[N]AP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so. Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation. Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation. NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation. NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope. The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution. Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
Form: Critique
-
Overturning the NAP Fallacy By Explicitly Stating NAP/IVP and NAP/PT
[N]AP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so. Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation. Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation. NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation. NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope. The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution. Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
-
Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?
[N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.
-
Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?
[N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.
-
Why Are All Books On Cosmopolitan Libertinism Introductory? (They Must Be)
[T]here is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism. We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences. The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument. As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Why Are All Books On Cosmopolitan Libertinism Introductory? (They Must Be)
[T]here is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism. We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences. The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument. As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Contra NRx’s Techno Commericalism
[W]hile technology (a)decreases the cost of relationship acquisition, (b)decreases the cost of property registries, (c) decreases the cost of and often need for, escrow services (financial transaction costs), (d) reduces the need for regulation, (e) decreases the cost of geographic and temporal constraints, technology does NOT change the fundamental problem of cooperation: the incremental suppression of parasitism and the decidability of conflicts across different or competing regulations, norms, property allocations, and institutional processes. Technology reduces costs. Good law reduces costs. And that is the best that we can do. Everything else is achieved by trial and error. Because we cannot necessarily know what is good. We can only know with confidence that which is bad: parasitism.
-
Contra NRx’s Techno Commericalism
[W]hile technology (a)decreases the cost of relationship acquisition, (b)decreases the cost of property registries, (c) decreases the cost of and often need for, escrow services (financial transaction costs), (d) reduces the need for regulation, (e) decreases the cost of geographic and temporal constraints, technology does NOT change the fundamental problem of cooperation: the incremental suppression of parasitism and the decidability of conflicts across different or competing regulations, norms, property allocations, and institutional processes. Technology reduces costs. Good law reduces costs. And that is the best that we can do. Everything else is achieved by trial and error. Because we cannot necessarily know what is good. We can only know with confidence that which is bad: parasitism.
-
The ‘Aggressiveness’ of NRx Advocates?
[T]he NRx movement evolved as a criticism of political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying in politics.
The current alt-right has evolved into the practice of activism against political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying. In their ethos you are practicing political correctness (lying) not science or truth. If we all practice pragmatism we are merely all lying.
So the question is, how, given the truth, should we construct the commons (social order and the law that enforces it)?
It is not pleasant to look in the mirror and admit that one is just practicing political correctness (lying) for the purpose of self interest. And that for all intents and purposes one is no different from a neocon or socialist or any other niche that lies for the purpose of self-signal production.
Truth is a mirror. Use it. Be aggressive about it.
TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
-
The ‘Aggressiveness’ of NRx Advocates?
[T]he NRx movement evolved as a criticism of political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying in politics.
The current alt-right has evolved into the practice of activism against political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying. In their ethos you are practicing political correctness (lying) not science or truth. If we all practice pragmatism we are merely all lying.
So the question is, how, given the truth, should we construct the commons (social order and the law that enforces it)?
It is not pleasant to look in the mirror and admit that one is just practicing political correctness (lying) for the purpose of self interest. And that for all intents and purposes one is no different from a neocon or socialist or any other niche that lies for the purpose of self-signal production.
Truth is a mirror. Use it. Be aggressive about it.
TRUTH IS ENOUGH.