[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
Form: Definition
-
Definition: “Ghetto Ethics”
[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
-
Definition: "Ghetto Ethics"
[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
-
Definition: “Ghetto Ethics”
[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
-
Knowledge: Knowlege of Construction vs Knowledge of Use
[J]oel Mokyr did a wonderful job in Gifts of Athena, but he has the strange Jewish predilection for conflating verbalisms with existence. He refers to “Knowledge of how” and “knowledge of what”. But these are verbal categories only. They aren’t causal categories. I use the terms “Knowledge of Construction” and “Knowledge of Use” (how). While “Use” and “How” share similar properties, “Construction and What” are sufficiently different in properties to mean considerably different things. “Construction” requires action in time. I have no idea what “What” should mean other than an empty verbal category. It’s a purely self-centered, experiential statement. I am fairly sure that if someone says they understand something, it means a knowledge of construction. Whether they can use it or not is only a small portion of the possible domain. (Properties: a)Construction, b)Use, c)Intended Consequence, d)Unintended Consequence.)
-
Knowledge: Knowlege of Construction vs Knowledge of Use
[J]oel Mokyr did a wonderful job in Gifts of Athena, but he has the strange Jewish predilection for conflating verbalisms with existence. He refers to “Knowledge of how” and “knowledge of what”. But these are verbal categories only. They aren’t causal categories. I use the terms “Knowledge of Construction” and “Knowledge of Use” (how). While “Use” and “How” share similar properties, “Construction and What” are sufficiently different in properties to mean considerably different things. “Construction” requires action in time. I have no idea what “What” should mean other than an empty verbal category. It’s a purely self-centered, experiential statement. I am fairly sure that if someone says they understand something, it means a knowledge of construction. Whether they can use it or not is only a small portion of the possible domain. (Properties: a)Construction, b)Use, c)Intended Consequence, d)Unintended Consequence.)
-
The Ethical Spectrum: Criminal, Unethical, Immoral, Conspiritorial
The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.) Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market. At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking. But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor. Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course. Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury. I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian. SPECIFIC TERMS: By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion). By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government. By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties. By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc. By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).
-
The Ethical Spectrum: Criminal, Unethical, Immoral, Conspiritorial
The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.) Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market. At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking. But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor. Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course. Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury. I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian. SPECIFIC TERMS: By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion). By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government. By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties. By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc. By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).
-
Trust: A Definition
“Your confidence that another will act with a necessary degree of reciprocity (mutually beneficial) for the matter at hand, despite the opportunity to act out of an equal degree of self interest.” This definition addresses the spectrum of low trust exchanges to consanguineous interactions to high trust mutual insurance. Most definitions assume an equality of relations that never actually exists and as such those other definitions always seem wanting. It also explains when we are actually trusting someone, versus asking for a donation. Trust is a matter of reciprocity given the relationship you have to someone else.
-
Trust: A Definition
“Your confidence that another will act with a necessary degree of reciprocity (mutually beneficial) for the matter at hand, despite the opportunity to act out of an equal degree of self interest.” This definition addresses the spectrum of low trust exchanges to consanguineous interactions to high trust mutual insurance. Most definitions assume an equality of relations that never actually exists and as such those other definitions always seem wanting. It also explains when we are actually trusting someone, versus asking for a donation. Trust is a matter of reciprocity given the relationship you have to someone else.