Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress

    FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY

    People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior).

    The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding.

    The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us.

    Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons.

    But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 08:03:00 UTC

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.

  • How Much Longer Will You Trust Your Liberty To Your Fellow Man?

    –“Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    [Y]our fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease. Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence. The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means. The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia. Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty. And the manufactured it with organized violence.

  • How Much Longer Will You Trust Your Liberty To Your Fellow Man?

    –“Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    [Y]our fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease. Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence. The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means. The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia. Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty. And the manufactured it with organized violence.

  • The Central Object Of The Anarchic Research Program

    [T]he central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order. In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.” THE CENTRAL THEORY Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial. Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate. DEFINITIONS “NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.” “Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).” “Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.” “Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.” So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property. So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body. WHY PROPERTY IS SO IMPORTANT The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.) This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land. PROSPERITY AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD” But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth. Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate. THE PROBLEM WITH NAP AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: “TRUST” Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children. The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible. The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society. Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical. High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component. That is why it’s non-rational.

  • The Central Object Of The Anarchic Research Program

    [T]he central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order. In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.” THE CENTRAL THEORY Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial. Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate. DEFINITIONS “NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.” “Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).” “Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.” “Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.” So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property. So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body. WHY PROPERTY IS SO IMPORTANT The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.) This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land. PROSPERITY AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD” But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth. Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate. THE PROBLEM WITH NAP AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: “TRUST” Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children. The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible. The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society. Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical. High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component. That is why it’s non-rational.

  • The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism

    [P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.

  • The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism

    [P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.

  • The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics

    (important) [T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff. If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff. If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff. It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange. You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence. The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary. It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence. The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior. But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea. But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary. So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding. Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies. It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less. We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.