True. In the context of non-binary choice systems, I interpret logical
reasoning against a thing, as you wrote, as evidence that one should
consider not doing a thing. It's the way I constrain my objectivism within
voluntaryism. My belief system is that this is the method through which we
achieve consensus about "right/wrong" etc voluntarily. But yes,
regarding the interpretation of your objective statements of fact into
ethical recommendations ("should"), those words were mine.

—J

On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@???> wrote:

> On 08/21/2014 08:28 PM, Josh Walker wrote:
> > Indeed. And I'm a sappy "let's all get along" guy, so I'll add this. Note
> > that no one has said you cannot or must not build that Callmomcoin — we
> are
> > arguing that perhaps you *should* not, based on the logic laid out by
> > Justus, and that we would advocate that it not be supported or used (if
> > that was the most important thing to discuss at the time, that is).
>
>
> I didn't say that anyone should or should not build such a coin.
>
> I pointed out the economic consequences of doing so.
>
> You'll need some field other than economics to answer normative
> questions about the idea.
>