Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT

—–“Liberty (freedom from control, influence, obligation) is the natural state of man when no external entity makes an ownership claim against him. So how can liberty also be a “common property”.”—- Luke Weinhagen

Is it parasitism to prevent you from making an ownership claim on me and my productivity? It seems like that external ownership claim is the parasitism, not my prevention or opposition of that claim.

It seems more accurate that we trade some liberty (allow external influence over us) for commons, not derive liberty from commons.

Thats not logical luke. It’s common libertarian verbalism. One can exist alone on a desert island, if and only if the cost of crossing the ocean to reach that island is greater than the value of inhabiting it. In other words, defense is provided by the sea. The sea is analogous to ‘some defense group’. So you do not possess independence from the attempts to prey upon you without that sea. Just as you do not possess independence from individuals, groups of individuals, organized groups of individuals, from depriving you of independence, life, possessions, investments, unless you ally with other individuals, groups, or organized groups suffiicent to resist the parasitism and predation of the largest group that can afford to do so.

one has independence alone, but not sovereinty, liberty, freedom, insurance, of subsidy of others.

Yet the common libertine argument is that he should obtain the benefits of the organization of individuals at sufficient scale both to deny parasitism and predation by other groups, AND to concentrate population in sufficient numbers that opportunity costs are increasingly minimized, AND to form the COMMONS that constitutes whatever distribution of property rights allows this population to exist.

There is no free lunch. Libertarianism is an obscurantist language for the purpose of attempting to justify parasitism: free lunch upon the production of others who pay high costs of defense, institutional costs, normative costs, and yes … investments in other commons.

Your choice in the market for polities (markets) is limited to your ability and willingness to pay for entry into those polities (markets). You can obviously choose whatever market you prefer to pay for. There are still wildernesses that you can choose if you choose not to pay for any.

Within that market we may say that there are moral (good), amoral (neutral), and immoral(bad) commons produced. And that we lack sufficient property rights (economic democracy) and we lack sufficient policing (demand for truthfulness), and we lack sufficient juridical defense (rights to sue a commons as we do a shareholder private commons) in the market for commons (houses of government).

But the fact that we do not possess sufficient property rights, sufficient policing, sufficient juridical defense, and there fore sufficient influence in the market for commons, does not mean that such a market for commons is impossible or immoral. And demanding you can free-ride on the expense of others is no respecting their property and therefore their sovereignty. And advocating the (idiocy) of anarchism (the reproductive strategy of parasitic migratory people without territory and institutions of their own) merely forces us to choose between either your inability to solve that problem and intellectual error for having failed to, or your intention to live parasitically off the market by gaining its benefits but not paying its costs.

Property rights themselves, sovereigthy in fact, liberty by permission to exchange, freedom by need to participate in organized exchange, insurance by investment, and subsidy out of insurance, are all commons. Without other people none of those conditions can exist. You just exist. You are independent. You are alone. But you possess nothing.

But sovereignty, liberty, freedom, insurance, and subsidy, and entrance into, and participation in the market we call a polity, are all DEMANDS WE PLACE UPON OTHERS for which we must pay them something in exchange. And it is only through cooperation we in fact possess any ‘political’ ethical, moral, condition.

Thus Endeth The Lesson

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine