PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS
(worth repeating)
–“Under rothbardian ethics the buyer must beware, and under propertarian ethics the seller must beware. Propertarian ethics put warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and therefore produces the least asymmetry of knowledge. ‘ —
Propertarian ethics solve the problem of libertarian morality.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 03:19:00 UTC
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
WORTH REPEATING : THE CHOICE OF Nobility “Nobility is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine