[L]ibertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law. It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary. The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights. As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant. [T]he NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Law Is Synonymous With Morality If All Moral Rules Are Reducible To Property Rights
(important piece) [T]here is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory. The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.) I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth. Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive. [L]ike all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable). This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through. Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state. As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference. However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral. This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality. [T]here is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Law Is Synonymous With Morality If All Moral Rules Are Reducible To Property Rights
(important piece) [T]here is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory. The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.) I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth. Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive. [L]ike all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable). This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through. Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state. As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference. However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral. This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality. [T]here is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
THE KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS –“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of
THE KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”–
(I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 11:02:00 UTC
-
Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')
DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.
-
Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)
DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.