LACKING A ‘BOOK’ – YOU NEED A BOOK We benefit from the evolutionary structure of

LACKING A ‘BOOK’ – YOU NEED A BOOK

We benefit from the evolutionary structure of aristocracy. But we are harmed by by the loss of Druidic mythos, and the failure to articulate the necessary properties of the aristocratic egalitarian society

EITHER THEFT IS IMMORAL OR IT ISN’T – THE MANNER OF THEFT OR THEFT?

Is theft only wrong when it is intersubjectively verifiable? Or is theft wrong, in that it is destructive of cooperation, no matter whether it is visible or not? I think it is hard to convince people of anything but the latter.

Is ownership determined by action? If ownership is determined by action then institutions that require respect of property are a commons that is paid for by action, in voluntary exchange.

While I don’t want to, at this moment, write something very long to demonstrate this argument in detail, it is, as far as I know, an impenetrable criticism of rothbardian ethics, and a replacement of those ethics with propertarian ethics as the only LOGICALLY POSSIBLE definition of property rights. It is a replacement of the ethics of the ghetto with the ethics of the aristocracy.

It is not possible to have an institution of property rights on the rothbardian model, because it is a praxeological disincentive to develop property rights.

Aristocratic propertarianism is the replacement of rothbard’s individualistic me and my promise of violence with the egalitarian us and our promise of violence.

It is the corporation. The corporeal-ization of property rights.

It is not logical that individuals can create ‘possess’ property rights. One can demand them in exchange. But it takes a minimum of two people to create property rights, because they can only be obtained in exchange.

ORIGINS

Sitting in Church at the age of 12, I promised myself I would write that book. Yes, we have the (rather pitiful) book of Jerusalem, but Athens didn’t give us a book. Plato’s tried but his book is a catastrophe. Aristotle didn’t survive well enough for us enough to work with as “a book” – although it might be reconstructable in at least small parts. The Monarchies didn’t leave us a book. Although we could argue that Smith and Hume together made a pretty good pass at it democratizing it. Chivalry left us a book: arthurian legends. And I think the reason we don’t have a book, is that the church imposed its book – and that book wasn’t a very good one. Not as good as Aristotle’s would have been. That book, and the church, were a prohibition on writing the book of aristocratic egalitarianism. Albiet, the church is the OTHER HALF of aristocratic egalitarianism.