept of you stop what has many other applications But the specifics are not relevant here Although it has historically been used in a legal setting it harbors some very important political and philosophical ideas Ideas which can be used to delimit and justify libertarian theory of government The heart of the idea behind East Apple is the idea of consistency in the case of legal East Apple a man in court is told that he will not be heard to make a statement Which is flatly inconsistent with earlier behavior and which another relied upon this idea of its Insisting upon consistency as ever more potency in a debate discussion or argument where a person's claims to be coherent Must be consistent By using a philosophical generalized version of the concept of East Apple one can make a case for the free Society in general I want to show how one can you stop the state from justifying laws Against non-aggressive behavior and how one can you stop individual aggressors from arguing against their imprisonment or punishment This is effectively equivalent To validating the non-aggression principle which states that no person has the right to aggress against another That any action whatsoever is permissible as long as it does that involve aggression against others Aggression is defined as the Initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else Applying East Apple proves if the state proportionally punishes an aggressor his rights are not violent Violated and if the state punishes a non-aggressor his rights are violated Thus the non-aggression principle is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the validity of any law So let's see how Number two East Apple and its validity The stop all principles merely a convenient way to apply the requirement of consistency to arguers Under this principle a person is he stopped from making certain claims statements or arguments if the claims urged are clearly inconsistent and contradictory To say a person is he stopped from making certain claims means that the claims cannot even possibly be right Because they are contradictory and thus they should be disregarded. They should not be hurt The core of the stable principles consistency consistency is Consisted upon in any argumentative claim because an argument is an attempt to find the truth if an arguer need not be consistent The very activity of argumentation or truth finding cannot even occur For example, if Mark states that a is true and that not a is also Simultaneously true. We know immediately that mark is wrong that a and not a cannot both be true In short, it is impossible for a person to coherently intelligibly assert in a discussion or argument that two contradictory statements are true It is impossible for his claims to be true Thus he is a stop from asserting them He's not heard to utter them because they cannot tend to establish the truth, which is the goal of all argumentation Rarely will an arguer state that both a and not a are true However, whichever an arguer states a is true and also necessarily holds that not a is true the inconsistency is still there and He's still you stopped from explicitly claiming that a is true and Implicitly claiming that not a is true He might be able to remove the inconsistency by dropping one of the claims But this is not always possible. For example, Andrew might argue the argumentation is a possible But since he's currently arguing he must necessarily implicit hold that he's arguing and that therefore argumentation is possible He would be he's stopped from urging these two contradictory claims one explicit and one implicit And he could not drop the second claim that argumentation is possible for he cannot help But hold this view while engaged in argumentation itself By engaging in argument one is necessarily trying to arrive at the truth Since consistency is a necessary condition of discovering truth Any arguer who is implicitly accepting the consistency requirement i.e. the estoppel principle and would contradict himself if he denied its validity If my opponent says the inconsistency in claims is not fatal to truth Then he could never claim that my opposing view that consistency is necessary is incorrect Because it is merely inconsistent with his Thus he could not deny the truth of my view But such a position is nonsensical for my opponent would be claiming that his view that consistency is unnecessary And my view that consistency is necessary are both true of blatant contradiction Thus any arguer must also accept the validity of the estoppel principle for it as explained above Is merely a convenient way to apply the requirement of consistency which any arguer does and must accept in effect Any arguer is a step is stopped from denying the validity of estoppel Because to deny its validity is to deny the necessity of consistency to argumentation, which is itself an inconsistent position Estoppel is used in this paper against various types of arguers It is used against an aggressor objecting to his punishment and against the state objecting to a non-aggressive prisoner's assertion of his rights It is also used implicitly Against anyone who would argue against the validity of estoppel and the results of its application The results of applying estoppel as shown below is the well-known libertarian non-aggression principle The justification of this rule is significant for it can be used to justify a libertarian form of government number three applying estoppel The conduct of individuals can be divided into two types coercive or aggressive i.e. involving the initiation of force and non-coursive or non-aggressive This division is purely descriptive. It is Unobjectionable because it does not assume that aggression is invalid and moral or unjustifiable It only assumes that at least some action can be objectively classified as either aggressive or non-aggressive The government acts through the enforcement of laws Laws are aimed at conduct and thus can similarly be divided into two types of laws those that proscribe aggressive behavior and those that proscribe non aggressive behavior Both types of laws will be examined through the estoppel eyepiece a Laws restricting aggressive behavior Let us examine the effect of the estoppel principle on laws against aggression The clearest and most severe instances of aggression is murder How would an anti-murder law fair? Under such a law the state uses force of some sort execution punishment and presentment Monetary fine etc against an individual who has been determined to have murdered another Suppose that john murders rough and the state convicts in a prison In prisons john now if john objects to this punishment He's claiming that the government should not ought not indeed must not treat him this way By such normative talk john claims he has a right to not be treated this way He claims that such aggression is wrong However, this claim is blatantly inconsistent with what must be the defendant's other position Since he murdered rough, which is clearly an aggression His actions have been indicated that he also holds the view that aggression is not wrong john by his earlier action And it's necessarily implications is he stopped from reclaiming that aggression is wrong and if he cannot Even claim that aggression the initiation of force is wrong Then he cannot make this subsidiary claim that retaliatory force is wrong He cannot assert contradictory claims. He is stopped from doing so The only way to maintain consistency is to drop one of his claims If he retains only that claim aggression is proper Then he's failing to object to his imprisonment If he drops his claim that aggression is proper and retains only That claim aggression is wrong. He indeed could Object to his imprisonment, but as we shall see in section 3b1 below It is impossible for him to drop his claim that aggression is proper to restate If john does not claim the murder is wrong He cannot claim this for it contradicts his view that murder is not wrong Evidence by this by his previous murder. He is stopped from asserting such inconsistent claims Then if the state attempts to kill him He cannot complain about it because he cannot no be heard to Say that such a killing by the state is wrong immoral or improper And if you cannot complain if the state proposes to kill him A fortiori he cannot complain if the state merely imprisons him B necessary claims and their proper form number one changes of mind In denunciation of prior action John could attempt to Rebute this application of estoppel however by claiming that he in fact does not currently maintain that aggression isn't proper That he has changed his mind since the time when he murdered roth He's attempting to use the Simultancy requirement whereby an arguer is he stopped from asserting That a is simultaneously true and not true John is urging that he does not hold both contradictory ideas aggression is proper aggression is improper Now that he is only asserting the latter And thus is not he stopped from ejecting to his imprisonment But john traps himself by this argument If john now maintains that the initiation of force is improper then by his own current view his earlier murder was improper And john necessarily denounces his early actions and is admitting the propriety of punish Punishing him for these actions, which is enough to justify punishing him And of course it would also be inconsistent of him to deny what he admits And he's thus he stopped from doing so furthermore If john denounces his murder of roth He's stopped from objecting to the punishment of that murder For to maintain that a murder should not must not be punished is inconsistent with the claim that murder should not must not occur Also finally john could argue that he never did hold the view that murder is not wrong That he murdered despite the fact that he held it to be wrong and thus he does not have to change his mind But even in this case john admits that murder is wrong and that he murdered roth And still ends up denouncing his earlier action Thus He's again he stopped from objecting to his punishment and the situation where he claims to have changed his mind Thus whether john currently holds both views or only one of them He is still he stopped from objecting to his imprisonment. This is why the requirement of Simultanity, which is part of the consistency rule is satisfied even when a criminal is being punished for his prior actions Indeed it is only for prior or at least currently occurring Actions that a criminal can be punished either he still maintains his previous view that aggression is not wrong Which is inconsistent with his objection to being punished or he has changed his mind In which case he's denouncing his prior actions, which is again inconsistent with an objection to being punished And which is also an admission that punishment is proper Thus he can be deemed to hold both his current view that aggression improper And his prior view that aggression is proper Simultaneously for the result is the same his objection to being punished will not be heard number two the requirement for universal Lizability It could also be objected that the estoppel principle is being improperly applied that john does not in fact hold inconsistent views Is not asserting inconsistent claims Instead of having the contradictory views that aggression is proper and aggression is improper John could claim to instead hold a different but not inconsistent position that aggression by me is proper And aggression by the state against me is improper However, we must recall that john in objecting to the state's imprisonment of him is engaging in argument He's arguing that the state should not for some reason imprison him He should there shows that he is speaking of a norm as hans hermit hoppa states Quite commonly has been observed That argumentation implies a proposition claims universal acceptability or should it be a norm proposal that it is universalizable applied to norm proposals This is the idea that's formulated in the golden rule of ethics or in the content categorical imperative Not only those norms can be justified that can be formulated as general principles, which are valid for everyone without exception Thus the proper way to select the norm with which the arguer is exerting is to ensure that it is universal universalizable The views that aggression by me is improper and aggression by the state against me is improper Clearly do not pass the test the view that aggression is or is not proper It's by contrast universalizable and it's thus the proper form For a norm when applying you stop will then the arguer's claim to be examined must be the universalizable form He cannot escape the application of his help by arbitrarily specializing as those are wise and consistent views with liberally sprinkled for me own ways Since he is engaged in arguing about norms the norms asserted by By him must be universalizable Thus we can see that applying the principle of each stop will not hinder the prevention of violent crimes For the above murder analysis can be applied to any sort of course of violent crime All the classical violent crimes would still be preventable under the new scheme as they are today All forms of aggression rape theft murder assault trespass and even fraud will still be proper crimes A rapist e.g. Could only complain about being imprisoned by saying that his rights are being violated by the aggressive imprisonment of him But he would be stopped from saying that aggression is wrong in general Any act of any aggressive act one involving the initiation of violence would cause an inconsistency with the act later claimed that he Should not be imprisoned or punished in some manner But should the punishment in some sense be proportional to the crime? This question is addressed in section 3d after first considering limits on the state action against non-aggressors See laws restricting non-aggressive behavior Besides laws that restrict aggressive coercive behavior. There are laws aimed at ostensibly peaceful behavior Minimum wage laws anti pornography laws anti drug laws, etc How would he stop all effect the validity of these laws? It can be shown that the government has stopped From enforcing certain laws more precisely. It is a stop from claiming that it has the right to use force against a given person But note that even if we can say that the government is stopped from imprisoning a certain person Says susan this of course does not mean that the state is prevented from doing so The principle of estoppel could at most be used to show that the government's justification for imprisoning susan is inadequate Let us take an example. Suppose susan publishes a patently pornographic magazine in a jurisdiction with anti pornography laws The state convicts and imprisons her unless susan wants to go to prison. She will not consent. She will object She will assert that the government is violating her rights by the use of force against her the government should not do this Now the government may attempt to be clever and use the stop argument against her to stop her from objecting to her imprisonment However, susan does not he stopped from complaining about her confinement She's complaining about the aggression against her prior action in question was the publishing of pornographic magazines This action is in no way aggressive. Thus susan has not engaged in any activity Or necessarily made any claim which would be inconsistent with her claim Claiming that aggression is wrong Perhaps she could be stopped from complaining about other pornographers But she is is here complaining about her being kidnapped by the state Thus the state cannot use estoppel to prevent susan from objecting to her imprisonment So may in the murder example above in section 3a If the state imprisons or punishes susan it is an aggressor An initiator a force By application of the estoppel principle It can be shown that the state has no right to engage in this activity For suppose susan asserts the right to use defensive force against the state In order to escape her confinement even though she lacks the ability to master some attack The state could not assert that susan has no right to use force against him For it is currently by its action of imprisoning susan admitting the validity of aggression So susan may assert that she has a right to attack the government And the government has stopped from denying her that claim Furthermore any third party say a conservative who supports such anti-pornographic legislation It's also stopped from denying her claim for by claiming that the government's aggression is is valid He too is he stopped from denying susan assert assertion of her rights It would be non universalizable Of him to assert that susan has no right to attack the government and that the government has a right to attack susan It would be inconsistent for him to assert that aggression is wrong susan attacking the government And that aggression is right the government attacking susan But once it is accepted for it cannot be denied by anyone that susan has such a right to defend herself It is clear that the state's action she has right to defend herself against her thus necessarily writes invasive To establish that an action is rights invasive necessarily implies that it is proper wrong and moral that it should not Must not occur that the state has no right to engage in such activity To sum up if the state imprisoned susan For a non course of act Susan is not he stopped from eject from objecting the state is he stopped from denying susan Assertion of her right regardless of her might to retaliate Which implies that the state has no right to imprison her Thus it can be seen that any law restricting non-courses of behavior is invalid null and void And every person and the state is stopped from arguing for its legitimacy D proportional punishment The above analysis in section 3a justifying the punishment of aggressors does not mean that all concerns about proportionality may be dropped So i'm going to commit some relatively minor coercive act as he stopped from complaining about What suppose the state attempts to execute a person So only crime was the theft of a candy bar you complain that his right to life is about to be violated Is he stopped for making such a claim no Because he has done nothing inconsistent with such a claim to justify susan is stopping him He does not necessarily claim that aggressive killing is proper Universalization requirement does not prevent him from reasonably narrowing his implicit claim to minor aggression Namely candy bar theft is not wrong Rather than the more severe aggression is not wrong in general while the universalization principle prevents arbitrary particularization of claims e.g. adding from the onlys It does not rule out an objective reasonable statement of the implicit claims of the aggressor tailored to the actual nature of the aggression and its necessary consequences and implications e.g. While it is true that the theft of that the thief has stolen the bar of chocolate He is not attempted to take a person's life That the thus he has never necessarily claimed that the murder is not wrong So that he is not he stopped from asserting that murder is wrong So the candy bar thief Is not stopped from complaining about his eminent execution He can also assert his right to retaliate against the government, which is he stopped from denying it Which implies that the government has no right to execute him if the nature of the punishment exceeds the nature of the Aggression the aggressor is no longer stopped from complaining about the excess punishment And is able to argue that he has the right to attack the state The state is he stopped from denying this because to the extent of the excess punishment It is itself an aggressor which implies that the criminal has a right to not be disproportionately punished following the analysis used in the section 3c above before conclusion Principled application of the e-stop principle would result in the free society for all coercive crimes could be punished If not by the state then at least by victims of their agents or defenders And all non-corrosive crimes could not be enforced The stopper principle has been used above both to justify certain types of government laws and to invalidate others First a person who has initiated forces to stop from arguing against his proportional punishment Possesses inconsistent with other positions. He necessarily holds or can be deemed to be whole Second a person who has not initiated force may not Validly be imprisoned by the state Because he will assert that this is a violation of his rights Which of the state is he stopped from denying because of its coercive imprisonment of him Since an arguer is he stopped from denying the validity of his stopo in general He must accept its validity and he must also accept the validity of the results of its application The above framework establishes the validity of the libertarian non-integration principle Which has been shown by many others to justify libertarian or at least a minimalist or night watchman state Thus everyone must accept the validity of the free society Charge otherwise is to argue for the inconsistency and to be inconsistent and to necessarily be wrong Thank you very much. Sorry for the rather clunky Wording by some of the some of the terms, but I hope you all enjoyed Listen to our podcast at renegade variety the renegade variety at our potomatic.com You can also find us in itunes and on youtube. Thanks