LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRA

http://c4ss.org/content/37046ROD LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL, AND AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF PARASITISM

The argument against the NAP is that it is irrational for one to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect property rights – which themselves are the terms of cooperation – unless the suppression of aggression against one includes the total prohibition of aggression against all that I have paid for with non-aggressive actions.

NAP, under intersubjectively verifiable property preserves all forms of deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking while prohibiting retaliation for deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking. And it is non-rational to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect for property of *any* kind, while deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking (in fact, all acts of aggression against that which one has non-aggressively acted to obtain) are not prohibited by the agreement to cooperate.

Why this entirely irrational Rothbardian justification we call the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property (physical things) has survived is almost inconceivable until we recognize loading, framing, overloading, suggestion and cognitive biases plague both our arguments and our evaluation of them. And the fact that the argument itself persists, despite its irrationality, is in itself evidence of the necessity of prohibiting aggression through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.

For anarchic property rights to come into existence they can only exist as a mutual prohibition on aggression against all one has obtained through non-aggression.

The American people have staked an electoral signage at every election booth: “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

Liberty always has been, and only can be, the result of a total prohibition on aggression against all that one has obtained without aggression, the requirement for truthful speech, a requirement for warranty of one’s speech, and the requirement that we profit only from contribution to productivity.

These are the minimum criterion under which cooperation is rational and the common organic, polycentric law is sufficient in scope to provide a means for the resolution of differences that demand for the state is eliminated.

As far as I know this is the end of the argument and Rothbardian ethics, and the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property is a closed issue left open only as a desperate appeal by those with no new solution to the problem of the practical achievement of liberty.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine