Form: Argument

THE NAP IS A TEST, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A THEORY, AND HERE ARE THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES.

( @MATT Zwolinski : Your answer.)

( @ Stephan Kinsella: I ‘m going to try to improve your language a bit, because the problem you’re having is the use of the term ‘fundamental’. In ratio-scientific terms, in the operational language of action theory and test are the appropriate terms.)

——-NAP IS A TEST NOT A THEORY———

The NAP is an epistemic test of whether private property rights have been violated. It is an exceptional test. But that is the limit of it. One still needs a theory to test.

—THE THEORY IS ‘ALL’ RIGHTS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS—-

The theory is that ALL RIGHTS can be reduced to property rights. Even commons can be reduced to shares of individual property rights. Even norms can be reduced to property rights.

——-VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS—————

(Theory of morality and law) (No diagram yet, sorry)

I. CAUSAL AXES

Two axis:

Axis 1 : Means of Influence.

Axis 2 : Deception: the truth or falsehood of statements.

II. WEAPNS OF INFLUENCE

We humans have invented only three weapons of influence.

Influence 1) Force – (Violence and Law)

Influence 2) Exclusion – (Moral Rules and Boycotting)

Influence 3) Remuneration – (Exchange and Commerce)

III. DISCOUNTS

However:

Discount 1) we can use permutations of the above to extract DISCOUNTS.

Discount 2) we can use deception to extract discounts.

IV. FORMS OF DISCOUNT

1. Violence (asymmetry of force)

2. Theft (asymmetry of control)

3. Fraud (false information)

4. Omission (Omitting information)

5. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)

6. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)

7. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

8. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)

9. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

10. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)

11. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)

12. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)

12. Extortion (Organized direct theft)

13. War (organized violence)

——-NAP’S WEAKNESS——–

The NAP, as used in libertarian ideological discourse, suffers from the weakness of the low trust society, in that it relies entirely upon Ostracization to suppress various forms of fraud.

The high trust, aristocratic egalitarian society of the northern Protestant west, relies on the ADDITION of these moral constraints to the NAP:

a) Truth: Truthful statements

b) Symmetry: Complete statements

c) Warranty: proof of true and complete statements.

d) Proof of Work : that one profits only from adding value (doing work).

e) Externality: Other than by competition you may not externalize costs.

1) Respect property.

2) Speak the whole truth.

3) Your word is your warranty, and you will be held to it.

4) And you must actual do work not profit from misfortune.

—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.

—THE GHETTO VS THE ARISTOCRACY —

This is the ethic of the high trust society, and the only society every to invent and employ liberty – the protestant west. It may be unclear that the Absolute Nuclear family is yet again another institution that forbids discounts. And that is why ANF families from northern european cultures prefer liberty, and NF and Traditional families from southern Europe prefer more of the state: because ANF Families suppress all free riding and NF and Traditional families do not.

ANF and property rights are eugenic and ostracizing. They are the rights of aristocratic egalitarians. The rights of those who can compete. Those that cannot compete do not seek those rights as they view free riding and rent seeking at the very least to be necessary for competitive survival.

That is all that there is to understand about politics.

—ROTHBARD GAVE US REDUCTION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS–

But the rest is weak.

Rothbardian’s NAP is the ethic of the ghetto. It is not the high trust ethic of the northern europeans, and certainly not a sufficient ethic to allow a low friction common law society to function without a strong state.

For this reason the NAP is insufficient, and it is the reason for the failure of rothbardian, libertarian ethics to gain any acceptance in the population.

The reason being, that it’s too low a bar.

As far as I know, this is the current state of our knowledge.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev

THE MORALITY OF VIOLENCE.

(important)

If force is required to construct liberty and therefore property against the will of those who desire communality. If force is required to forbid inbreeding and force outbreeding. If Chivalry was intentionally created as a status system to provide heroism through services as an alternative to combat.

Then how can liberty be pacific? How can we claim it is a natural moral system?

We can’t.

Force can be morally used in any circumstance to forbid all involuntary transfers, and to force all people to participate in the market for goods and services.

Conversely, those who oppose liberty wish to retain their ability to seek rents and free ride. This is the only reason to oppose it. As such, they do not wish others to have private property rights, and therefore can have none of their own. (Although tis is black or whit argument, and it is possible to say, that they will refrain from fraud, theft, and violence, in exchange for rents and free riding, but they will not forgo rents and free riding in exchange for property rights.