What do you think epistemic justification is?

I mean, it would be justifying epistemologically somehow.

I don't know.

So justification is justifying it.

Good job.

Any other circular statements?

What is epistemic judge?

You can't even tell me what you would have an epistemology 101 class?

No, I've not been to an epistemology 101 class.

No.

Okay.

On this topic, Liquid Zulu is going to open.

You have seven minutes on the clock.

I'm going to set the clock right now.

And you can go ahead and begin.

Cool.

So libertarian property theory can be split up into two basic parts, both of which are derived from the non-aggression principle. So first there's self-ownership and second there's ownership in external means. That basically covers everything, right? If one does not grant self-ownership, there are two alternatives. Either one, some group A owns group B, or two, everyone co-owns every other person.

The issue with the first alternative is that it does not make for a human ethic.

It sets up a group of humans owning a group of sub-humans.

The problem with this is that it is therefore a particular, rather a universal ethic.

But particular ethics are per se arbitrary, as if you were to derive an ethic

for man qua man, it would have to apply to all men as all men have the same nature. Therefore,

...