[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Why Do Property Rights “Work”?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights "Work"?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES DEFINITION ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer
RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES
DEFINITION
ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange
MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange.
CASES
AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence)
UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical)
ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical)
IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral).
MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-01 14:41:00 UTC
-
PROFOUND PROPERTARIAN INSIGHT Enlightenment Political and economic ethics, wheth
PROFOUND PROPERTARIAN INSIGHT
Enlightenment Political and economic ethics, whether under classical liberal, libertarian, socialist and ‘dishonest socialist (keynesian)’ theory are predicated on the two assumptions (a)that moral and ethical behavior are ‘givens’ that we must agree upon, and that (b) our labors in the act of production are the means by which we earn rewards.
This logic assumes that entry into, and participation in the market (society, the order in which cooperation is possible), is all that one obtains for one’s constant payment of the costs of respecting property and other norms.
However, norms that permit property rights, and norms that permit trust (low transaction costs), and norms that prohibit conspiracy, are as equal in value in creating a polity in which the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) is possible. Respect for property rights, eschewing corruption and conspiracy, and demonstrating honestly, are all costs that the individual must bear. And he must bear them prior to any participation in production.
But if it is not possible for the individual to participate in the market (and it demonstrably is not), then entry into the market is not POSSIBLE, and as such it is non-rational for that individual to pay the very high costs of entry into that market. And therefore demands that they respect for property, honesty, and combat against conspiracy and corruption are simply attempts at theft of their opportunity, time and effort, without compensation.
As such, the alternative is to pay people to respect property rights, demonstrate honesty, eschew corruption and conspiracy, so that they work to enable the voluntary organization of production (capitalism), and function as consumers – to pay people to construct a society, polity, and economy, wherein the dynamic voluntary organization of production is possible.
People who enforce and respect property rights, manners, ethics, morals and norms, do so at a cost. The benefit of capitalism for everyone, is that production can be cheaply (low transaction costs) organized dynamically and voluntarily. However, if we cannot equally participate in the market (as we did under labor and farming) then the only alternative is to pay people for the work of facilitating the dynamic and voluntary organization of production.
Those people, paid as such, will have the same interests as producers: to minimize state consumption of the fruits of productivity.
That logic can be attacked from any number of angles but in the end, the result will be the same. You cannot make an operational argument in favor of property rights and at the same time defeat this argument. (Or you can try a lot, but it won’t work.)
Conversely, telling people that they must pay high costs for rights that they cannot make use of is merely theft by capitalist means.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:58:00 UTC
-
LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC This is where I’ve end
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/CONSTRUCTIVE LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC
This is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism).
Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action.
Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics.
Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated.
Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).
i) The world is real, our actions are likewise real within that world.
ii) There is only one MORAL and ETHICAL epistemological method, and that is the scientific method – or ‘the method’.
iii) We have invented multiple methodologies of logic that help us isolate certain properties within this method.
iv) Statements produced by this method are ‘theories’.
v) Some theories can be logically treated axiomatically even though they are not in fact axioms but theories.
Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction.
MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE.
Law is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience.
Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world.
Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window.
I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively.
If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality.
Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie.
Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie.
The only moral statements are those under strict construction.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:45:00 UTC