THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW I tend to turn liberta

THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW

I tend to turn libertarianism on its ear: The first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.

The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed instead as the default starting point.

Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not killing you is advantageous.

Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin.

So a political order is only preferable if not individually, familially or tribally destructive.

But this is why Hoppe is wrong. Argumentation is a legal question, not one of incentives. It presumes cooperation, rather than illustrating that cooperation is a compromise between the weak and the strong. Cooperation is unequally beneficial. For the weak, a gain; for the cunning, a loss of deceit; and for the strong a barrier requiring sufficient boon to be overcome.