Giardiasis said:
Ok so why do you have a problem with a one true answer approach then? You're contradicting yourself again. Praxeology is not an ideology, it is a methodology for discovering knowledge concerning human action.
:cutelaugh :duh
Hahahahahaha
This is priceless. You have certainly outdone yourself now: you defend one true answer and then claim your true answer is not ideological. What a farce.
To quote Zizek: " 'ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence "
Sums you up quite well, see, even Marxists come up with useful insights sometimes. Then again, an easy target is not hard to hit.
So, how do you deliver one true answer if not with coercion? Just like a Marxist, you claim to have the one true answer and everyone else is wrong (gee, maybe they have false consciousness).
Giardiasis said:
I'm not anti-Marxism because it is an ideology, I'm anti-Marxism because it is wrong. As a theory and in practice it completely fails to deliver what it claims to deliver.
Ooh, and another thing Marxism has in common with free market fundamentalism. It fails to deliver except for the rich (for Marxism just substitute the apparatchiks for the rich).
This also raises another point. If you link freedom to property ownership then those who have more property end up with more freedom. If you have no property you have to sell your labour, sell your freedom, to survive. But the owner of property does not need to sell labour to survive and has more freedom. It is a fundamentally screwed up way of making sure we are all free, but some of us are more free than others. As Ayn Rand said: The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Giardiasis said:
Defence of private property is not oppression. You can argue on what constitutes private property but to argue as you do gives anyone free reign to maim you and kill you as they please. Please answer these two questions: "Is it just to use force to prevent someone from killing you?" and "Why/why not?".
That would be one question, a question based on a false premise that somehow people have ownership over themselves. So they are simultaneously the subject and the object of their ownership of themselves. It's like saying I am an object separable from my subjectivity. It's rubbish. Freedom or liberty, at least in my view, is a fundamental right, not some sort of derived right based on property.
And, yes, I do believe I am entitled to use force to defend myself, I am not a pacifist. You need to stop making assumptions and trying to pigeon hole everyone. The point really is that you always need to ask why someone is trying to kill you and work on ways to prevent the situation arising.
So, I answered your question, you still haven't explained how purchasing justice in a free market won't lead to conflicting outcomes. You also haven't answered how private property is either not an enforceable right or, if it is an enforceable right, how it can be enforced without coercion (see above about free market fundamentalism not delivering). Which is it?
But, back to the topic of this thread:
I think if it went to a second referendum remain would likely (likely, far from certain) win. However, the issue is that it is very difficult politically to get to a second referendum. The Tories promised they would be guided by the referendum result, and Labour have a second referendum in their platform but a leader who doesn't really support it and a party which is very split.
I think the best chance of a second referendum would be to put May's deal to the vote, and if it is voted down, then revisit the Brexit decision. Highly unlikely though.
DS