“PROPERTARIANISM: HETEROGENEOUS SOVEREIGNTY WITHOUT MORAL HOMOGENEITY”
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-19 09:35:00 UTC
“PROPERTARIANISM: HETEROGENEOUS SOVEREIGNTY WITHOUT MORAL HOMOGENEITY”
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-19 09:35:00 UTC
(draft)(more work tomorrow)
THE CONSTRAINTS CREATED BY MORALITY IN CONSTRUCTING THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY
(undone)
THE FAMLY STRUCTURE AS A CONSTRAINT ON PROPERTY AND MORALITY
(undone)
CAUSES OF PROPERTY
I’ve articulated the cause of Property, Manners, Ethics and Morals as the necessity of cooperation and the consequential prevention of free riding. This is a ‘pre-property’ argument illustrating the cause of moral behavior, and the limits upon property because of it.
PROPOSITION 0.0 : Time
PROPOSITION 1 : Survival is the first universal good.
…COROLLARY 1.1 : Action
…COROLLARY 1.2 : Searching
…COROLLARY 1.3 : Acquisition (identity)
…COROLLARY 1.4 ; Storing (memory)
…COROLLARY 1.5 : Planning (calculation)
{PROPOSITION 2 : The second universal “good” is prosperity. Upon which all other ‘goods’ depend.}
PROPOSITION 3 : The utility of cooperation in producing prosperity
…COROLLARY 3.1 : the division of labor
…COROLLARY 3.2 : the utility of voluntary organization
…COROLLARY 3.3 : the necessity of property (monopoly of control)
…COROLLARY 3.4 : the necessity of extending our perception (instrumentalism)
……COROLLARY 3.4.1 : (logic of cooperation – ethics)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of money, prices, accounting etc)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of identity – necessary properties)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of naming – numbering)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of relations – mathematics )
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of causality – physics)
PROPOSITION 4 : The Prohibition on involuntary transfer
…COROLLARY 4.1 : requirement for contribution to consumption
(more later, but you get the idea.)
IS PROPERTY THE CONSEQUENCE OF SCARCITY OR COOPERATION OR THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING – OR ALL THREE?
(undone)
THE IMPACT OF FRAMING UNDER POWER AND WEAKNESS
“I have this right or that” is an appeal by the weak against the strong. “I will not tolerate this or that” is demand, or threat, by the strong. And aristocracy cannot by definition act from a position of weakness.
(undone)
RIGHTS ARE POSITIVE ASSERTIONS IN FAVOR OF ONE’S SELF RATHER THAN MORE AGGRESSIVE LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS.
The problem is, that when we assert rights, and construct our ethics from rights, we lose the cause of those rights, and the broader scope of their cause. This causes us to defend rights, instead of consistently evolve positive assertions that reflect the underlying negative cause: the prohibition on free riding.
THE PROTOCOL OF ARGUMENTATION AS “FRAMING”.
(undone)
THE DIALECTICAL PROBLEM OF POSITIVE CLAIMS AND NEGATIVE PROHIBITIONS
The sayings “do unto others as you wold have done unto you” and “do noting to others that you would not have done to you” are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the assumption of homogeneity of interests in the golden rule vs heterogeneity of interests in the silver rule.
The terms “incentives” and “calculation” are mutually dependent. on cannot have incentives without the ability to calculate and there is no reason to calculate if one has no incentive to. So, these terms are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the difference between the people who can depend upon incentives to act in the participation of production, and the people who rely on calculation in order to discover complex means of organizing production.
The terms “prohibition on free riding” and “property rights” are likewise, mutually deponent concepts. They are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the scope of prohibitions under the rule of the prohibition on involuntary transfer, vs the scope of prohibitions under the rule of private property.
REPAIRING LIBERTARIAN ETHICS
This repairs libertarian ethics, sufficient for the common law, as the prohibition on involuntary transfer by any means other than competition (the negative version). And conversely (the positive version)
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 19:04:00 UTC
WHY DO PROPERTY RIGHTS ‘WORK’?
Property 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.
So 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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:03:00 UTC
LIBERTARIAN NON-LOGIC OF ‘RIGHTS’
You know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning.
I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights.
See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that?
Because it’s true.
You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights from those who would deny them.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-15 14:09:00 UTC
TERNARY ETHICS vs BINARY vs SINGULAR
Examples
1) Aristocracy(violence) vs Ghetto (trade) vs Peasantry (Submission)
2) Prohibition on free riding vs private property vs community property
3) Do not unto others… vs do only unto others.. vs do unto others…
4) Ternary Ethics vs Binary Ethics vs Singular ethics (submission)
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 13:49:00 UTC
THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM
(meaningful)
Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.
That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.
But if propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.
That means an end to moral intuitionism.
Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.
And that is why we need formal logics.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 12:44:00 UTC
ROTHBARD AS DESTROYER OF LIBERTY?
So 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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 15:30:00 UTC
THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE – THE FAILURE OF THE NAP AND ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS
MORALITY
– Morality is a property of cooperation.
– Violence is amoral. (Not immoral, but amoral.)
– The purpose of the application of violence may or may not be moral.
– If we are not cooperating then violence is amoral, regardless of purpose.
– If we are cooperating, violence amoral, but its purpose is not.
– If we are cooperating and one must obtain restitution then violence is moral.
– If we are cooperating and violating property rights then violence for that purpose is immoral.
Although technically speaking:
1) Criminal violations are against body and property.
2) Unethical violations are under asymmetry of information.
3) Immoral violations are against asymmetry of awareness.
In the construction of property rights by the suppression of free riding in its criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial forms, violence is not amoral, but a VIRTUE.
Violence is a virtue not a vice.
And attempts to obtain liberty without paying the cost of suppressing free riding are acts of fraud – attempts to obtain an expensive end without paying for it.
Rothbardianism is Parasitism.
Either the NAP is false or the definition of property is too narrow, because NAP covers criminal but not unethical and immoral actions. As such the NAP is a device for outlawing the moral use of violence in an effort to preserve the immoral and unethical use of deception.
If instead, we state that property extends to all that humans have acted to obtain as their property by forgoing opportunity for consumption – then NAP against commons would be logical, and a prohibition against unethical and immoral behavior.
Therefore you must either abandon the NAP or Rothbardian property rights, as immoral, unethical, and illogical.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 14:28:00 UTC
LIBERTARIAN QUESTION 1
What is the difference between:
(a) that which people demonstrate that they consider property
(b) that which rothbardians define as property?
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 05:23:00 UTC
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
The 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).
These 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
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 18:23:00 UTC