(posted as a comment about putin on the economist) You’re largely correct but there is a middle position that would be more correct than the one you mentioned. Putin has done a great deal for his people, and we cannot underestimate, and we must respect and admire him for the change in their quality of life. He had his vision of restoring 1-the scope of the Russian empire, and 2-orthodox civilization. But he is also very afraid, not so much for himself, but for his people, and their future. They have not the economy, nor the population to return to great power status in the 21st century. While he has improved order in the country, and he as improved rule of law – enough – he still has an undiversified resource economy, a secret service that runs the drug and smuggling trade, relies upon Chechens as enforcers, and is surrounded (like a mafia godfather) by those that would replace him with glee. Prior to his invasion of Ukraine he was possibly the most respected and influential politician in the world. When Ukraine was successful in ousting the puppet president who denied them EU membership – contrary to everyone’s wildest imaginings – there were immediate uprisings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and chants everywhere that Russia was next to join the western sphere. But Putin sees American spies and manipulation everywhere, where we Americans see our politicians, state department, intelligence services, and NGO’s as a bunch of largely overpaid incompetent ‘clowns’ that couldn’t do anything right if they tried. And he believed his puppet. The correct answer, however, was that the young militant men in the streets, having lost relatives and friends, if they found him, would certainly kill him. When the ambassadors confirmed the circumstance, Putin sent Russian special forces to fetch him, loaded the presidential jet with money, sent it to Dubai (I followed it) and he snuck off to Russia – I have no idea how, since it did not appear in an obvious way on radar tracking systems. So for Putin, he could lose his only warm water port (Crimea) to NATO (not that I can grasp for a moment how anyone would think closing the Bosphorus to Russia would be a challenge. And worse, he’s been trying to repair and modernize the armed forces, but all the manufacturing was done in the Donbas Basin in Ukraine. So in what I see as a panic, in typical Russian fashion, he did not call up Germany, UK, and USA and say: “Folks it is a strategic problem for us face even the smallest chance of losing that port, and we propose that we acquire it from Ukraine on a 99 year irrevocable lease, after which it returns to Russian sovereignty. Because honestly, otherwise, I am derelict in my duty if I let it pass out of our strategic hands. And I am sorry but I must have tacit approval from you on this phone call, and I ask you to use moral judgment in this matter.” Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone says really, because Putin gets on the air, tells Ukrainians that he’s terribly proud of them, but that this poses a strategic problem for Russia, so we propose 20% discount on market price of gas in exchange for a 99 year lease on Crimea and the Donbas. This will ensure that you are successful, the people in the Donbas can keep their manufacturing and mining jobs, obtain Russian pensions, and the rest of Ukraine will have an easier time financing its modernization program.” And really, he just then sends in the soldiers HONESTLY, and it’s all done, because (a) Ukrainians see the people in the east as ‘degenerates’ that hold onto the dream of communism, (b) they just care that they can go to Crimea for holidays, (c) the price of gas is a serious burden for such a poor country. Now part of the reason we have this problem between west and Russia is the Russian inability to admit vulnerability even in such matters. So just as when Putin approached the USA about nato membership, and the Americans were stupid, he didn’t take his message to the American people and educate them. Just as he didn’t take the Crimean problem to other world leaders and educate them. Just as he didn’t take his message to the Ukrainian people and educate them. I suspect it is almost incomprehensible to a Russian that Americans are actually naive utopian idealists, but they really do believe they do the right thing – despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence. But as the Israelis have demonstrated, taking your case to the American people via the press if you’re trying to exchange something and be reasonable is a guaranteed win. So I view Putin in fairly charitable terms, as a man who saw his world fall apart, his people suffer, and himself as the hero who can restore them and their world, and possibly go down in history as an example for them. He has one problem really: *He doesn’t sell, he only tells.* And he has no one on his staff that ‘sells’ the Russian position. Which is pretty damned rational really. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
To The Economist on Putin
(posted as a comment about putin on the economist) You’re largely correct but there is a middle position that would be more correct than the one you mentioned. Putin has done a great deal for his people, and we cannot underestimate, and we must respect and admire him for the change in their quality of life. He had his vision of restoring 1-the scope of the Russian empire, and 2-orthodox civilization. But he is also very afraid, not so much for himself, but for his people, and their future. They have not the economy, nor the population to return to great power status in the 21st century. While he has improved order in the country, and he as improved rule of law – enough – he still has an undiversified resource economy, a secret service that runs the drug and smuggling trade, relies upon Chechens as enforcers, and is surrounded (like a mafia godfather) by those that would replace him with glee. Prior to his invasion of Ukraine he was possibly the most respected and influential politician in the world. When Ukraine was successful in ousting the puppet president who denied them EU membership – contrary to everyone’s wildest imaginings – there were immediate uprisings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and chants everywhere that Russia was next to join the western sphere. But Putin sees American spies and manipulation everywhere, where we Americans see our politicians, state department, intelligence services, and NGO’s as a bunch of largely overpaid incompetent ‘clowns’ that couldn’t do anything right if they tried. And he believed his puppet. The correct answer, however, was that the young militant men in the streets, having lost relatives and friends, if they found him, would certainly kill him. When the ambassadors confirmed the circumstance, Putin sent Russian special forces to fetch him, loaded the presidential jet with money, sent it to Dubai (I followed it) and he snuck off to Russia – I have no idea how, since it did not appear in an obvious way on radar tracking systems. So for Putin, he could lose his only warm water port (Crimea) to NATO (not that I can grasp for a moment how anyone would think closing the Bosphorus to Russia would be a challenge. And worse, he’s been trying to repair and modernize the armed forces, but all the manufacturing was done in the Donbas Basin in Ukraine. So in what I see as a panic, in typical Russian fashion, he did not call up Germany, UK, and USA and say: “Folks it is a strategic problem for us face even the smallest chance of losing that port, and we propose that we acquire it from Ukraine on a 99 year irrevocable lease, after which it returns to Russian sovereignty. Because honestly, otherwise, I am derelict in my duty if I let it pass out of our strategic hands. And I am sorry but I must have tacit approval from you on this phone call, and I ask you to use moral judgment in this matter.” Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone says really, because Putin gets on the air, tells Ukrainians that he’s terribly proud of them, but that this poses a strategic problem for Russia, so we propose 20% discount on market price of gas in exchange for a 99 year lease on Crimea and the Donbas. This will ensure that you are successful, the people in the Donbas can keep their manufacturing and mining jobs, obtain Russian pensions, and the rest of Ukraine will have an easier time financing its modernization program.” And really, he just then sends in the soldiers HONESTLY, and it’s all done, because (a) Ukrainians see the people in the east as ‘degenerates’ that hold onto the dream of communism, (b) they just care that they can go to Crimea for holidays, (c) the price of gas is a serious burden for such a poor country. Now part of the reason we have this problem between west and Russia is the Russian inability to admit vulnerability even in such matters. So just as when Putin approached the USA about nato membership, and the Americans were stupid, he didn’t take his message to the American people and educate them. Just as he didn’t take the Crimean problem to other world leaders and educate them. Just as he didn’t take his message to the Ukrainian people and educate them. I suspect it is almost incomprehensible to a Russian that Americans are actually naive utopian idealists, but they really do believe they do the right thing – despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence. But as the Israelis have demonstrated, taking your case to the American people via the press if you’re trying to exchange something and be reasonable is a guaranteed win. So I view Putin in fairly charitable terms, as a man who saw his world fall apart, his people suffer, and himself as the hero who can restore them and their world, and possibly go down in history as an example for them. He has one problem really: *He doesn’t sell, he only tells.* And he has no one on his staff that ‘sells’ the Russian position. Which is pretty damned rational really. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Coming To The Rescue And Correcting The Libertine Narrative (Fraud) Of History.
(Beware the thief in moral disguise) https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/ 1 – THE COURSE OF HISTORY Domesticating man and woman by the use of organized violence to suppress local parasitism that harms production by increasing transaction costs, to create markets to decrease opportunity costs, and to collect revenues for that suppression of local parasitism, decrease of transaction costs, and decrease in opportunity costs. This suppression of local parasitism which impedes cooperation, and the imposition of law which leaves productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange as the only possible means of survival, can be positioned optimistically as ‘civilizing man’, charitably as ‘domesticating man’, and uncharitably as the martial elite profiting from human husbandry. The net result of domestication is that those regions most successful at human human husbandry, domestication, or civilization – however you choose to cast it – produced the highest trust, highest economic velocity, highest innovation, and the FASTEST evolution of the standard of living in both the ancient and modern worlds. At extremely high cost to those populations who produced that rate of evolutionary innovation. High trust was a very expensive institution to develop using the incremental expansion of the common law for the purpose of preventing retaliation spirals. (feuds). Libertine Libertarians, practicing the non-aggression against material property (intersubjectively verifiable property) expressly prohibit mandatory payment for commons despite making use of markets (free riding) that these commons construct; Furthermore libertine libertarians expressly preserve the rights of blackmail (non productive), fraud (not fully informed), irresponsibility (non-warranty), usury (entrapment), as and even enslavement if it’s voluntarily agreed to, because libertine libertarians claim they are not responsible for the consequences (externalities, and unintended consequences) of their actions. For example, ancient world pagans and new world scientists, using the Non-Parasitism and Non-Retaliation rules of landed warriors innovated at a rate commensurate with the spread of literacy, and their universal ethic of earned -enfranchisement through defense of the commons. Jews by contrast contributed nothing to mankind’s commons in two thousand years, despite their near universal literacy – in no small part because of their voluntarism rather than non retaliationism, their dual ethics, and their specialization in crafts of privatization of commons and socialization of losses. Especially after the Templars, and the west’s first international banking system were destroyed by the Church in order to escape the Pope and his brothers’ debt. Why does a group that pays heavily for a commons 2 – HARMONY VS CONFLICT (THE DECEIT: FRAMING OF HARMONY AND CONFLICT INSTEAD OF UNIVERSALISM VS FAMILISM AND TRIBALISM) It is better if we COOPERATE PRODUCTIVELY than if we engage in conflict that destroys capital and opportunity. It is not better if some of us cooperate productively and contribute to the commons, and some of us pretend to cooperate on one hand and privatize the commons or free ride upon that commons on the other. The purpose of rothbardian libertarianism is to justify parasitism on commons. The purpose of the harmony vs conflict deception is to use suggestion of equal participation in reproductive, productive, and common goods while acting unequally in the participation of reproductive, productive, and common goods. (almost all libertine libertarianism is an attempt to justify parasitic actions of the unequal, while making the moral claim that one is equal in contribution to the civic order we call political government, normative society, and commercial market. Libertine libertarianism is merely another fraud like marxism for the same purpose: theft. This kind of analysis is how westerners must change our high trust framework, so that we are far more analytic, and far more skeptical, about moral pretenses, which are anything but moral – they are appeals to our morality so that we can be defrauded from. ALL GROUPS COMPETE GENETICALLY AND ALL DEMONSTRATE KIN SELECTION. And the less domesticated peoples are always a threat to the more domesticated peoples. PERIOD. 3 – THE DESIGNED VS SELF ORGANIZING DECEPTION Is a false dichotomy. The designed, vs the discover and institutional, vs the normative and adaptive The most successful groups produces three categories of institutions are those we constantly seek to improve: Law(prohibiting), Production(trading), Religion(teaching). That we cannot design law, religion, and production is patently false. We can Limit parasitism, we can advocate cooperation and knowledge, and we can engage in PRODUCTIVE exchange. If we are to say, can we design institutions much more precise than this? Well we certainly have: weights and measures, property rights, legal processes, reason and science rather than mysticism, false moralism, and predatory deceit. We can even industrialize institutions like banking, rule of law, and education. But how precise can we be with them? Well, we cannot design what we should or must do, but we can design what we should not or must not do. That is how we incrementally domesticated mankind into productivity. (We should ask libertine libertarians why they think blackmail – which is voluntary but retaliatory – is moral.) So regarding institutions of cooperation we cannot always say Should and must except preventatively, we can say could and can, and we can say should not and must not. so again, self organization deception is an attempt to preserve the ability to engage in parasitism while under the pretense of moral equality. Again. Libertine libertarians are just parasites. 4 – THE DECEPTION OF FREE MOVEMENT AND FREE TRADE What the classical liberals discovered is that all other things being equal, protectionism in the caste of commodities caused more harm than free trade in commodities caused harm. They did not say all free trade is a good, and no group demonstrates unregulated free trade as a good. In fact the major struggle world wide remains, at every level, the problem of preventing asymmetries in negotiating power that cause externalities and indirect consequences – or in case of economic warfare – substantial externalities and indirect consequences. So it is true that we cannot use protection to extract prices increases through regulation, while at the same time we CAN use protection to prevent costs by externality and indirect consequences. And that is precisely what humans around the world do. We must understand that Rothbardian libertine libertarianism advocates parasitic existence imposing costs upon others, and is profoundly immoral in theory and practice. Wherever possible the libertine seeks to benefit from the high cost of a high trust market while externalizing all the costs that he can from his participation in the market. In other words, a rothbardian libertine libertarian advocates for fraud. 5 – THE OPPRESSION FALLACY REVISITED: EMANCIPATION AND PROGRESS What occurred as a consequence of high trust english common law, was that bacon applied the rigor of that law to the sciences and invented empiricism. Upon the invention of the printing press, a thousand year dark age where the church held men in illiterate, was ended, and knowledge spread across the civilized world, leading first to the agrarian and then to the industrial revolution. Now that the industrial revolution was possible, we could afford to educate and employ more people – albeit slowly – until the petrochemical revolution, which provided us the energy equivalent of endless slave labor that we did not need to clothe and feed. So we could attempt to provide opportunity to many members of most classes who had sufficient character to participate in organized employment. Unfortunately, these people were met with a new ideology of socialism that stated that they had been and were oppressed and that they could rule themselves under the same kind of order that they had in their villages. These people used democracy to vote their reproductive strategy of parasitism on the productive classes. Unfortunately women were enfranchised and within a generation began to vote their reproductive strategy and within fifty years had voted to destroy not only rule of law, not only contract, not only the family, but the civilization itself. The ‘alt-right’ constitutes activists fort he New Right just as the green an anarcist and communists function for the progressive movement, and the evangelicals function for the old right. At the top of these orders are intellectuals like any other movement. Our intellectual base has been forming for a decade or more. And what terrifies the old right, the neo-con right, the libertine-libertarians, and the socialists is, that the alt right is BETTER because at ridicule and propaganda than they are for the simple reason that empirical evidence is on their side. moreover they know that conservatives cannot speak the truth: that their strategy is eugenic. Moreover they know that they have empirical evidence now that the Neocon, lIbertine libertarian, and socialist visions are both constructed as deceptions by appealing to a process of suggestion, and that all of them have been repudiated by cognitive, economic, and behavioral sciences. WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT. The alt right are fighting the pseudoscientists and liars among the sjw’s feminists, socialists, libertines, neoconservatives and the failed program of deception of the traditional conservatives. And instead of arguing optimistically, our defense against deception by suggestion is to prosecute any and all moral claims for possibility of fraud before we even begin to assume that a moral claim is what it pretends to be. The rest of us are inventing the next generation of social science, and the next generation of institutions, the next generation of law – for when we force the abandonment of monopoly majoritarian democracy – not by ideological whining – but by the organized application of violence in demand for the restitution of our natural rights. NO MORE LIES, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDO-MORALISM. Thanks. 😉
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 05:32:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 05:08:00 UTC
-
Refuting Some Criticism
Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.
-
Refuting Some Criticism
Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.
-
How Is Propertarianism Not Another Fantasy?
—“So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government specifically are we speaking of taking over, and when we do, how many people do we stack like cordwood for jaywalking?”— Jonathan Page I can’t respond to all of that in a single comment.But I’ll jump ahead and take a guess your underlying question. First, natural law prohibits parasitism. Contract law allows for the construction of commons. (that’s what a contract does). The difference between public and private contract law, is that you can prohibit people from consumption and competition, whereas in the market we hope to create consumption and competition. So we can create commons (like the commons of property rights) that create a good (property rights) by prohibiting consumption of that which one has not obtained through homesteading. transformation, or exchange. We can create parks by allowing passage but not use.(etc). We can create all sorts of commons that one cannot socialize losses against, or privatize. As long as they are not parasitic. So this prohibits rents but allows investments, including informational rents and investments. 1) Why not a fantasy? It can be implemented in law – easily I might add, as a set of amendments to the constitution. 2) Which government? Contractualism.: Rule of natural, common, strictly constructed, judge-discovered law. intergenerational monarchy as veto(judge) of last resort. Market government by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market economy by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for reproduction (family) by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for Polities – Rights of association and disassociation. ( Or, as we say ‘markets in everything.) 3) Jaywalking Well, you know, it turns out that zero tolerance (broken window policing) by individuals and sheriffs is the optimum method of producing prosperity. And we have a lot fewer big ‘bads’ when we eliminate the small bads.
-
How Is Propertarianism Not Another Fantasy?
—“So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government specifically are we speaking of taking over, and when we do, how many people do we stack like cordwood for jaywalking?”— Jonathan Page I can’t respond to all of that in a single comment.But I’ll jump ahead and take a guess your underlying question. First, natural law prohibits parasitism. Contract law allows for the construction of commons. (that’s what a contract does). The difference between public and private contract law, is that you can prohibit people from consumption and competition, whereas in the market we hope to create consumption and competition. So we can create commons (like the commons of property rights) that create a good (property rights) by prohibiting consumption of that which one has not obtained through homesteading. transformation, or exchange. We can create parks by allowing passage but not use.(etc). We can create all sorts of commons that one cannot socialize losses against, or privatize. As long as they are not parasitic. So this prohibits rents but allows investments, including informational rents and investments. 1) Why not a fantasy? It can be implemented in law – easily I might add, as a set of amendments to the constitution. 2) Which government? Contractualism.: Rule of natural, common, strictly constructed, judge-discovered law. intergenerational monarchy as veto(judge) of last resort. Market government by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market economy by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for reproduction (family) by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for Polities – Rights of association and disassociation. ( Or, as we say ‘markets in everything.) 3) Jaywalking Well, you know, it turns out that zero tolerance (broken window policing) by individuals and sheriffs is the optimum method of producing prosperity. And we have a lot fewer big ‘bads’ when we eliminate the small bads.
-
“So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government s
—“So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government specifically are we speaking of taking over, and when we do, how many people do we stack like cordwood for jaywalking?”— Jonathan Page
I can’t respond to all of that in a single comment.But I’ll jump ahead and take a guess your underlying question.
First, natural law prohibits parasitism. Contract law allows for the construction of commons. (that’s what a contract does). The difference between public and private contract law, is that you can prohibit people from consumption and competition, whereas in the market we hope to create consumption and competition.
So we can create commons (like the commons of property rights) that create a good (property rights) by prohibiting consumption of that which one has not obtained through homesteading. transformation, or exchange. We can create parks by allowing passage but not use.(etc). We can create all sorts of commons that one cannot socialize losses against, or privatize. As long as they are not parasitic.
So this prohibits rents but allows investments, including informational rents and investments.
1) Why not a fantasy?
It can be implemented in law – easily I might add, as a set of amendments to the constitution.
2) Which government?
Contractualism.: Rule of natural, common, strictly constructed, judge-discovered law. intergenerational monarchy as veto(judge) of last resort. Market government by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market economy by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for reproduction (family) by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for Polities – Rights of association and disassociation.
( Or, as we say ‘markets in everything.)
3) Jaywalking
Well, you know, it turns out that zero tolerance (broken window policing) by individuals and sheriffs is the optimum method of producing prosperity. And we have a lot fewer big ‘bads’ when we eliminate the small bads.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:44:00 UTC