RE: http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-asks-why-should-blackmail-be-a-crime-walter-block-makes-the-case-for-legalizing-blackmail/ [W]alter Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rather than the result of a necessary contractual exchange of rights, agreed to in order to construct property rights that are adjudicable, in order to prevent retaliation for impositions of costs upon one another, by providing a means of restitution and punishment by the community rather than retaliation by the individual. His position is illogical. The first question of ethics is not one in which we assume the value of cooperation, but one in which we assume the value of predation. So cooperation must be preferable to predation. And it is only preferable if it is productive.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
Answering Charles Murray on Legalizing Blackmail
Cooperation must be rational or it is irrational (obviously). For cooperation to be rational, it must be: – Mutually Productive, – Fully informed, – Warrantied to be fully informed, – Consisting of Voluntary Exchange or Transfer, – Free of negative externality (of the same criteria). If these are all true then there is no need for retaliation. Walter Block, like his mentor Rothbard, is attempting to restate Maimonides’ dualist ethics as if they are a universal good. Instead of a utilitarian tactic for a minority living at the behest of a tyrant attempting to minimize his costs of policing. But, the first logically necessary question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’ Block’s position on blackmail is one in which it is preferable to kill the blackmailer and take his stuff rather than to cooperate with him. So, it’s not complicated. Dualist (and poly-logical) ethics cannot by logical necessity be advocated as a universal ethic – it’s a logical contradiction. Natural rights are used as a nonsensical justification for various spurious ends. We do not presume rights, nor are they ‘existent’ prior to contract. They are merely the necessary terms for rational political contract. Cosmopolitan ethics attempt to preserve ingroup parasitism on outgroup members, while at the same time prohibiting the formation of family organizations that suppress parasitism. Rothbardian anarchism (libertinism), is an expression of group evolutionary strategy that ‘games’ (circumvents) the defenses of western aristocratic, truth telling civilization. So, instead, the first rule of ethics is that one should not engage in parasitism. Blackmail is unproductive and parasitic, and therefore a violation of the agreement for non-imposition of costs that serves as the only rational incentive to cooperate. (Although this level of argument is probably a bit deep for even the interested and informed.) Cheers -
Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)
[E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.
We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.
In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.
1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
– In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
– In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
– In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).*The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.
REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:But some externalities are less obvious:
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)
[E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.
We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.
In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.
1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
– In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
– In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
– In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).*The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.
REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:But some externalities are less obvious:
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Strict Construction Under Propertarianism
(important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:
- (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
-
Strict Construction Under Propertarianism
(important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:
- (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
-
Licenses as Warranty Because of the Failure of the Academy.
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting
Why not an equivalent for lending? Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)? Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism) After all, the academy makes no warranty. We require these licenses precisely BECAUSE the academy makes no warranty. The Libertarian solution is private insurance. But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also. -
Licenses as Warranty Because of the Failure of the Academy.
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting
Why not an equivalent for lending? Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)? Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism) After all, the academy makes no warranty. We require these licenses precisely BECAUSE the academy makes no warranty. The Libertarian solution is private insurance. But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also. -
The Institutions of Nomocracy (Rule of Law)
[I]nstitutions:
The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.
The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services
The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.
The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law
The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons
The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)
The Academy : Education
The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
The Institutions of Nomocracy (Rule of Law)
[I]nstitutions:
The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.
The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services
The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.
The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law
The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons
The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)
The Academy : Education
The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal
[A]RISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all) NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty.. My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons. What does that mean?
It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability). It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal. Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes. Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people. So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions. To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.Source: Curt Doolittle