Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • EQUALITY AND INEQUALITY IN PROPERTARIANISM We may be unequally valuable to one a

    EQUALITY AND INEQUALITY IN PROPERTARIANISM

    We may be unequally valuable to one another in the marketplace. That’s just an empirically obvious fact.

    We may be unequally capable of mastering and applying skills, interpreting current events, planning successfully for the future, and adhering to those plans.

    We may be unequally desirable as family members, friends, mates and associates. That too is an obvious fact.

    But we are EQUALLY VALUABLE and EQUALLY DESIRABLE as universal suppressors of free riding, rent seeking, fraud and crime.

    Moral theory does not separate our productive, reproductive, associative, and institutional values that each of us brings. Property rights theory does not separate our different values either, because when these ideas were developed we were economically indifferent except in our willingness to work hard and discipline ourselves.

    Economic reward in our civilization is based almost entirely upon our economic performance. But increasingly, we are unequal in our economic performance – and because labor is, and always has been, of little value, this inequality will only continue to increase.

    However, we are rewarded unequally for our unequal economic contribution. But that economic contribution, in our society, is predicated on the persistence of the high trust society, whereby we participate in the absolute nuclear family structure, and we are each responsible for the restraint from, prohibition upon, and policing of crime, free riding, rent seeking, corruption and conquest, in all walks of life.

    As such, it seems irrational that people pay the high cost of not engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behaviors, yet are not rewarded for them.

    The libertarian argument suggests that respect for these criminal, ethical, moral and political rules merely grants one access to society and market. But that is a hard argument to make. The productive could not produce without the efforts of the unproductive in maintaining the prohibitions.

    SO why not pay them for it, and not pay them when they fail?

    This is the basic argument that the Left Libertarians (bleeding heart libertarians) fail to make.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-09 11:47:00 UTC

  • SHOULD VS IS ARGUMENTS I usually make IS arguments. The reason is simple: becaus

    SHOULD VS IS ARGUMENTS

    I usually make IS arguments. The reason is simple: because if you take the position that the only moral test is fully informed voluntary cooperation in the absence of free riding then, all you need rely on is truth and incentives.

    No ‘should’ is necessary. Only “is rational” is necessary.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 11:46:00 UTC

  • DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM (ethics)

    DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM

    (ethics) (this is a very tight logical box and I will make it tighter yet)

    PART 1 : UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ———————————–

    I. All moral rules in all cultures are possible to translate into prohibitions that attempt to solve the fundamental problem of cooperation: the suppression of free riding; the involuntary transfer, extraction, or destruction of assets, while at the same time facilitating all cooperation that functions as a multiplier of productivity – leading to the division of knowledge and labor, and the constant reduction of costs from that division. We are not superior to cave men. We have just made everything infinitely cheaper through the division of knowledge and labor and the application of a host of technologies.

    II. Humans accumulate and defend many things, and they resent loss of them. They do so because they either must (life and kin) or because they have invested time, opportunity and effort in accumulating them. Cooperative Life cannot persist without these prohibitions.

    1) Life (time)

    2) Kin and Mates

    3) Relationships

    4) Territory

    5) Material Inventory

    6) Status

    7) Commons

    8) Norms, Myths, traditions, institutions.

    9) Plans, Beliefs, Recipes.

    III. Humans demonstrate vehement reaction to and prohibition of the following categories of involuntary deprivation of their assets:

    1) Criminal Prohibitions (Murder, harm, destruction, theft – physical extraction)

    2) Ethical Prohibitions (fraud, omission, interference – asymmetry of knowledge)

    3) Moral Prohibitions (privatization, socialization, free riding – absence of knowledge)

    4) Conspiratorial Prohibitions (rent seeking, corruption, extortion, protection, taxation)

    5) Conquest Prohibitions (war, displacement, immigration, religious conversion, cultural competition)

    IV. Variations in those moral rules are determined by a compromise between the following problems:

    1) the reproductive strategy of the gender, class and group.

    2) the structure of production (the economy).

    3) the structure of the family unit necessary in any given structure of production.

    4) the inheritance pattern once assets can be accumulated.

    5) the degree of outbreeding in the polity (the extent of the taboo on inbreeding)

    6) the metaphysical value judgements between man and nature that were determined during the formation of cultural norms out of feast celebrations in the ‘great transformation’ era.

    7) the genetic and cultural homogeneity or diversity of the local economy (Islands vs borders vs unlanded/diasporic vs gypsy/pastoral).

    V. ***All moral sentiments, in all societies, are reactions to the perception of changes in state of those assets as determined by the criminal, ethical and moral prohibitions. In all humans, in all cultures, in all civilizations.***

    PART 2: UNIVERSAL, PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ————————————

    I. Given that moral rules consist of the prohibition of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behavior, what remains is voluntary exchange of assets according to the group’s portfolio of moral and ethical rules.

    II. Trust. (undone)

    1) (transaction cost and velocity)

    2) Low trust societies prohibit only crime, high trust societies prohibit unethical and immoral transfers, and currently no cultures persist in prohibiting conspiratorial behavior since it is a consequence state function, and as yet we have no technology for suppressing state monopoly bureaucracy and corruption while preserving the state’s use in suppressing criminal, unethical and immoral behavior.

    III. Humans rely upon these necessary reductions in transaction costs to continue to expand productivity.

    1) Humans Signal their moral commitment with manners, language, and consumption (dress, possessions, etc).

    2) Humans demonstrate preference for association with those who use the same signals because those signals communicate lower transaction costs.

    3) Status Signals are cheaper with higher return in-group than out-group except at the extreme margins.

    (… more on transaction costs…)

    4) Urbanization appears to both decrease opportunity costs, and increase productivity by 15-20% (and all the bad things too) with every doubling of the population. People in urban areas move, as under the european monarchies, into neighborhoods ‘with their own’. This appears to ostracize the middle class to the suburbs.

    IV. Moral rules reflect necessary group evolutionary strategies.

    1) the group cannot survive local competition (not to mention, guns germs and steel) without a successful evolutionary strategy.

    2) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in their abilities, in the distribution of abilities, particularly verbal and spatial intelligence.

    3) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in the distribution of desirability for mating (symmetry, proportion and thickness of skin.)

    4) Groups demonstrate significant differences in the distribution of impulsivity and ‘malleability’. (Appears to be testosterone)

    5) Aggressiveness (Appears to be more complex than just testosterone).

    6) The distribution of verbal intelligence appears to heavily determine three factors:

    a) Morality since it rapidly declines under 95IQ.

    b) Trust and therefore economic performance for the same reason.

    c) Sufficient distribution over ~105IQ to concentrate productive capital a Pareto distribution (80/20) in the hands of those who can make use of property for group benefit.

    V. It is impossible to rationally adjudicate conflicts across different moral codes. (Which is why America is ‘coming apart’.) But it is ALSO necessary for groups to follow different in-group evolutionary strategies. Therefore it is not possible to morally construct large scale societies that consist of high trust economies. (As we see the Nordic states are small homogenous absolute nuclear family states that are highly outbred). It would have been possible in American had we not destroyed the Absolute Nuclear Family as a normative requirement for citizenship, political participation, and economic survival. But since we have the only solution is fragmentation or tyranny.

    However, if it is not possible to adjudicate moral rules across heterogeneous polities, without committing genocide, it is possible to adjudicate commercial exchanges between heterogeneous polities with different moral codes, since commerce between disconnected polities is constrained only by violence, theft and fraud, as well as prohibitions on conquest. While local polities and local interactions are ADDITIONALLY constrained by manners, ethics, morals, and prohibitions on corruption and conquest. And those local polities must be otherwise they would be rendered economically immobile by high transaction costs (Somalia).

    VI. Meritocratic societies (that suppress free riding) that practice assortative mating and the nuclear family appear to produce sufficiently eugenic reproduction that it is possible to keep ahead of malthusian constraints and genetic regression toward the mean. While equalitarian societies (with pervasive free riding) whether they practice assortative mating in extended families or not, and particularly if they practice inbreeding, cannot appear to defeat Malthus nor the pressure of regression towards the mean.

    VII. THEREFORE

    Assuming that dysgenic reproduction is undesirable (and I admit that this is a preference, but certainly a scientifically and evolutionarily arguable one), the purpose of political institutions is:

    1) To facilitate cooperation between groups for on means, but not ends, where the market cannot satisfy means or ends, because competition or privatization of commons would result in extraction from the commons or free riding on the commons.

    2) To facilitate redistribution for consumption but not for reproduction.

    3) To encourage a multitude of small populations with heterogeneous moral codes suitable to their reproductive and evolutionary strategies – each of whom can negotiate trade, and thereby compensate for their differences in ability and preference.

    4) To construct a single universal commercial code (which the anglo civilization has been doing by force of arms for 500 years) that enforces prohibitions on violence theft and fraud regardless of in-group preferences.

    5) To replace the natural corruption of political representation, monopoly bureaucracy, and arbitrary legislation, with rule of law, contract, insurer of last resort, and private provision of public goods via competing insurance providers.

    6) To facilitate relative equality WITHIN groups with the same evolutionary strategy (if they so desire it) but not ACROSS groups with different evolutionary strategies.

    AND IT FOLLOWS

    When you interfere with manners, ethics, morals, family structure, and production, if you are not INCREASING the suppression of free riding, you are damaging someone’s reproductive strategy and status.

    PART III : ETHICAL RULES

    PART IV : LANGUAGE (undone)

    ——————

    ( analogy to experience, operational statements, loading, framing)

    ( problem of complexity and necessity of compression)

    ( the difference between the necessary honesty of law and exchange and the utility of literary loading and framing)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 19:43:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF RENDERING LEFT LIBERTARIANISM POSSIBLE, RA

    PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF RENDERING LEFT LIBERTARIANISM POSSIBLE, RATIONAL, MORAL, CALCULABLE WHILE PRESERVING PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    I’m not advocating left libertarianism. I’m just stating that it’s possible. And it’s possible to articulate internally consistently with propertarian reasoning. And that’s a whole lot better than the Bleeding Heart Libertarians have done to date. (Not much.)

    I mean, I love their sentiments, but it’s a sentimental, not rational or scientific movement without Propertarianism to base their arguments upon.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 14:08:00 UTC

  • THAT THE MORE IN-FAMILY FREE-RIDING, THE MORE CORRUPTION IN SOCIETY. TEACH YOUR

    http://imgur.com/r/MapPorn/6ZFTC0VNOTE THAT THE MORE IN-FAMILY FREE-RIDING, THE MORE CORRUPTION IN SOCIETY.

    TEACH YOUR CHILDREN: FREE RIDING, IN THE FAMILY OR OUT, IS CORRUPTION – THEFT.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-31 10:28:00 UTC

  • “ARISTOCRACY : THE CULT OF NON-SUBMISSION. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOVEREIGNTY. THE PO

    “ARISTOCRACY : THE CULT OF NON-SUBMISSION. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOVEREIGNTY. THE POLITICS OF HEROISM. THE ETHICS OF PROPERTY”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-30 03:36:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM: THE LOGIC OF ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTARIANISM” Help me

    “PROPERTARIANISM: THE LOGIC OF ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTARIANISM”

    Help me save liberty from the rothbardian ghetto of immoral obscurant and deceptive logic.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-29 05:10:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM) Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statem

    HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM)

    Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statements may be categorized from strongest to weakest as:

    (a) Necessary for human cooperation (criminal prohibitions)

    (b) Beneficial for human cooperation (ethical and moral prohibitions)

    (c) Beneficial for human organization of cooperation (conspiratorial prohibitions.)

    (d) Contractual and assiting in cooperation (consensual)

    (e) Arbitrary and for the purpose of signaling cooperation (signals, and manners)

    (f) False (meaningless or inhibiting cooperation)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 05:46:00 UTC

  • “LIBERTY REQUIRES POINTED WEAPONS, POINTED ARGUMENTS, AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE

    “LIBERTY REQUIRES POINTED WEAPONS, POINTED ARGUMENTS, AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM BOTH”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 02:21:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM Types of Property The anarchist libertarians have artificially n

    PROPERTARIANISM

    Types of Property

    The anarchist libertarians have artificially narrowed the concept of property to suit their desired ends. Property exists in those forms that people ACT as if it exists. If the anarchists choose to suggest otherwise, they refute their own arguments for the Praxeological necessity for the institution of property. Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:

    I. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    Children (genetic reproduction)

    Familial Relations (security)

    Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    Racial property (racial ties)

    Organizational ties (work)

    Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    Status and Class (reputation)

    II. Several (Personal) Property

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    Physical Body

    Actions and Time

    Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent again, upon the ORIGIN question above. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

    Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

    Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    IV. Institutional (Community) Property

    Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    VOLUNTARY TRANSFER

    Types of Voluntary Transfer

    i – Self-Eschange: (for perks)

    ii – Other-Exchange (everything is exchange)

    iii – Commons-Exchange (contribution to the commons)

    Constraints on Voluntary Transfer

    1. Symmetry (Ethics): Fully informed exchange. The responsibility or lack of responsibility for symmetric knowledge in an exchange. Stated as “In any exchange the seller has an ethical obligation to mitigate fraud from the asymmetry of knowledge.” Classical liberals and Christian authors advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics. Anarchists and Jewish authors advocate asymmetrical-knowledge ethics. Rothbard and Block are asymmetrical advocates. Most classical liberals lack the knowledge of Rothbardian/Hoppian ethics necessary to articulate their values in Propertarian terms. However, the classical liberals as well as the Hayekians, both advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics whether they articulate the ideas effectively or not.

    2. Warranty: Implied warranty is a derivation of Symmetrical Knowledge Ethics above. Expressed as: “In any exchange the seller must warrant his goods and services to prevent fraud by asymmetry of information.” Classical liberal and Christian authors imply warranty. Anarchist and Jewish authors expressly deny warranty. (I address this elsewhere as the bazaar exchange ethic vs the warrior exchange ethic.)

    3. Contribution (value added): You must add value to any item exchanged for profit, and you certainly may not profit from others distress or harm.

    4. Externalities: “No exchange, action or inaction may cause involuntary transfers from others”. Whether or not there is a prohibition against all involuntary external transfers (classical liberal and Christian authors), or a prohibition only against state conduct of involuntary transfers (anarchist and Jewish authors).

    5. Exclusion (Ostracization) Whether individuals can aggregate into groups have the right of exclusion. That is, to prohibit individuals from a defined area. While all seem to agree that individuals must have the right of passage in some way, others deny groups from forming a boundary and in effect prohibiting immigration.

    INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER (PARASITISM)

    Types of Involuntary Transfer

    i-Direct Interpersonal

    – Murder

    – Violence

    – Destruction

    – Theft

    – Theft by Fraud

    – Theft by Fraud by omission

    ii – Indirect Interpersonal

    – Theft by Obstruction

    – Theft by Externalization

    iii – Indirect Social

    – Theft by Free riding

    – Theft by privatization

    – Theft by socialization

    iv – Conspiratorial Social

    – Theft by Rent seeking

    – Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism

    – Theft by Extortion

    – Murder, Destruction and Theft by War

    v – Conquest

    – Immigration

    – Overbreeding

    – Religious Expansion


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 14:12:00 UTC