(worth repeating) –Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state. Propertarianism is the explanation why.—
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Aristocratice Egalitarianism vs The Central Libertarian Fallacies
(worth repeating) –Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state. Propertarianism is the explanation why.—
-
The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism
[I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.
-
The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism
[I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.
-
SHOULD HAVE BEEN “GUNS, GERMS, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS” Well, if you start a civiliz
SHOULD HAVE BEEN “GUNS, GERMS, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS”
Well, if you start a civilization with the problem of coordinating irrigation if an alluvial plain, thats very different from starting a civilization with the problem of allocating land to farmers who do not rely upon irrigation.
Each culture, each civilization, carries with it, its means of warfare, means of coordination of use of the land, and family structure.
None of which are particularly relevant in a modernity, in which our means of production and reproduction depend upon abstract institutions of property and contract which allow the voluntary organization of production in vast, unknowable overlapping patterns of specialization and trade.
Capitalism isnt a belief, its a technology.
Guns, germs, steel… MONEY, ACCOUNTING, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 05:33:00 UTC
-
THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just
THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM
In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations?
It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell.
But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 05:05:00 UTC
-
Property? – It Wasn't Scarcity. 🙂
Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)
[W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.
-
Property? – It Wasn’t Scarcity. 🙂
Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)
[W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.
-
Property? – It Wasn't Scarcity. 🙂
Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)
[W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.
-
Property? – It Wasn’t Scarcity. 🙂
Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)
[W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.