Author: Curt Doolittle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imc_kETTSlQPROPERTARIANISM – REPAIRING THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION

New Video from The Propertarian Institute

—-

OUTLINE

PART ONE – OBVERSE: FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION

Criticism may identify a problem, but only solutions are actionable.

But falsehoods are cheaper to produce than truths.

Certain falsehoods are very resistant to refutation.

I want to restore truth and liberty to the west

only the west can produce truth and liberty

the west has been disproportionately beneficial to mankind for having invented truth and liberty.

There are falsehoods, and heavily invested falsehoods that we must refute because they hinder the restitution of truth and liberty.

And one of those falsehoods is the so called Non-Aggression Principle

A half truth, the purpose of which is not to create liberty, but to justify sophisticated parasitism.

IF YOU FOLLOW MY WORK – YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ENLIGTHENMENT FALLACIES

The Enlightenment Fallacies:

1 – anglo empiricism and the aristocracy of everyone (hobbes/locke/etc).

2 – french moralism (rousseau) and the equality of everyone.

3 – german rationalism (kant and the german philosophers)

4 – cosmopolitan pseudoscience “the second great lie” (boaz, marx, freud, cantor, mises, [horkimer,adorno,fromm,marcuse], rand, rothbard)

Followed by:

5 – Anglo NeoPuritanism/Postmodernism/Feminism

Each culture attempted to state its group evolutionary strategy as a universal good, and to state that man’s nature in the state of nature justified their group evolutionary strategy.

None of these groups are aware that they are engaging in fallacy, wishful thinking, and deception. Other than Gypsies they do so out of cultural habit. Europeans do not understand what they do, and no one else does either.

TWO THEORIES OF LIBERTY

And there are only two substantial bodies of thought for the advancement of liberty: The classical liberal project under the failed assumption of an aristocracy of everyone. But which the classical liberals did not understand as a market for commons where trades occurred between the classes.

And the only substantial argumentative for distorting liberty: Rothbardian cosmopolitan libertinism.

Libertinism is not an offshoot of classical liberalism or correctly, libertarianism. But of eastern European cosmopolitan anarchism as it existed in the border territories under Lithuanian, Polish, and Russian Rule.

In other words, under the artificial Crusoe’s island created by the large state. Or more clearly, a very large agrarian ghetto.

Why is this important? Because it was a condition of “Granted Liberty”.

But westerners created condition of “Constructed Liberty”

Its not liberty if one has permission: granted liberty.

Its only a condition of liberty if one has constructed liberty.

So how do we construct a condition of liberty?

THE SPECTRUM OF AGGRESSION AND NON AGGRESSION

So lets try to talk about what makes liberty possible, and how the half truth of aggression fits into the construction of a condition of liberty.

-3) – You can choose to aggress against the property en toto of others. This is called predation. But you must defend yourself against retaliation and extermination. (This is the usual criticism of the islamists – raiding culture.)

-2) – You can choose to aggress against the private and common property but not life of others. This is called thievery. But you will experience retaliation for it. (usual criticism of gypsies – beggar and thief culture)

-1) – You can choose not to aggress against the life and physical property of others but retain the possibility of parasitic existence through deception. But you will experience retaliation. (usual criticism of diasporic jews – deception culture)

0) – You can choose not to aggress against the property en toto of others and by doing so it is almost impossible to invoke retaliation. This is called boycott. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

+1) – You can engage in productive exchange with others, both benefit and not invoke retaliation. This is called trade. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

+2) – You can engage in reciprocal insurance of others and thereby obtain insurance from them. This is called Liberty. So that you can defend your property en toto, private property, and life from those who wish to deprive you of it.

+3) – You can invest your profits in the commons in exchange for status (increased opportunity and discounts), or productivity (increased returns), and cooperate for the defense of those commons from privatization and destruction. This is called a polity. (Europa)

+4) – You can actively impose property-en-toto upon others both to reduce your costs and to improve your returns. This is called pacification. (Usual example is Late Rome, British Empire, American Empire)

SO FOUR FACTORS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR CONSTRUCTED LIBERTY

1 – Non Aggression against property-en-toto (demonstrated property), is sufficient for non-retaliation.

2 – Reciprocal insurance of property-en-toto is sufficient for defense and the formation of a polity.

3 – Contribution to the commons is sufficient for obtaining compound intergenerational returns.

4 – Pacification is sufficient for the evolution of man and his civilization.

PART II – CRITICISM OF THE HALF TRUTH

The Fallacy of the Sufficiency of Non violence against physical property.

The Evolutionary Strategy Constituent In The Fallacy NAP/IVP as parasitic.

The Purpose of the NAP/IVP is Parasitism, theft, free riding, not liberty.

—“But the NAP is just a ….means of individual choice!!!!”—

Then if NAP is just a means of individual choice, and not a moral proposition, then why would one choose to avoid moral choices? Except to act immorally? Which is my criticism. The NAP was adopted by rothbard as a half truth in order to perpetuate ghetto ethics.

It is insufficient for a personal determination of rational action.

It is insufficient for interpersonal moral decidability.

And it is insufficient for a political basis for law.

And its insufficient for the basis of anarchic polity, and therefore it is insufficient for the basis of liberty.

So if it is insufficient for each of these criteria: decision, non-retaliation, and economic and political cooperation, and sufficient basis of cooperation for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state as method of decidability… then what is it’s function other than to allow one to engage in deceits?

So the NAP is a fraud by suggestion, just as I have stated, because it is nothing more than an attempt to escape paying the high cost of liberty, through the mutual defense of one another’s property-en-toto from the imposition of costs, by organized application of violence to demand and enforce restitution for those costs.

So it’s not just that the NAP is insufficient for moral action, it is that the NAP is an attempt both to justify parasitism by non violent means, and justify non payment of insurance.

That is not liberty. That’s cunning thievery.

That’s the end you know. You can try all you want. But rothbardian immoralism falsely labeled with the term liberty is merely another great cosmopolitan lie.

LIBERTY

Liberty is not obtained by individual choice alone, but by mutual insurance that we will not impose costs upon that which has been obtained by others by means of homesteading of opportunities, and the consequent productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

Liberty is produced only when we use the organized application of violence to deny humans survival by any means other than that which fosters cooperation.

There are no free rides. Everyone fights. No one quits. If you quit, then you live by someone else’s permission, not by liberty.

CLOSING