a way to quickly evaluate any proposed new form of government or legal system: ask the proposer how arrest is distinguished from kidnapping, and search and seizure from trespassing and theft—if they can’t give a good answer, the proposal is based on ignorance and you need not waste any more of your time on it
The very narrow choice of values and their seemingly libertarian phrasing implies some hidden criteria for what constitutes “a good answer”—which enables whoever follows this advice to immediately dismiss a proposal based on some unspecified “good”-ness of the answer without further thought or discussion, and dramatically downgrade their opinion of the proposer in the bargain. This seems detrimental to the rational acquisition of ideas and options.
EDIT: Criticism has since been withdrawn in response to context provided below.
The quote doesn’t give that impression in context, including the comments—it’s actually a statement about the importance of the rule of law. From the comments, Nick notes:
Indeed, the moral principle of non-initiation of force, far from being a possible basis of society as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman would have it, is a sophisticated outcome of long legal evolution and a highly involved legal procedure that itself cannot stick to that principle: it coerces people to a certain extent so that they will not coerce each other to a much greater extent.
Nick Szabo
The very narrow choice of values and their seemingly libertarian phrasing implies some hidden criteria for what constitutes “a good answer”—which enables whoever follows this advice to immediately dismiss a proposal based on some unspecified “good”-ness of the answer without further thought or discussion, and dramatically downgrade their opinion of the proposer in the bargain. This seems detrimental to the rational acquisition of ideas and options.
EDIT: Criticism has since been withdrawn in response to context provided below.
The quote doesn’t give that impression in context, including the comments—it’s actually a statement about the importance of the rule of law. From the comments, Nick notes:
Acknowledged, and criticism withdrawn.
Trivially true, as one who cannot point out the difference is ignorant in the field of legal systems. I guess it is not what is meant?